Why Quirky Ron Paul Is Wrong About The Civil War
In their zeal to limit taxation and ‘government intrusion’, libertarians often show their lack of moral fiber on national issues that resonate with most Americans. That is one reason that thankfully they do not hold many elective offices in the nation. The problem with libertarian thinking was demonstrated again most recently when Ron Paul was featured on “Meet The Press’ this past Sunday.
I had to shake my head in bewilderment as to why a candidate for president in 2008 would bash President Lincoln, arguably the most important leader this nation ever had. Can Ron Paul be truly void of understanding the moral victory by having slavery ended in the Civil War? Does his reading of American history about the decades that led up to the Civil War make him feel that a ‘buy out” of the slaves would have actually worked? And who was to pay for this plan, or execute it, given that folks like Paul hate taxation and government meddling?
Men such as Vice President of the Confederacy Stephens told Abe Lincoln directly that the south would never allow slavery to be ended based on public opinion. Men such as Stephens were not delivering empty threats. Slavery was seen by a powerful segment of society as a way of life and a right. Given that the southern economy was tied to slavery I think Ron Paul should consider how a whole radically reformed south was to have been born once the government bought the slaves. There is no credible argument for buying out the slaves as a means to ending the shameful practice that the south loved. And Ron Paul knows that.
While talking about Ron Paul’s slavery issue over Christmas Eve dinner with friends, it was noted that libertarian types love to get frothy over these types of eclectic arguments, and that Paul was probably hoping for another dozen votes by bashing Abe Lincoln. I am not sure about the votes, but he did get plenty of snickers.
The problem is that Ron Paul was wrong with his assessment concerning the reasons why Lincoln took the nation to war. Lincoln’s main motive was not to crush the Constitution or alter the founding father’s intentions. There is a whole cottage industry of Lincoln bashing that has built into a rabid following based on such malarkey. Paul was feeding into that line of crap in a pathetic grab for a few votes. Lincoln knew that toughness had to be employed if the Union was to be maintained. And the bulk of society has been forever grateful.
One might argue that Lincoln was too risky in some of the measures he employed to secure the survival of the Union, such as the suspension of habeas corpus. Arguments abound if Lincoln had thought enough about how his actions might make it easier for future presidents to act in such a manner. What is often lost in this line of thinking is that democratic nations do have the right to effectively fight for their survival. There is no civil war that has ever been fought where a bit of repression is not required to obtain victory. Just a fact.
Lincoln was right that the Union should not be dissolved. John Hay, Lincoln’s secretary during the war, wrote that in Lincoln’s mind it was a necessity to prove that popular government was not an absurdity. While the war was very much centered on the question of slavery, the need to put aside the notion of a split Union was forefront to all the actions that Lincoln would take. The fact that Lincoln never had a desire to be a dictator, and relaxed the necessary steps he used at times during the war, is proof of his intentions.
I suppose out of the need to be honest with my readers I should mention that President Lincoln is my favorite person that has sat in the Oval Office. I do not care for the ripping on Lincoln that some think is great sport. Abe Lincoln and the Civil War are well represented on my bookshelves and I much enjoy the writings of folks such as Shelby Foote and Carl Sandburg. In addition, James fifth great grandmother was a third cousin to Hannibal Hamlin. And as I said before most of us in America are grateful for the tall lanky man with the high voice from Illinois.
Technorati Tags: RonPaul, CivilWar, Slavery, PresidentLincoln, MeetThePress, Election08, HannibalHamlin
To seek peace by peaceful means is noble and good.
A better indictment of the public school system I have not seen. Utter drivel.
Finally, to Jane’s question, as I do not intend to refight the Civil War, regarding Lincolns thoughts on colonization.
Not only Lincoln, but many others which included then Chief Justice Marshall also advocated such a plan. To many of the time the Compromise of 1850 was the best that could be politically arranged. So Lincoln, while knowing slavery had to end, also was thinking at the time he made such comments, how best to do it a framework that might work.
The idea as everyone knew then…and we know even better now….was folly.
Why would blacks born in America wish to go to land on the other side of the world? The south would never let the slaves go as they depended on them. And as for the method of paying for the slaves to be deported……well pipe dreams are the only way to sum it up.
A plan that was never a real plan. (And Lincoln stated this at the time.)
Today anyone who would support in hindsight this idea is well…..(you fill in the blank)
Well I am not worried that Ron Paul has a national election ever to win.
As to the love Ron Paul has for Jews………
http://www.shadowdemocracy.org/2007/11/15/ron-pauls-jewish-problem/
On October 26, nationally syndicated talk show host Michael Medved posted an open letter on TownHall.com that read:
Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?
More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press-a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?
Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
Respectfully, Michael Medved
Medved received no response to the letter from the Paul campaign.
There is even evidence that suggests Ron Paul is anti-semitic on Shadow Democracy’s comment threads. A person by the name of Eric Dondero, who identifies himself as a former Ron Paul staffer wrote:
Ron Paul, my former boss, is not an explicit Anti-Semite, but he is most certainly anti-Israel and one could make a strong case – outright anti-Jewish.
During my 6-year stint with him, I served as his only Jewish staffer. He regularly touted me as proof against allegations that he wasn’t an Anti-Semite, even one time ordering me to wear Jewish clothing and attend a press conference of his Democrat opponent who was exposing his links to Anti-Semitic groups. I felt used.
(For the record, Ron did not know I was Jewish until I had already been hired.)
Ron and I finally departed ways, partly because I was ashamed to work for such an explicitly anti-Israel advocate.
If you still doubt his anti-Jewish/anti-Israel views, ask yourself this question:
Why is it that when Ron Paul talks about the evils of taxpayer dollars going overseas for foreign aid, he only singles out Israel as a recipient? Why does he never mention the billions we send each year to Egypt for foreign aide? Turkey, the Palestinians, other Nations? Never a peep out of Paul about those dollars. It’s just always the “Jews.”
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
He comments in a second post:
In fairness, the comments about Blacks being “fleet-footed” were written for Ron, though published under his name in his Ron Paul Newsletter, by his Top behind the scenes aide Lew Rockwell.
But the other comments about Israel being the most powerful lobby, were definitely Ron Paul’s words. In fact, I’ve heard him say similar comments on numerous occasions, some far more explicit, to private quasi-Anti-Semitic groups… the Jewish comments are very accurate.
Check out Eric Dondero’s website here: http://mainstreamlibertarian.com/_wsn/page5.html
So what are we left with? Is Ron Paul anti-Jew? The facts posted in the article seem to suggest that. How extreme are his views and can the nation take a chance on electing him to find out? His fundraising is on the up-swing and his poll numbers are climbing. Some polls have him as high as 16% in New Hampshire.
I contend that Ron Paul is merely being coy regarding his racism towards Jewish people and indeed, people of color. Couple this with his many other extremist views, as well as massive support among racists of various stripes, and you are left to ask yourself – is this a guy who we should be considering on any level for the Presidency?
Based on this information, I say absolutely not.
wow, dekerivers,
You really don’t know anything about Dr. Paul. To say Ron Paul writes about 6 million Jews not dying in WWII obviously says how much truth you are revealing here. You have your reasons to hate Ron Paul and that one comment said it all for me. Dr. Paul is an Austrian economics scholar and he has two pictures on his wall that he looks up to. I know one of them is Ludwig Von Mises who founded the Austrian School and by the way……….is Jewish. The other picture is also of a Jew but I forget who he was. So I see now that this whole blog was simply to put one of the greatest thinkers and decision-makers of our time down. You must be worried for some reason.
If I am not mistaken, I believe England was buying slaves and freeing them. He even mentioned this fact in the interview. And the “wonderful” Lincoln wanted to send slaves back to Africa.
I have read more books about Abe Lincoln, and the Civil War than any other topic in American history. There has long been an effort to undermine Lincoln, and do so from the wacky world of anti-taxers, and those who sense the Constitution was somehow impaired. To use such spurious arguments is akin to saying 6 million Jews did not die in WWII. But I bet Ron Paul writes about that tooo…….
Facts are funny things though, as they survive in the face of such claims as those above. And the facts are that Abe Linciln saved the nation. The Civil War was about slavery, and while economics were also a part of the war, be mindful that had the south not started to rely on the dreadful institution of slavery we would not have needed to clean their wretched mess up.
There is a simple proof that what Ron Paul said on the subject of the civil war was correct. Every other country that abolished slavery did so without fighting a war over it.
Slavery in the united states ended because of a side-effect of a war of conquest. Lincoln was no abolitionist, as you can see plainly from his actions during the war. Slaves who escaped across union lines weren’t freed; they were imprisoned and held as captured enemy property.
Read and learn:
There’s a book called The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Lincoln violated the constitution is just about every way possible.
The man was a railroad lawyer. In his inaugural address, he threatened the south with invasion, not over slavery, but over an unconstitutional tariff that benefitted his Wall Street buddies at the expense of the southern states.
I used to swallow the whole “great emancipator” propaganda smorgasbord just like you. When I started studying the war on my own, I got pretty damn angry at the line of bullshit I’d been fed for my whole life.
Do you have the guts to go and find out what your hero was really up to?
I missed the Ron Paul interview. I did not miss this article. The author of this article proceeds from the populist notion that what the civil war was about, is what the WINNNERS of the civil war say it was about. That is largely false, distorted and imbalanced. It was about induatrial states forcing their beliefs on agrian state. It was about reapportionment of states (prohibited by the constitution). It was about states ignoring “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution on a selective basis. It was about increasing federal powers and decreasing the roles/powers of the individual states (to the level of subordination). I urge the author to expand his horizons, do some research and look for some of the SE US bookstores that reprint the articles of the times (the time of the civil war) and question propoganda taught in public schools (run by the government that won the war).
Someone needs a history lesson! I knew your education system was horribly flawed, but my God! I am, of course, talking about the author of this article, not Dr. Paul.
I wrote this post because the Civil War and Lincoln are two very interesting topics of American history. What fascinates me makes it onto my blog. That is the only criteria for what gets printed here. The media may or may not cover the same topics I discuss.
The other topics that Ron Paul talked about in the interview were all covered many ways by the time Russert had him on the show. There was nothing else of interest in the interview, and since there is no way that Paul can win I have never concentrated on him. But his Civil War response was SO wrong that it stuck out from everything else that was said on the show.
But I think that this issue of Ron Paul and slavery is one that showcases the way Ron Paul (and those like him) think. And that makes it of interest to lots of people in an election year. I never had any idea that this post would be read by so many, or commented on like it has over the past few days.
But if Ron Paul is to be applauded for thinking about these issues, then others who also think about his thoughts should be encouraged.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery. Thats like politicians saying you need to go into trillions of dollars of debt because little children need health insurance. “Aw come on, you don’t want to go trillions of dollars into debt? You must want to see the little children die from lack of health insurance. You’re sick.”
I am white. I have deep respect for blacks and wish that slavery had never happened, but wishing doesn’t do much good. Neither does rewriting history.
Before you knee-jerk response that Lincoln is a hero, research it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2yh6nmN_who Paul was saying there were alternatives to 650,000 Americans dying (more than all other wars combined). He was NOT saying that slaves shouldn’t have been freed.
The people from the south know the truth of the war to this day. I predict this helps Paul win the south.
Come on people. It was just a discussion; an opinion (I’m talking to Ron Paul supporters too…calm down…sheesh). To sit and carry on about someone’s opinion about a past president is rediculous, and then to decide to NOT vote for him because of it…now THAT’S crazy. Did you write this article because the media made a big deal about it? Obviously. Stop letting the media do the thinking for you. I understand if you would have mentioned it, great, but to devote an entire article to just THAT! What about the rest of the interview? Certainly there were much more interesting topics to dwell on…but then that would have required you to do the thinking; not the television.
It wasn’t Ron who brought up the topic. Tim Russert did knowing that it was controversial and would hurt him. It has nothing to do with running for Prsident today. Still, as a man of integrity, he did not distance himself from what he believes about this issue. I was as surprized as many by the argument, but like many other points Dr. Paul has offered on various issues, he makes one think… If there had been no civil war would we still have slavery in the US today? Of course not. So, I he is correct after all! It was not necessary for 600,000 americans to die to eliminate it.
OK deke, your answer to leroy showed some sincerity. But bottom line of civil war – 1/2 million Americans killed. I don’t think Ron Paul was out-of-line in suggesting there might have been a better answer.
Have you ever seen a war? No American of our generation has seen in a war with the level of savagry of the civil war.
Ron Paul is my hero like Lincoln is yours. But I sure don’t like his idea to totally disband the federal banking system. But his bringing up these issues like this only makes me admire him more. He’s someone who can think outside the box.
The main reasons you may not want somebody who shocks you with his honest ideas in the presidency is they might get us into war. W has already done us in there.
Also, to Thomas who said “…when in fact the Northern slaves were never set free by him.”
No northern states had legal slavery by the time of the Civil War. In fact, slavery had officially ended in all northern states by the generation after the Revolutionary War. Was there still racism and a few outlaw slave-holders? Yes, and the former is something we’re (sadly) still dealing with to this day. But your argument is way off base. The Northern slaves were never set free by Lincoln because they were already technically free long before he became president. Get your history straight and then come back to argue your absurdities.
Yikes, some of these comments are downright unreadable. Which is especially funny since those same comments are the ones trying to trash Lincoln and prop up Ron Paul. That should tell you something right there.
Anyway, Lincoln wasn’t a perfect man nor a perfect leader. The suspension of habeas corpus, in my opinion, remains one of his greatest blunders and is an action I find inexcusable regardless of the circumstances. Still, Lincoln didn’t start the damn war. The southern states had been rattling their sabers for quite awhile before his election in 1860, threatening all manner of bloody hell on the nation should they work up the courage to ban slavery in all states. Heck, they rattled their sabers even when slavery was threatened in newly formed states (see Bleeding Kansas for reference). The rich, southern slave-holding elite saw a threat to their base of power and they fought tooth and nail to stop it. I abhor war, especially the current one in Iraq, but I also recognize when circumstances preclude any other solution – as was the case with the American Civil War. Slavery was an abomination that needed to end, and since the southern states chose secession and violence, the necessary response was to fight back.
Lincoln, for his part, was elected on an abolitionist platform, which people knew full-well would piss off the southern states. But it was still the southern states that chose to react to his election as they did, and Lincoln had to see it through: which he did, and paid a heavy price for it, too.
Ron Paul made a ridiculous argument, one that clearly illustrates his lack of experience and rational thought. But I can’t say I’m surprised – the man has already shown himself to be a racist, xenophobic, gold-loving eccentric. I agree with his more socially liberal platforms, but they are greatly overshadowed by his many bizarre and downright offensive positions. In the end, though, I’m glad he’s running as a Republican. Perhaps he can do for that party in the coming election what Ralph Nader did for the Democrats in 2000 and split the frak out of their vote. In that case, I say go Ron Paul!
LOL at the comments
Isn’t it refreshing to hear a politician like Ron Paul who hides nothing about the way he thinks. He even inspires thought by folks who don’t like to think like the author of this article. I’m sure Ron will come up with some position that I will consider to be looney. He hasn’t yet. Maybe if I don’t bother to listen to his reasoning… and come up with the conclusion that buying the slaves would be more costly than the civil war like this author…Yes…War is Peace and civil war is the best of all!
Some think they know about the Civil War while in fact those that do not agree with the possition that the Civil War should not have been fought by Lincoln are absolutly correct. Lincoln in his own admission said his intent was not to free the slaves, but instead agressed the War upon a war measure since Congress left seni die (without light of day) as to when they would combact within a Republic form of government and without any Constitutional authority as an administrator pulled him self to the possition of commander and cheif to start an International War known as the Civil War against the Southern state when in fact the Northern slaves were never set free by him. As for the the alleged emancipation proclomation it had and still has no weight in law and their is more.
What was so sacred about the Union, that it was well worth 600,000 American lives? Lincoln was one of the biggest scoundrel this country ever new.
I think the point he was making was that slavery was in decline around the world and it was only a matter of time. However, I do agree with you that it probably required kicking some ass in order to change things.
To Ferrell I see your point. Ron Paul is way too good for the GOP!
As for miss Meow. I have nothing against strong women. I just don’t like Democrats, all they know how to do is spend other peoples money.
Leroy: I bet you miss those Yahoo message boards now don’t you?? Next time read the article and then respond with something relevant. It is called respect for the writer. If you are not going to do that, then just watch the “Girls Gone Wild” infomercial. I am sure that it is on at least 10 channels at 3:48 in the morning. Okay??
Would Ron Paul please just leave the GOP and run on the Libertarian, the Reform, Independent or whatever ticket for president??
Can anyone say John Anderson??
Didn’t take long for the Ron Paul bushwackers to find you, Deke.
I watched the Meet the Press show this past Sunday and this issue was just one of many that left me shaking my head. Yet there are so many morons who support the nihilist despite the contradictions in Ron Paul’s liberatarian philosophies and his “idea” to buy freedom for 4 million slaves. His thinking is so frikken shallow that he hasn’t even considered that most southern slave owners would have turned down any offer.
Which would have left Ron Paul where?
Ah ha.
In the same situation that Lincoln found himself.
Ron Paul makes me want to vote for Leona Helmsley. I mean, Hillary Clinton.
meow.
If you read my blog you will note I am very much against the Iraq war, and the fear tactics that the Bush Administration uses daily.
If you read my post here on Ron Paul you will note that I wrote about Lincoln and the Civil War.
So I am at a loss to understand your comment.
I can’t believe someone actually took time out to write something such as this. Un-fucking-believable.
Let me guess who you want me to vote for… Hillary? Obama? Giuliani? Edwards?
No thanks. I’m not some pansie-ass who quivers in his boots everytime the paid-for media says a terrorist is out to get me. Why don’t you be a real man and show some courage, and invite the terrorist fucks to your front door? I’ll bet you $1 million they will never show up — because they don’t exist…
Boo!