what do u all think of the comments from ron paul to abe lincoln on the civil war how it was a mistake ?

Question

yesterday

Answer 1

Another one of his nutty assertions.
He also said the Civil Rights Act of '64, did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, according to Paul, it increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Answer 2

History books most often say the war was fought to free the slaves. But that idea is brought into serious question considering what Abraham Lincoln had to say in his typical speeches: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery makes for great moral cause celebre for the War Between the States but the real causes had more to do with problems similar to those the nation faces today - a federal government that has escaped the limits the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.

So on this point alone I think Paul is once again way off base. He claims to be the great protector of the constitution and the civil war was about just that the constitution NOT slaves yet he says Lincoln shouldnt have fought to free slaves. Second It wasnt Lincoln who started the war it was the confederacy who was sheling fort sumpter. this (along with many other terrible recollections of reality and facts) show me he is nothing but a delusion old man

Answer 3

Even today the legality of the Civil War is argued.

As far as I am concerned it should not have taken as long as it did to happen, BUT, it took time for the anti-slavery movement to gain momentum and build a political party strong enough to confront the Pro-Slavery Democrats.

Lincoln was the first President to be elected from the Anti-Slavery party. Lincoln tried desperately to eliminate slavery without resorting to war by the Democrats knew their time had run out and so they seceded from the Union.

Because New York city was primarily Democrats they tried to secede and when that failed the Democrats just ran around New York city rioting against the war and lynching black people from street lamps.

A lot of people believe that it was a mistake to split the nation over such an issue and that splitting the nation with an "illegal war" the way the Civil War did was criminal.

In fact a Northern Democrat assassinated Lincoln.

Even some Republicans thought the Civil War was a bit to far to go to free a bunch of people who should be capable of defending and taking care of themselves.

Not me though. I think Lincoln did the right thing. I also think Ron Paul is a few watts short of a light bulb so it does not surprise me that he opposes the actions that Lincoln and Bush have taken against oppression.

The only real tarnish left from those slave days is the Democrats who use exactly the same arguments against Iraq that they used against the Civil War.

Sounds Like Ron Paul likes those arguments.

Answer 4

What Paul suggests is that it would have been better to allow slavery to be phased out gradually as it has been in other nations. He believes that the Civil War and the abolishen of slavery was not worth 600,000 lives.

It is a thought provoking question.

While I can understand his point of view, I must disagree with his thinking.

Many of the Founding Fathers were uncomfortable with slavery. They knew the problem would eventually have to be dealt with. The final wording of the Constitution was an obvious compromise, postponing the inevitable.

If Lincoln would have deferred and continued the postponement of the inevitable, how many more generations of African Americans would have been born into and died under slavery?

Would the Civil War have been fought in the mid-20th Century? How many Americans would have been lost at that time?

Would the countries that phased out slavery have done so as quickly if the USA still allowed it?

If, as a result of Lincoln choosing not to go to war, there were still states today with legalized slavery, would Paul be making the exact same argument he is today?

For those reasons I find Paul's position troubling, but I respect him for having the guts to express it and defend it.

In conclusion, we are not discussing a state's right to set its own speed limit. We are talking about human beings' rights to own other human beings. We are talking about the natural expansion of the Bill of Rights to include a certain race of people.

Would it have been better if Women's Suffrage had been allowed to be gradually phased in?

The genius of our Constitution was the fact that it was written in broad enough terms to be able to include more and more of humanity. The failure of it was that it postponed the emancipation of a race of people for generations.

Answer 5

Lincoln did the right thing. If not for Lincoln, those world wars that plagued the European continent may have been fought here.

That is one reason Europe has fought so many wars. Small nations, with so many different laws and customs feeling snubbed by their neighbors. The Civil War stopped many more wars from occuring. Look at all the wars of aggression that have occurred in Europe since the USA has gained independence.

I think Ron Paul is pandering to gain votes in the south.

Answer 6

I agree with Dr. Paul. It was a mistake. That doesn't mean we should have just left it alone, it just means there shouldn't have been a war.
Big, intrusive goverment was the reason for the Civil War, not slavery. History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore’s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

Answer 7

I haven't heard the comments, but if this is true, it is interesting to criticize a U.S. President for something that Ron Paul wasn't even alive to experience and is an historical event that although bloody and tragic for both the North and the South made the country stronger in the long run, possibly even leading to the fact that the U.S. is the world's only super-power now. This is what is known as "Monday morning quarterbacking" - its easy to criticize the quarterback the day after the game. Its a lot harder to actually be the quarterback. Revisionist historians want to say that the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on HIroshima and Nagasaki simply because they were Japanese cities (versus German, etc.) and completely ignore the historical truth that the Japanese stated that they would 1) execute all American prisoners of war if the U.S. invaded, and 2) threatened to fight to the death - the entire country - man, woman, and child - if the U.S. invaded, which would have led to an estimated 100,000 U.S. casualties, and millions of deaths for the Japanese. Historical revisionism is dangerous because it wants to change the truth. There might have been a hint of revenge for Pearl Harbor too, but that is the nature of war. Apparently, Ron Paul is also a "revisionist historian". I will not be voting for him, but I wasn't going to be voting for him anyway - I think he is a bit of a nut case and his followers haven't figured that out yet.

Answer 8

Lincoln should have followed the Constitution which is the REAL reason for the civil war. Slavery was only a side issue.

I didn't hear the direct quote, from Ron Paul, but I am sure it had to deal with the reality of the Constitution and the facts...which many people like to have the masses forget about.

And this doesn't make Ron Paul racist because he is talking strictly about the CONSTITUTION and NOT the fringe issue of slavery.

Answer 9

specific, Ron Paul did say that. He stated it the 1st time that he grow to be on the bill Maher tutor. maximum individuals of Paul supporters (it form of feels to me like maximum individuals believe him uncritically, yet I additionally do unlike how his maximum vocal critics use advert hominem assaults and unfold lies that have been debunked persistently) additionally believe this. In some procedures, I do think of that usa could be greater advantageous off if the southerners had long gone their separate procedures back then. perhaps Lincoln could have been greater advantageous off repealing the Fugitive Slave regulation and granting freedom and citizenship to any slave who made it exterior of the territory of the Confederacy. Lincoln nonetheless merits credit for ending slavery, regardless of how he did it and he quite did have a staggering to salary the conflict because of the crimes being committed by applying the Confederacy.

Answer 10

Oh yea, Ron Paul critisizing the man who saved america and allowed us to grow into the greatest country in history, This Paul is just a wack job hack, been preaching the same BS stuff for 20 years and got famous this year for being the one republican against the war, it is like Paule Shore critisizing Paul Newmans acting ability.