I don’t know where Paul learned his history, but the South instigated the Civil War, not Lincoln. Not that I feel one way or the other about it – sectional rivalry had split the country since independence, and was likely to come to a head at some point – but facts are facts.
Slavery wasn’t even an issue for Lincoln until it was used as a PR tactic years into the war. Southern states – or, it should be said, the plantation owners that ran the states – seceded because they believed that the Republicans would abolish slavery and destroy their base of wealth. South Carolina left the Union months before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
Really, at the end of the day, it wasn’t about any sort of humanitarian aims. The Civil War was about what most wars are about, which is money and power.
ditto on the money and power part. To quote old Honest Abe: “They fired on Fort Sumter? What then will become of my tariff!” Yeah, money and power.
This old slavery bit is really getting old. Just think of Huckabee, who defended his position in the debates that “We should give illegals college scholarships as atonement for slavery” and “Jesus can save us from abortion just like Lincoln saved us from slavery”. What a joke.
Yes, it was economics. If you keep saying that ‘economics’ is code language for slavery, you’re trying to make it into the tale that wags the dog. It was economics, short and simple—and the Yanks were jealous of our greatness as a people and as a civilization.
Why would anyone with a spine want to voluntarily keep toting the commie propaganda taught be disgusting ‘liberal arts’ professors?
btw, Ron Paul is soooo cool! As Goldwater Jr says: “He’s the conscience of the conservatives movement. In our hearts, we know he’s right.”
and, btw, to answer your question, he got that stuff about Lincoln from a bunch of my friends, including Tom DiLorenzo, who has subbed for Rush Limbaugh. Here’s his book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198791208&sr=8-1
Run Ron Run! The War was a waste of time, talent, lives and treasure: and yes we are still cursed by its aftermath today in many ways. 600,000 is a fraction of the total loss of life.
Our racial scars are directly linked to the war and how the emancipation was carried out for white AND black southerners. Reconstruction is the blackest period of this country’s history. Ron Paul’s honesty is refreshing!
Ron Paul knows our American History as he knows our American Constitution! Unlike the bigoted South haters, past and present, we just ask everyone to base their judgement and writings on the FACTS of American history, not regional bias and presentism:
“What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.” - Charles Adams, “For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization,” 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC:
” I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states, and the requisition made upon me for such an object — an object in my judgment not within the purview of the Constitution or the Act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so, we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.”
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” –George Orwell
“We’d still have slavery.”?
Incredibly moronic statement from Mr. Russert.
Not unlike stating that, “were it not for George W. Bush, Saddam would still have yellow cake.”
Surely Timmy realizes that the institution of slavery was dying out as early as the 1850s, and would most likely have faded from existence by the end of the 19th century. Mr. Lincoln had to act upon the opportunity for political expediency and personal gain, while the excuse still existed!
not that paul is caught us up on his plan for the 1860’s maybe he could step into today. russert did not mean american slavery, but slavery through out the world. yes slavery still exists.
the south started the war, lincoln had no other choice. as president his job was to protect the union.
The South seceded because Lincoln was an abolitionist. They basically threw a hissy fit. True, there many other sources of tension such as the construction of a transcontinental railroad and various shipping concerns, but the primary reason for the Civil War was always slavery and loss of political power.
(Slavery produced the cotton that made the South so rich. They controlled 70% of the world’s supply.)
Someone of you claim “Lincoln started it”, but I ask you why the fuck did the Southern States secede in the first place? Lincoln hadn’t even taken office and yet the Deep South had already seceded. He clearly couldn’t have signed any law in order to agitate them.
BTW, the South was no model of libertarian ideas. They frequently violated free speech by outlawing public dissent of slavery. (Not to mention, y’know, the slavery itself being a violation of libertarian thought.)
December 27th, 2007 at 3:17 am
I don’t know where Paul learned his history, but the South instigated the Civil War, not Lincoln. Not that I feel one way or the other about it – sectional rivalry had split the country since independence, and was likely to come to a head at some point – but facts are facts.
Slavery wasn’t even an issue for Lincoln until it was used as a PR tactic years into the war. Southern states – or, it should be said, the plantation owners that ran the states – seceded because they believed that the Republicans would abolish slavery and destroy their base of wealth. South Carolina left the Union months before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
Really, at the end of the day, it wasn’t about any sort of humanitarian aims. The Civil War was about what most wars are about, which is money and power.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
ditto on the money and power part. To quote old Honest Abe: “They fired on Fort Sumter? What then will become of my tariff!” Yeah, money and power.
This old slavery bit is really getting old. Just think of Huckabee, who defended his position in the debates that “We should give illegals college scholarships as atonement for slavery” and “Jesus can save us from abortion just like Lincoln saved us from slavery”. What a joke.
Yes, it was economics. If you keep saying that ‘economics’ is code language for slavery, you’re trying to make it into the tale that wags the dog. It was economics, short and simple—and the Yanks were jealous of our greatness as a people and as a civilization.
Why would anyone with a spine want to voluntarily keep toting the commie propaganda taught be disgusting ‘liberal arts’ professors?
btw, Ron Paul is soooo cool! As Goldwater Jr says: “He’s the conscience of the conservatives movement. In our hearts, we know he’s right.”
and, btw, to answer your question, he got that stuff about Lincoln from a bunch of my friends, including Tom DiLorenzo, who has subbed for Rush Limbaugh. Here’s his book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761526463/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198791208&sr=8-1
December 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
The Shot,
The word “interesting” is a good choice
—
Harden Gervais,
Who had a rightful claim to Fort Sumter?
Tariffs were a large part: the North benefited from them and the South suffered.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Run Ron Run! The War was a waste of time, talent, lives and treasure: and yes we are still cursed by its aftermath today in many ways. 600,000 is a fraction of the total loss of life.
Our racial scars are directly linked to the war and how the emancipation was carried out for white AND black southerners. Reconstruction is the blackest period of this country’s history. Ron Paul’s honesty is refreshing!
December 28th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Ron Paul knows our American History as he knows our American Constitution! Unlike the bigoted South haters, past and present, we just ask everyone to base their judgement and writings on the FACTS of American history, not regional bias and presentism:
“What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.” - Charles Adams, “For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization,” 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC:
” I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states, and the requisition made upon me for such an object — an object in my judgment not within the purview of the Constitution or the Act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so, we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.”
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” –George Orwell
December 28th, 2007 at 2:25 am
PS.
To the point of these comments, below is what has been missed in most American History Lessons:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L6-VQpY1NJM
Petersburg
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 am
“We’d still have slavery.”?
Incredibly moronic statement from Mr. Russert.
Not unlike stating that, “were it not for George W. Bush, Saddam would still have yellow cake.”
Surely Timmy realizes that the institution of slavery was dying out as early as the 1850s, and would most likely have faded from existence by the end of the 19th century. Mr. Lincoln had to act upon the opportunity for political expediency and personal gain, while the excuse still existed!
December 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
not that paul is caught us up on his plan for the 1860’s maybe he could step into today. russert did not mean american slavery, but slavery through out the world. yes slavery still exists.
the south started the war, lincoln had no other choice. as president his job was to protect the union.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Ron Paul is right about the Civil War (sic.) and it has opened a Pandora’s Box. This only helps the cause of liberty.
The Lincoln idol, so carefully crafted for the last 140 plus years by the victors, has feet of clay– when it falls, the whole thing falls.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The South seceded because Lincoln was an abolitionist. They basically threw a hissy fit. True, there many other sources of tension such as the construction of a transcontinental railroad and various shipping concerns, but the primary reason for the Civil War was always slavery and loss of political power.
(Slavery produced the cotton that made the South so rich. They controlled 70% of the world’s supply.)
Someone of you claim “Lincoln started it”, but I ask you why the fuck did the Southern States secede in the first place? Lincoln hadn’t even taken office and yet the Deep South had already seceded. He clearly couldn’t have signed any law in order to agitate them.
BTW, the South was no model of libertarian ideas. They frequently violated free speech by outlawing public dissent of slavery. (Not to mention, y’know, the slavery itself being a violation of libertarian thought.)