Ron Paul vs. Lincoln: how to respond

[beobeli]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6-VQpY1NJM

Judge Napolitano trashes The Great Emancipator with panache!

The best rebuttal on the subject. Let others speak.

 

[ExpatinArgentina]

Thanks

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Good stuff Francisco!

One last question.....what is the purpose/benefit to "the union" of states? In other words, why do the states need a Federal government? What is the incentive to being part of the Union?

Thanks again!

As originally conceived there were a couple advantages:

1. Common defense against enemies from abroad.

2. Free internal trade between the individual states (the commerce argument - probably the strongest "glue" keeping the union together)

3. Mutual checks on government power. It was originally thought that the federal government or the other states could prevent any one state from becoming too powerful or bullying its neighbors. (Since the time of Lincoln and definately since FDR though, the bullying has all been done by the federal government though).

I strongly believe that had Lincoln been more even tempered and simply let South Carolina go with hopes of reunification at a future date, the benefits of free commerce would have made that goal a reality in about 2-3 decades. Things would have been back to normal by about, say, 1890-ish and slavery would have been well on its way out the door by then too because of natural economic reason that made it unproductive, plus the cumulative weight of world opinion.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

It's the getting there that is the trick. 600,000 dead for "unity"? Is it *THAT* good? And whether one wants to question Lincoln or not, they cannot deny the fact that 600,000 people died.

That's a good point - when you encounter the Lincoln argument keep stressing the cost in bodies of the Civil War. Nobody who defends the war can deny that it was immensely brutal and costly. Use that as the common ground and force them to admit it. Ask "Even if you think the Civil War's outcome was a good thing, will you at least admit that its cost was terrible for all sides involved?"

Even Abraham Lincoln himself wouldn't say no to that question. There are reports from his contemporaries that say Lincoln went into terrible fits of depression when he saw reports of how many bodies were stacking up. They said he wore the guilt of the war on his person (as well he should have!) and that's why he looks so tired and haggardly in photographs at the end of his life.

Contrast that with Bush by the way, who seems to feel no guilt and seems oblivious to all the death that surrounds his war policies.

 

[murrayrothbard]

If it was morally illegitimate for the confederate states to secede from the union, than it was morally illegitimate for the colonies to declare their independence from the king. Would it be legitimate for the UN to declare war against the US if the US withdrew from the UN?

 

[Francisco Suarez]

I just found this on google blogsearch. It's a spoof entry written from neocon Harry Jaffa's perspective and the funniest take on the Napolitano video i've seen yet:

http://harrysies.blogspot.com/2007/12/judicial-calhounite.html

 

[childofadream]

that's why he looks so tired and haggardly in photographs at the end of his life.

Heard the theory before but I don’t buy it! At the very least it ain’t necessarily so.
There is some circumstantial evidence that Lincoln may have had syphilis. The standard treatment for the disease at the time was large doses of mercury. Mercury poisoning will dang sure make you look tired and haggardly!