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
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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?