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 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
A better indictment of the public school system I have not seen. Utter drivel.
To seek peace by peaceful means is noble and good.
Are you saying that we would still have slavery if it wasn’t for the civil war??
I am saying that in 1860 the means to ending slavery was the Civil War. The moral need existed, and the military aspect as started by the south at Fort Sumter allowed the action to take place. Government proved to be the means to allow for social progress, and moral clarity.
Your question is designed in such a way so I can ask if the Founding Fathers had found agreement on the issue of slavery at the end of 1700’s would there have been a Civil war?
Great college level classic questions of which I love.