Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree? AOL poll

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Scv

I just sent a mass e-mail to a bunch of SC guys and it should have made it's way around the country by this evening. That should throw a monkey wrench into their little poll lol

 

[Politeia]

My comment on the AOL poll

I voted Yes, but I am not an "unrepentant Southerner"; a California liberal Democrat by birth, all my ancestors fought for Lincoln in the "Civil" War, and it wasn't until my 40s that I learned how completely I'd been lied to about it:

1) It wasn't a "civil" war, it was a war of secession, like, say, Croatia seceding from Yugoslavia, and for equally good reasons.

2) It wasn't fought to end slavery, but over economic issues primarily, and Lincoln's purpose was really to convert the United States from a federation of sovereign states into a unitary empire with himself as emperor -- and he succeeded.

3) Not only did it not really end slavery -- it simply transferred ownership of the slaves, by force, from their former masters in the Southern states to the U.S. federal government -- but it also reduced the rest of the population to the status of serfs, who now must report everything we do to the government, and ask for permission for anything we may want to do.

4) Abraham Lincoln, in Congress, January 12, 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. ... Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

5) Passions on both sides having been stirred to fever pitch (not by accident), the Confederacy unfortunately allowed itself to be provoked into "firing the first shot", thereby "starting" a war it couldn't win -- at least not by conventional means, and unfortunately they were too "honorable" to resort to the guerrilla tactics that could have prevailed.

See books "The South Was Right" and "The Real Lincoln" for an eye-opening education.

 

[Politeia]

It's working here, using Firefox.

Or the new Netscape v.9 (it belongs to AOL), which is Firefox repackaged -- kind of a nostalgia hit, I like it.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Over half of Americans agreed that it was right that we killed each other, you can tell AOL is used by those not so bright.

If an AOL poll is hosted in the forest, and it falls, does it make a noise without Ron Paul people commenting?

 

[Politeia]

Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.

John Wilkes Booth saw himself as a modern equivalent of Marcus Junius Brutus, the assassin (the most famous of a conspiracy, actually) of Julius Caesar, Rome's last dictator who paved the way for its conversion from Republic to Empire. I believe Booth even shouted "Sic semper tyrannis!" ("Thus always tyranny!") as he fired the shot.

Many have characterized Lincoln as "America's Caesar", but I have to say, having read much about him, I find Gaius Julius Caesar a much more engaging figure than Lincoln. Caesar I would have liked to know, but not Lincoln, despite his undoubted rhetorical talents.

 

[RoyalShock]

At the risk of this turning into a history lesson, I need some help here. This is what I understand the timeline and catalytic events/statements to be:

- The South believed that slavery was a cornerstone of the soon-to-be Confederacy. Thus, they felt slavery must expand or it would die.

- Lincoln was elected president and at some point said he didn't think the Union could continue to exist as half-free, half-slave.

- The South then began to secede, forming the Confederate States. This put Union-controlled lands (forts) in Confederate territory. The South attempted to purchase these lands but were denied.

- The South attacks Ft. Sumter, prompting Lincoln's call for states to send militias to defend these forts, starting the Civil War.

- It is also my understanding that Lincoln's original plan was for a gradual compensatory emancipation, but the plan was rejected by all but one Union state.

So, slavery was the mitigating factor bringing states-rights to the forefront, ultimately leading to secession. On this I understand Lincoln's role in bringing on the war. What I don't get is the criticism of him regarding the emancipation issue. The Lincoln critics, on one hand, say the war was an empirical, economic war to maintain the Union, but then say the 600k+ casualties could have been avoided by compensatory emancipation (which it seems would have still ticked off the southern states and triggered a conflict/war).

The two seem mutually exclusive to me. I'd be genuinely grateful if someone could explain what I'm missing here or where my logic is askew.

Thanks!

 

[Politeia]

History lesson?

At the risk of this turning into a history lesson, I need some help here. ... So, slavery was the mitigating factor bringing states-rights to the forefront, ultimately leading to secession. On this I understand Lincoln's role in bringing on the war. What I don't get is the criticism of him regarding the emancipation issue. The Lincoln critics, on one hand, say the war was an empirical, economic war to maintain the Union, but then say the 600k+ casualties could have been avoided by compensatory emancipation (which it seems would have still ticked off the southern states and triggered a conflict/war).

I'm not an expert on the history, and wouldn't have time if I were, but if you want to learn more, a worthwhile place to start might be:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Also:
http://www.americascaesar.com

And this book, if you can find it, was my first introduction to systematic "Civil" War revisionism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565540247

No, of course none of these are "unbiased", but then neither is anyone else. Read all "sides", study, and think for yourself.

 

[Lord Emanon]

the most publicity AOL has given Ron Paul and its in these "polls" that look to smear him.

Who owns AOL, and why are they trying their damndest to make Ron Paul look back - maybe someone should ask that in the comments section.

 

[Paulitician]

AOL sucks anyway.

 

[Paulite]

AOLers are truly the dumbest in the internet

 

[Swmorgan77]

Anyone with a decent understanding of history will tell you that the civil war was not necessary.

Nor was it about "ending slavery".

Lincoln himself said if he could end the war and preserve the Union he would do it even if it meant keeping slavery in the South.

 

[Liberty Star]

AOL has been smearing Ron Paul , why should I waste my time and give their poll any credibility?

Poll declined.

A much better question to have asked would be "do you understand the argument Ron Paul gave against having fought the Civil War."

Yep.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Its interesting to me what Ron Paul said about ending slavery instead of through war by having the Federal government buy the freedom of the Souther slaves.

That very idea was first proposed by an "outsider" (non whig, non-Democrat) Presidential candidate in 1844 named Joseph Smith, Jr. His platform was starting to get a great deal of enthusiastic response and endorsements in Eastern press when he was killed as a result of a conspiracy in June of 1844.

Just some food for thought.

 

[AggieforPaul]

This is a huge issue for me. I think it's mentally impossible to read "Dishonest Abe" and "the real Lincoln" by Dr. Thomas J. Dilorenzo, and see Lincoln as anything other than a lying sack of shit war mongering tyrant who makes Bush look loving and pacifist by comparison.

Trivia question: Which side released all their slaves first?

Answer: The South.

 

[Matt Collins]

Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.

wtf?!?! Don't say stuff like that in a public forum!!

I am a relative of Booth's

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/

For those tired of all the broken links.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read on the Internet:




Kirk Nakata12:07PMDec 26th 2007

"For me i believe that Ron Paul is trying to put himself above God.

Why do you ask, well all o his campian poster on lawns across the nation what the United States need is Ron Paul. When in truth of the matter what the United States need is God through His Son Jesus Christ.

We have gotten away fromthevery thing that started this great nation and that is the values that God place in the heats of the forefathers of our nation.

We have taken God ot of our government, schools, an homes and have replaced Him with our ideas of how we want to have God in our lifes.

Ron Paul is one I do not want to have in office for our government."

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read on the Internet:




Kirk Nakata12:07PMDec 26th 2007

"For me i believe that Ron Paul is trying to put himself above God.

Why do you ask, well all o his campian poster on lawns across the nation what the United States need is Ron Paul. When in truth of the matter what the United States need is God through His Son Jesus Christ.

We have gotten away fromthevery thing that started this great nation and that is the values that God place in the heats of the forefathers of our nation.

We have taken God ot of our government, schools, an homes and have replaced Him with our ideas of how we want to have God in our lifes.

Ron Paul is one I do not want to have in office for our government."

PLEASE for you own sanity don't read what these people write. You really will go insane or get very bitter if you read this shit. Spend that time trying to find out how to run for Congress or something.

 

[hypnagogue]

Haha! Yeah I saw that one. There are cons to giving everyone a medium to speak...

 

[maiki]

Have not read thread.

I don't even think Ron was saying it was wrong to fight the civil war per se (for national unity or whatever), but it was the wrong approach to freeing slaves. Buying them out like they did in England or other slave-owning countries would have alleviated far more racial tensions and saved many thousands of lives as well as money, and not ravaged the country.