What a travesty!! This Dick Wad who has a nice face but a IQ of a camel challenges an outstanding doctor...
I think Dr. Ron Paul should have just said "excuse me but what are your credentials that allow you to debate me??... And if you take your earpiece out lets see how good of a 'thinker on your feet you really are??..'
Lincoln did not save the union, he destroyed it, and the republic. He could not bear to lose the revenues from the South, which was providing over 75% of the money to the federal government, and getting very little in return. The crackpots here are the pathetic "journalists" who refuse to belive true history, and worship Lincoln. Lincoln did start the war when he caused force to be used by the South to prevent resupplying Fort Sumter. Lincoln killed the Constitution.
@cwi1000 I'm really getting sick of all the ignorant neo-confederates on the internet. They have access to the internet, they can research the events leading up to the civil war. They can read all the words of the founding fathers showing that the Constitution is a compact and it's intended to be "in toto and for ever". I can understand why the real confederates thought they were fighting for liberty. They were duped and didn't have access to the info we have. The modern ones have no excuse.
@KayBeeEee1983 "I'm really getting sick of all the ignorant neo-confederates" That is the language of division. But if you cant handle the heat then step out of the ring. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Washignton, Taylor, Henry, all made many comments on the causse of which I speak, which you know all to well. Such blatant lies on your part and utter revisonist cherry pickin belief, like Jefferson was against self government! Ha, is revolting.
@RevBillyRayCollins Jesus Christ. If the confederates supported self-government, they wouldn't have forced East Tennessee to secede with the rest of the south. They wanted to govern themselves and anyone else they possibly could. They were power hungry despots. When they realized they were going to lose control of the country, they started a war.
@KayBeeEee1983 "they wouldn't have forced East Tennessee to secede with the rest of the south." Hey, no ones perfect, you certainly can't have a bunch of splinter groups roaming around. I would have to agree with the rest of your points, though I would pretty it up a little bit. When the South lost all hope they took up arms. What else can I say? But its that romanticized version of the 'Lost Cause' which we all hold so dear, at least I do anyway. Is there anything wrong in that?
@2bfreeism Our politicians need to understand American history. History repeats itself. The cliche is true. Right before the civil war, the economy was in a recession because of irresponsible land speculation and bank deregulation. And anyone who thinks that Lincoln destroyed the Republic and the Constitution by not allowing the south to secede is ignorant of the Constitution (Ron Paul is one of those people).
I'm not even a Ron Paul follower - although libertarian I do believe in a foreign policy with teeth - however, he absolutely destroyed these blatantly unprofessional, condescending..I don't even want to call them journalist or talk show hosts, these people are an arm of the DNC.
If ONLY we had let the South secede, and put a total ban on emigration from thereabouts forever after. America would be a prosperous, modern country living in peace with the rest of the world, and Dixieland would be the third world shithole they're so desperately trying to drag us all down into.
@diqtits You realize they weren't really free'd at this time. In language only. If it wasn't a war time strategic action (no one wanted the slaves freed, even Lincoln) The war started because someone took office and said 'to hell with the constitution and states right, i'll do what I want" to which the south said "10th amendment. peace out" to which Lincoln said he wouldn't let the union fall apart even if it took force.
slavery is wrong, but there were better ways to go about ending it.
It should be known that Lincoln had a plan to gradually emancipate slaves with compensation but it was rejected by all but the district of Columbia. His proclamation came only after the south had seceded because they feared an end to the institution of slavery and then attacked Fort Sumter and took control of other federal forts. Lincoln himself thought that his hand on this issue had become forced and it was the only way to preserve the union at this point. Paul doesn't seem to get this.
I thinks its amazing that in 2012 we are looking at the Civil War and reasons for entering differently than the homgenized version we teach our school kids. I think this is a good thing and the TV anchor, whoever he is, was so proud of his position until Paul slayed him with logic (why did it take 600K to die when other nations did it w.o war) and the relatively new position that the US should have bought their freedom. Its refreshing to hear new takes on an old position; both sides.
@lumberg48108 The 600k died to preserve the union. Why did the south secede? They felt slavery as an institution was being threatened. So the possibility to say buy the slaves freedom from slave owners was not a possibility and it's a joke. They seceded to stop any attempt by the federal government to free slaves or stop slavery. Revisionist historians have tried to lessen the south's responsibility in the war for quite sometime and it's based in myth.
@Zachmozach you have a very skewed version and dont know of the ties of the north and lincoln to the banking cabal...your a shill with no independent thought and cant get over the fact that war wasn ALL ABOUT SLAVERY AND THATS IT...lol read a book
@hashishclay It's not all about slavery and I didn't say that. The reason South Carolina seceded was because of slavery. They stated this themselves as I previously pointed out. What should Lincoln have done in response to secession? Offer to buy slaves in order to emancipate them after they had seceded from a perceived threat to end slavery? If your argument is that secession should have been allowed then you can argue that, but how about you read a book on argument first?
@Zachmozach Not me - I understand who played the roles and why things happened, to some degree. But I think they old school notion that "Lincoln freed the slaves" does not need to be taught and a healthy discussion of what could or could not have been done to avoid the war should be held. We have that same discussion now regardiung Iraq - why not the Civil War. It is also a fatc that every western country abolished slavery w/o a war.
ON June 28 1860 Southern Democrats nominate Vice President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky for President. Their platform endorses a national slave code.
In fact the so called Confederate States of America central government power was more total than ever before.
Not quite. The territories controlled by the East India Company, Ceylon, and St. Helena got to keep slavery. Britain only abolished it where it was no longer profitable.
Here's the problem: Ron Paul says that "Hamiltonians wanted a strong national government..."
There is no such thing as a WEAK national government; a national government, by definition, is ABSOLUTE in power, with NO LIMIT on what it can or can't do; any limitation is purely SUBJECTIVE.
So in order to be limited in power, the federal government CANNOT BE NATIONAL, since the People of the Union are NOT the sovereigns, as they are with the individual states.
Also: note that Ron Paul calls it an "unnecessary civil war".
By calling it "a civil war," Ron Paul basically forfeits the argument, since that implies that the USA is a sovereign nation-- which, by definition, has the absolute right to preserve and maintain its sovereign territorial integrity against secession-attempts, JUST like against invasions.
However the USA is NOT a sovereign nation--on the contrary, each STATE is a sovereign nation unto itself, so secession is OK
@SovereignStatesman Not always, not in case of Switzerland for example. The national government has less power over people than canton governments do (sort of like 'states').
Same myths as always... Tariffs were not the reason or economics. Southerners had written the tariff of 1857 and had the lowest rates since 1816. The reasons given for South Carolina seceding in the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union talks about slavery as the reason to secede. He's just propping up the same ideology as always.
@SovereignStatesman I'm not arguing against rights of secession from the Union. I was pointing out that Ron Paul is perpetuating myth rather than clear historical fact. The reasons he gave for secession were invented after the fact and are not supported by factual evidence. South Carolina specifically gave the reason of not enforcing the fugitive slave act and the perceived threat of abolishing slavery.
I swear on the alter of Almighty God that if I ever see that smart-ass idiot that arrogantly and foolishly called Paul a "crackpot", that I will punch him straight in the mouth so dang hard that his nickname will be "crackhead" for his entire freaking life.
Ending slavery was not the reason to START the war, and slavery can be ended much CHEAPER without a war and without killing 600,000 people.
You buy the slaves and free them and you pass a Constitutional amendment to ensure slavery is illegal on the Federal level and you fight it with enormous IMPORT TAXES and eventually nobody has any slaves.
@13stevejohnson The war was about sovereignty, not about slavery or taxes, though those things of-course are up to the sovereign nation to decide upon.
However there is always a price for the goods on the market, priced correctly slaves could have been bought out, that's what happened in most other cases where slavery was abolished.
@romanmir01 you really think a given price would have made the southern slave owners whos total wealth was agricultural give up there slaves? why give up free labor and free wealth? you cant put a price on that. they would have said no. there had to be a war dude... we had to physically free the slaves!
Slaves are not FREE. They represent a specific dollar-investment, and have a specific cost in lifelong support-obligations which has to be discounted against their productive value,which has to be weighed against the cost of free labor.
And with the coming of labor from China and Europe with the invention of steam-vessels and transcontinental railroads, the Irish Potato-Famine etc, that value was PLUMMETING.
But the North didn't WANT to free slaves--but to TAX them for pork!
@SovereignStatesman this is what you teabagger idiots dont understand. you must have taxes in order for a society to function. no taxes, no peace. read hobbes and the state of nature
@13stevejohnson In fact in the North the industrial revolution was the real cause behind ending of slavery, because slavery is uneconomic, free people work better.
However, yes, the cost of war and loss of 600,000 people could have been prevented by buying slaves out, and there is ALWAYS a price, and it's ALWAYS less than 600,000 people's lives.
The North just doubled taxes on slave-products; obviously they didnt WANT to free them!
They wanted a bigger piece of the pie, not to let all the blackbirds fly out free (no racial pun intended)!
Slavery was only abolished as a LIQUIDATION-MEASURE where it was no longer PROFITABLE-- i.e. it was ended for purely ECONOMIC and RACIST reasons--NEVER humanitarian!!
The hyopcrisy is so thick, you KNOW they simply doth protest too much!
(Good call on national sovereignty of states, BTW)
Furthermore, ending slavery in sovereign nations is NEVER a reason to start a war against them-- and is strictly prohibited by EVERY NATION ON EARTH!
THAT is the real issue here-- and the reason that slavery is built up into some type of crime against humanity, when in reality only 1% of African slaves ever CAME to America-- and they had the HIGHEST standard of living among all of them.
It's standard Marxist proletarianism or Jihad, right out of The Communist Manifesto or Koran.
@SovereignStatesman Who attacked Fort Sumter that STARTED the war?! The south seceded and attacked the union's armaments and men at Fort Sumter. The union responded by getting a volunteer army to recapture federal property. To even suppose that the war was started to end slavery is to rewrite history to serve your ideology. The war was started to preserve slavery as stated by the seceding states at the time.
@romanmir01 The civil war started after southern states seceded because of a perceived threat to abolish slavery (as it hadn't been abolished at the start of the war) and what they said was a failure of northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act. Lincoln himself stated the war was about preserving the union whether slavery be abolished completely, in part, or not at all. Repeating Ron Paul's assertions no matter how many times doesn't make them true.
MSNBC just got fucking PWND! Lying idiots. Who was the douche at the end who said "you're talking to the wrong guy"? I'd love to debate that ignorant jackass!
Why? he's obviously a liar who would just weasel out of everything by spewing insults and dogma, he'd never argue legit. You'd need a good moderator, and he'd never agree to one.
Not a Paul fan but he's 100% correct on this issue! Slavery had nearly NOTHING to do with the Civil War. Liberals love to spew that bullshit lie. It was over economic oppression of the Southern States by the North, PERIOD!
Lincoln didn't give two shit about slavery "morning Joe"! What a douchebag!
@falcondriver100 Even if he did, it's a completely circular argument, since slavery was built up into a crime against humanity PRECISELY as a carte blanche to justify Lincoln's war by shill history!
Objectively, only 1% of African slaves ever came to the US, and they were the TOP 1% in living-standards among ALL of them; meanwhile elsewhere slaves were freed only to avoid them STARVING-- including the North!
So naturally, it became necessary to VILLIFY slavery in the south, to JUSTIFY the war.
@falcondriver100 So when South Carolina wrote the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union why did they only mention slavery and the failure to enforce the fugitive slave act as their reasons for secession? They didn't ever say anything about economic oppression and the tariff laws of the day were both written by southerners and gave them the lowest rates since 1816. Try looking up the facts.
Why did all the Western World Countries find a way to resolve slavery except the USA and Haiti? Haiti was also fighting for its Independence. So Mr. Lincoln why did you commit a MAJOR FAIL and plunge this country into a war that cost 600,000 lives and also caused the Federal Gov't to become the Monster it is today.....? It ain't Called The War of Northern Aggression For Nothing. God Bless Dixie!
@darrelpaulwilson1 What other western nations had nations inside of a nation? Where else was there a union of nations? To assert that Lincoln plunged us into civil war is to negate that the south seceded and South Carolina started the war by attacking Fort Sumter. It also ignores that Lincoln wanted to preserve the union not end slavery. You can call it northern aggression but usually the aggressor is the one who attacks the other so you may want to reconsider.
Its amazing how dumb a presidential canidate is. The civil war was fought to perserve the union, but the slavery debate is what split it apart. Lincolns only real goal was preserving the union, but slavery was at the wars roots and it was not a tool. Already by 1860 everyone else had dropped slavery, we needed to drop it immediately, and a war was needed
@mrogers301 you are an ignorant fool. The root cause for the US civil war was to ensure the power of the federal government and to prevent ability of individual States to go on their own because they felt that the contract (Constitution) was broken by the federal gov't.
Slavery only became a side-cause 2 years into the war, and Ron Paul is absolutely correct that it's much cheaper to buy out the slaves and free them and pass Constitutional amendment to end slavery on federal level.
@romanmir01 "The root cause for the US civil war was to ensure the power of the federal government and to prevent ability of individual States to go on their own because they felt that the contract (Constitution) was broken by the federal gov't."
Or to NULLIFY federal laws FOR ANY REASON; remember that this was INITIATED under the Jackson administration, which originally AUTHORIZED the use of military force against states which attempted it. This is ALL covered in my channel-video; please look.
@romanmir01 You need to get your facts straight. South Carolina as well as the other states all gave the reason of secession as slavery and you can go read the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and look it up yourself. The south perceived a threat to slavery in the national government so they seceded and then attacked Fort Sumter. What's this 2 years in BS?!
Ron Paul droppin knowledge once again on these dumb media whores....thats why Ab gave that famous speech "about fearing now even more than at war" cuz he realized what had happened aferwards....See how they twist his words Ron never said he STARTED the war he simply gave WHY it happened and Ab's view on slavery
@hashishclay If you want some knowledge dropped try doing some research yourself. Tariff rates where the lowest they had been since 1816 from a law written by southerners. The big evil tariff's are an invention and fabrication. The reasons given by the states who were seceding was slavery and the perceived threat against slavery as well as failure to enforce the fugitive slave act. Then South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter. Lincoln chose to enter the war to save the union.
@Zachmozach hahahahahahahah revisionist where stop reiterating what you learned from your high school history teacher..research myslef haha just got my ba in american history..how about research your self ..read a book "the real lincoln" by Dr.thomas dilorenzo..Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it .”
@hashishclay So you disagree with paul then on this then? Paul stated and defended that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery than going to war, but as you and I know obviously the union was going to war to preserve the union. They did this in reaction to secession of Southern states and the attack of Fort Sumter, after which Lincoln raised a militia to put down what he viewed as a treason.
@Zachmozach "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas.....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” And, “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. . . . We cannot, then, make them equals.” ..another book is "The har hand of war"
@Zachmozach Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in Marching through Georgia that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in “stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command” as war criminals...How did Britian, Spain, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, All of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish Colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. ..
@hashishclay Tell me which of these other countries you have listed where considered nations within in a nation or a union of nations? It seems to me that you're missing the point. The south seceded because they deemed that the northern states were not upholding their duties as stated in the constitution and returning fugitive slaves and a perceived threat to slavery and its expansion. This was the cause of the disunion. The north then entered to keep the union.
@Zachmozach your an idiot most countries besides very very very small ones are made up of states/provinces.your the one missing the point see i cite actual evidence and Lincolns personal quotes and rhetoric ..you keep spouting a skewed maintstream version of history that you learned in highschool..one minute you the north wasnt upholding the fugitive act now you the south seceded because the returned fugitive slaves?? and your just plain wrong
@hashishclay I've told you to look at the reasons for secession. The reason given by South Carolina was because of failure to return fugitive slaves as well as their view that the north with Lincoln as president would adopt anti-slavery legislation. They saw it as a threat to slavery and seceded. Lincoln entered the war to preserve the union as you have stated. You're straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are weak.
@77thNYSV DiLorenzo in his book "The Real Lincoln" said that he was in no way endorsing the former Confederacy but the idea of a limited, decentralized government, states rights, secesssion, and that Lincoln was a tyrant. DiLorenzo himself is a northerner. But despite this, I see no harm in one being pro south, why should someone not have love for their home?
@RevBillyRayCollins When the man speaks out in favor of the secession of the Confederacy he is a confederate sympathizer. But my point was that Ron Paul uses as his support a biased anti-Lincoln author when in reality he should be doing his own research or finding someone objective to examine the facts and then make a thesis, not the other way around.
@77thNYSV 1) I see no harm in being a confederate sympathizer, I am one. 2) Him speaking out in favor of secession simply means he believes in the legality of secession. The same way he would support the secession of the New England states had they of seceded during the Hartford Convention.
And how could one not be a biased anti-Lincoln author? If you are coming to such strong conclusions you must be biased. Teddy Roosevelt said that every good historian must pick sides. And nearly
McPherson is the biggest WHORE since Madonna met Geraldo.
He's obviously getting paid PENTY in money and prestige for being Pope and kool-aid steward in the Church of Lincoln.
Meanwhile someone like me only writes and researches for purely philosophical reasons, and I have no REASON to be biased one way or the other-- and in fact every reason NOT to be biased, by simple definition of the very term "phiosophical" itself.
You're implying that Dilorenzo is NOT objective, when if anything he's pro-Lincoln, in contrast to an objective analysis of the facts regarding the actual sovereignty of the individual states. So is Ron Paul by calling it "a civil war," necessary or otherwise. It wasn't.
"DiLorenzo in his book "The Real Lincoln" said that he was in no way endorsing the former Confederacy but the idea of a limited, decentralized government,"
In order to have that, it cannot be a NATIONAL government-- which is ALL-powerful by definition.
That's why the Union was always an INTERNATIONAL organization among INDIVIDUAL POPULARLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS, whose sovereign people simply DELEGATED powers to the federal government-- they never RELINQUISHED sovereignty!
I cannot back Ron Paul anymore if he's going to back Thomas DiLorenzo, a man who makes his living off of being a economic determinist who bashes Lincoln for his paychecks.
If America did not remain united after the Civil War it would have potentially been disasterous. Less than 100 years later we faced a hostile Japan & Nazi Germany. If we were not a strong, united nation with a strong federal government it would be conceivable that we could have lost WW2. And then in the cold war we could have lost out to communism that was taking over the globe. So these arguments that Paul uses have been proven wrong though out history, particularly the last 70 years.
Ron Paul goes on further to criticize Hamilton and federalism but ignoring the weakness that was built in the Articles of Confederation, the first failed constitution of America. America was too divided early after the Revolution and confederation failed. Paul still believes that confederation works. Abe Lincoln preserved the Union. Paul opposes the current union and opposes a strong federal government. Problem here is this issue has been laid to rest by Lincoln, the Civil War.
For Ron Paul to think that Lincoln could have ended slavery without a war is fallacious. Paul said every other country in the world ended slavery without war. That is really a false argument. Truth is in 1860 there were 4 million slaves in the South. They were the backbone of the south's economy. For the North to take slavery from the South would have started war. What ended up starting war was the electing of Abe Lincoln. The South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter (federal) facility.
I like Ron Paul. And I believe him when he says if elected President that he would radically cut federal spending and eliminate the Fed. The problem is he would face a Congress whether Democrat of Republican who would fight him tooth and nail to stop him. He also has some very strange ideas about Abe Lincoln, the civil war and slavery and I believe his ideas about them are dangerous.
Unreasonable people no intention to at least listen or read contrary perspectives. Ending it all with "crack pot". The interview falls apart and the commentators argument becomes a joke. RP is on the ball, it confuses the programmed media they confuse the sheep people .
@Jim46341 constitutions the right to secede, Virginia still to this day. If secession was illegal, why did some Congressmen in the mid 1800s try, and fail, to get an amendment passed to ban secession, if it was already illegal. How come so many people, including many of the founding fathers, have said that secession is a constitutional right.
@Jim46341 "the Supreme Court ruled that all secession was illegal because the union was "perpetual" (as per the Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION)." Well technically it was unilateral secession that they ruled to be unconstitutional. But if what else you say is correct, how come the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation when they created the Constitution. How come upon the original ratification of the Constitution, three states (VA, NY, RI) held in their state
People today do not understand how people in 1860 felt about slavery. As much as some in the north - and elsewhere - thought it was wrong, not one person fought to free the slaves. That is not why they fought. Blacks were considered to be less evolved humans, just much further back on the evolution cycle, and inferior to whites. Everyone thought that. Like a cross between human and ape. Some felt it was wrong to enslave them and some didn't. The Civil was was about succession, not the slaves.
Ron Paul's ridiculous version of history is only convincing to people who are totally unfamiliar with the Civil War. Does he seriously believe that the South would have accepted an antislavery amendment without going to war? The election of an antislavery president, Lincoln, was enough to provoke secession. If Lincoln had allowed the South to secede over slavery, but we wouldn't have the US now, slavery would have continued another 50 years, and there would be no civil rights in the South.
@Thucydides411 His idiot son on maddow was against civil rights and pro segregation, unlike his homophobic bigoted father he was too stupid to lie about not hating blacks.
Naturally his mentally retarded cultists ignore his racist homophobic publications
@dffykvn it is just part of the libertarian philosophy that we will eventually gravitate toward civil rights and desegregation without the use of law. Ron and Rand Paul are libertarian. The market systems and strong peace movements would provide all the necessary pressure, in theory.
@dffykvn I'm not saying that slavery should stay legal. You have to recognize that at the time, southern culture embraced slavery. You are right about why the south seceded, but slavery wasn't the only reason. Tyranny is forcing states to be a part of a Union they didn't want to be in.Secession was legal, so they were justified to leave. The Unions were building and resupplying ammunitions at Ft. Sumter in preparation for war, the preemptive at attack was also justified.
@rzxwm1 Dude, slavery was in their founding documents
And I call bullshit on your definition of tyranny
Now if I raped you (or if you're female your wife/daughter/wife and daughter at the same time) impregnated them then sold the child off to another man which would be tyranny
A) Saying that that's legal
B) Saying that it isn't legal
And don't bullshit me about slavery dying out as an institution
The only countries that ended slavery ended them via the legal system
Lincoln wasn't a saint, the people fighting under him weren't saints
Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue to preserve the union even though he didn't like slavery or want it to continue
But ending it violently and telling the southern aristocrats to shut their fucking whiny mouths about it is a lot better than living in the 21st century where it's legal to own other people, hobble them, rape them etc
Anyone who complains about the souths freedom (to own slaves!!!!) taken away is either an idiot who probably doesn't know what freedom even means or a racist who's pissed off he can't own people.
Tell me, do you really think an america that had jim crow, race based prison slavery after the civil war had to have the government crack down on those practices only to still have prison labor doing what regular workers should be doing and only "recently" had the govt desegregate wouldn't still have slavery?
If you think we wouldn't have it down south to this day do you really live in the same america I live in?
@dffykvn No one is advocating for slavery. The argument is for a more peaceful solution to end slavery. The market was already in effect during the civil war. One of the reason the south lost was because Europe halt trade with them. The South was embargoed. Clearly, the market has enough pressure to make the South economy. Jim Crow was a reactionary response to the FORCE lost of slaves. These laws were permitted in the US because racism existed (in the north and south).
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
@dffykvn I live in the same america you do. I see that we are policing the entire world when we are in debt. I see that our liberty is being taken away from us. Our miranda rights are now gone, thanks to the passing NDAA. The fourth amendment has been repeal by the Patriot Act. We are attacking nations without a declaration of war and creating more enemies than allies. War-mongers always receive blowbacks and resentment.
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
@jedi2rock Right...so let's totally excuse Lincoln's deception of the Southern Secession Council and two Supreme Court justice mediators as to his true intentions in fortifying Sumter as well as the shameless artifice involved in his portrayal of Northern "humanitarianism" as the prime motivation for the troop mobilization to bring bread to "starving" Major Anderson.
@jedi2rock Or the fact that Lincoln openly admitted his scheme to force the South to fire upon bread to close friend and confidant Senator Orville Browning who recorded the full conversation in his daily diary. Keep your divine providence bullshit out of history; Lincoln engineered the war to consolidate a national union by destroying Southern credibility and economic viability with oppressive tariffs, the reduction of states rights, and an unconstitutionally invoked militia.
@OperationIntrudeN313 There were no oppressive tariffs against the South at the time of the Civil War. In fact, tariffs weren't even mentioned by the Southern states in their declarations of secession. Do you know what they did mention in those declarations? Slavery. In fact, the declarations that each seceding state passed were almost exclusively about slavery, and how the evil North was going to free their slaves if they didn't defend their "right" to own other human beings.
@Thucydides411 This is like babies first Civil War. Saying the sole reason for the Civil War was slavery is ignorant. While there might not have been protective tariffs against the South specifically, European nations like England put taxes on our cotton because of their holdings in Egypt. Also the simple differences between the North and the South at this time precipitated the split. The South was very conservative and rural, the north very progressive and industrial.
@metzger90 Without slavery, there would have been no Civil War. It was the overriding issue of the time, and the South seceded in order to preserve it. The South didn't secede because England was taxing its cotton, or simply because the North was more industrial. The South was afraid that free states would come to dominate national politics, and eventually outlaw slavery. Nowadays, apologists for the Confederacy like Ron Paul call that "states' rights" - the "right" to treat humans as property.
@dffykvn Slavery was one of the reason the Confederacy was form, but the North wanted unification and end the idea of secession. The north used slavery as one of the reason for the war, but the true agenda was to promote a strong national govt., and weak state govt.
@Thucydides411 O'rly...then what's this then? "On March 2, President Buchanan signed the Morril Tariff into law, which was the highest protective tariff in American history, and by early 1862, it reached the averaged amount of 47.06 percent." - Frank Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, pg. 167
Conveniently imposing protective tariffs on European goods, the primary source for Southern imports, sounds pretty oppressive to me.
@OperationIntrudeN313 The Morrill Tariff was passed after the South had already seceded. It was only possible to pass such a tariff because the southern states had withdrawn their representatives from Congress. It replaced the Tariff of 1857, which was written by Southerners. So you're wrong.
And that was in 2008, look to what lengths they will delve to discredit him. They are doing the same right now in 2011 and it's not working anymore. I really hope those who have been weaned on television are paying attention, lest we should have four more years with the puppet and perhaps a collapse.
The way the media addresses controversial matters tells me that almost every alternative history book written is in the right. Would you like to take that back? Because you've challenged an important pillar of our propaganda and there cannot be dissent or a debate about the facts. We are slaves who are told what to think and who to vote for, I didn't use to think this way, but the more I watch here on YT and read online, the more I am sure of it.
Oh lincoln was the best president ever he only wanted to help the slaves. Read up and you will see Dr. Paul is absolutely correct on this issue and mindless lincoln lovers attack him cause it doesn't fit their fake history. Did you know that Abe executed 149 Sioux indians, imprisoned 10000 people that wrote against him, read about sherman the psycho you will see true history is quite different then 3rd grade social studies, Jefferson stated secession was a right
@dffykvn the slaves part is bad I do not like slavery,this is from the view point of taking away liberty, that said emancipation didn't free all the slaves including border states to the Confederacy or in the north, just the south . Those were slaves were freed on a state and local level. The founders liked the idea of succession to avoid a tyrannical government as leverage and to possibly to leave at a final measure to ensure the republic government. Now the feds have more power than states
@jackfoxxy he obviously doesn't think Lincoln could have ended slavery by magic, the point he was making is that if Lincoln and the republican party had actually cared about ending slavery they could have easily passed an emancipation bill with their significant majority in congress. The truth is Lincoln and the Republicans did not care about slavery they cared about protectionism, because of this they left slavery untouched in the northern states.
@monkeyfire087 The south felt so strongly about their right to slaves that Lincoln's election caused secession of SC, MD, TN, and TX. They specifically said that they refused to live under a President who doesn't support the right to slavery. The country was nowhere near ready for a bill abolishing slavery; the task would have been impossible. It wasn't until the sixties that it became the social norm to have black people and white people drinking from the same water fountain.
@jackfoxxy Lincoln and the republican openly supported an amendment to the Constitution that would make it illegal for the federal government ever to interfere with the institution of slavery so he was obviously not anti slavery. there were mounting tensions over many issues at the time the south had finally had enough and left. but honestly its a mute point it doesn't matter why the south chose to secede, they had a right to self government.
@monkeyfire087 read his journals, read the debates, check the history. he hated slavery. Paul's quote of Lincoln in which he writes "if i could save the union without freeing a slave i would do it" is the central argument point for those who would slander lincoln. it is completely taken out of context. if Paul were to take a few hours to actually read lincoln's writings and observe his actions, he may not come across as quite so ignorant.
@dffykvn Ron Paul clearly state that slavery was wrong, and there was a better, more peaceful way to abolish slavery. As many European nations got rid of slavery without a war. He is arguing that the war was mainly to protect the union and end the idea of succession once and for all. Despite the fact the the founding fathers and many abolitionist believes that states could and should secede if necessary to avoid federal tyranny.
@monkeyfire087 Not magic, by passing a new law. Such an extreme bill at that time would be like suddenly eliminating the right to free speech today. American citizens had a right to own slaves. To suddenly take away a right from the American people... it couldn't be done. There would be outrage and impeachment. Even those who were against slavery in those days still viewed African Americans as lesser then themselves and Abolitionists were in the severe minority.
What a travesty!! This Dick Wad who has a nice face but a IQ of a camel challenges an outstanding doctor...
I think Dr. Ron Paul should have just said "excuse me but what are your credentials that allow you to debate me??... And if you take your earpiece out lets see how good of a 'thinker on your feet you really are??..'
toyota412 6 days ago
@toyota412 I think it's funny that he called DeLorenzo an historian.
The host obviously doesn't know anything about the civil war because he said South Carolina "succeeded" (as a matter of fact, they failed).
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
The truth is great!!!
thebigblacksmith 1 week ago
Lincoln did not save the union, he destroyed it, and the republic. He could not bear to lose the revenues from the South, which was providing over 75% of the money to the federal government, and getting very little in return. The crackpots here are the pathetic "journalists" who refuse to belive true history, and worship Lincoln. Lincoln did start the war when he caused force to be used by the South to prevent resupplying Fort Sumter. Lincoln killed the Constitution.
cwi1000 1 week ago
@cwi1000 I'm really getting sick of all the ignorant neo-confederates on the internet. They have access to the internet, they can research the events leading up to the civil war. They can read all the words of the founding fathers showing that the Constitution is a compact and it's intended to be "in toto and for ever". I can understand why the real confederates thought they were fighting for liberty. They were duped and didn't have access to the info we have. The modern ones have no excuse.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "I'm really getting sick of all the ignorant neo-confederates" That is the language of division. But if you cant handle the heat then step out of the ring. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Washignton, Taylor, Henry, all made many comments on the causse of which I speak, which you know all to well. Such blatant lies on your part and utter revisonist cherry pickin belief, like Jefferson was against self government! Ha, is revolting.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Jesus Christ. If the confederates supported self-government, they wouldn't have forced East Tennessee to secede with the rest of the south. They wanted to govern themselves and anyone else they possibly could. They were power hungry despots. When they realized they were going to lose control of the country, they started a war.
KayBeeEee1983 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 "they wouldn't have forced East Tennessee to secede with the rest of the south." Hey, no ones perfect, you certainly can't have a bunch of splinter groups roaming around. I would have to agree with the rest of your points, though I would pretty it up a little bit. When the South lost all hope they took up arms. What else can I say? But its that romanticized version of the 'Lost Cause' which we all hold so dear, at least I do anyway. Is there anything wrong in that?
RevBillyRayCollins 3 days ago
morning Joe, talk about the issues that matter now,stupid media!!!!
2bfreeism 1 week ago
@2bfreeism Our politicians need to understand American history. History repeats itself. The cliche is true. Right before the civil war, the economy was in a recession because of irresponsible land speculation and bank deregulation. And anyone who thinks that Lincoln destroyed the Republic and the Constitution by not allowing the south to secede is ignorant of the Constitution (Ron Paul is one of those people).
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
I'm not even a Ron Paul follower - although libertarian I do believe in a foreign policy with teeth - however, he absolutely destroyed these blatantly unprofessional, condescending..I don't even want to call them journalist or talk show hosts, these people are an arm of the DNC.
spacecowboynj 2 weeks ago
If ONLY we had let the South secede, and put a total ban on emigration from thereabouts forever after. America would be a prosperous, modern country living in peace with the rest of the world, and Dixieland would be the third world shithole they're so desperately trying to drag us all down into.
leviathanopolitan 3 weeks ago 5
@leviathanopolitan And all the enslaved black folks? Fuck 'em! Walk away! Who gives a shit, amirite?
You people are insane.
diqtits 1 week ago 2
@diqtits You realize they weren't really free'd at this time. In language only. If it wasn't a war time strategic action (no one wanted the slaves freed, even Lincoln) The war started because someone took office and said 'to hell with the constitution and states right, i'll do what I want" to which the south said "10th amendment. peace out" to which Lincoln said he wouldn't let the union fall apart even if it took force.
slavery is wrong, but there were better ways to go about ending it.
techmosis 3 days ago
It should be known that Lincoln had a plan to gradually emancipate slaves with compensation but it was rejected by all but the district of Columbia. His proclamation came only after the south had seceded because they feared an end to the institution of slavery and then attacked Fort Sumter and took control of other federal forts. Lincoln himself thought that his hand on this issue had become forced and it was the only way to preserve the union at this point. Paul doesn't seem to get this.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
I thinks its amazing that in 2012 we are looking at the Civil War and reasons for entering differently than the homgenized version we teach our school kids. I think this is a good thing and the TV anchor, whoever he is, was so proud of his position until Paul slayed him with logic (why did it take 600K to die when other nations did it w.o war) and the relatively new position that the US should have bought their freedom. Its refreshing to hear new takes on an old position; both sides.
lumberg48108 1 month ago
@lumberg48108 The 600k died to preserve the union. Why did the south secede? They felt slavery as an institution was being threatened. So the possibility to say buy the slaves freedom from slave owners was not a possibility and it's a joke. They seceded to stop any attempt by the federal government to free slaves or stop slavery. Revisionist historians have tried to lessen the south's responsibility in the war for quite sometime and it's based in myth.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach you have a very skewed version and dont know of the ties of the north and lincoln to the banking cabal...your a shill with no independent thought and cant get over the fact that war wasn ALL ABOUT SLAVERY AND THATS IT...lol read a book
hashishclay 1 month ago
@hashishclay It's not all about slavery and I didn't say that. The reason South Carolina seceded was because of slavery. They stated this themselves as I previously pointed out. What should Lincoln have done in response to secession? Offer to buy slaves in order to emancipate them after they had seceded from a perceived threat to end slavery? If your argument is that secession should have been allowed then you can argue that, but how about you read a book on argument first?
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach Not me - I understand who played the roles and why things happened, to some degree. But I think they old school notion that "Lincoln freed the slaves" does not need to be taught and a healthy discussion of what could or could not have been done to avoid the war should be held. We have that same discussion now regardiung Iraq - why not the Civil War. It is also a fatc that every western country abolished slavery w/o a war.
lumberg48108 1 month ago
@lumberg48108 Britain abolished slavery in 1833.
ON June 28 1860 Southern Democrats nominate Vice President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky for President. Their platform endorses a national slave code.
In fact the so called Confederate States of America central government power was more total than ever before.
but dont let the facts get in the way.
LukeCageforhire 2 weeks ago
@LukeCageforhire "Britain abolished slavery in 1833."
Not quite. The territories controlled by the East India Company, Ceylon, and St. Helena got to keep slavery. Britain only abolished it where it was no longer profitable.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@lumberg48108 "I think they old school notion that "Lincoln freed the slaves" does not need to be taught"
It's not taught.
"and a healthy discussion of what could or could not have been done to avoid the war should be held."
Like guarding the arsenals better? What else? The deep southern states would not tolerate the Republicans.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
@lumberg48108 "It is also a fatc that every western country abolished slavery w/o a war."
It's also a fact that the point of the war was not to end slavery. Abolition was just a fortunate side effect.
KayBeeEee1983 5 days ago
When Kool-aid gets thirsty, he goes HEY SCARBOROUGH!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Here's the problem: Ron Paul says that "Hamiltonians wanted a strong national government..."
There is no such thing as a WEAK national government; a national government, by definition, is ABSOLUTE in power, with NO LIMIT on what it can or can't do; any limitation is purely SUBJECTIVE.
So in order to be limited in power, the federal government CANNOT BE NATIONAL, since the People of the Union are NOT the sovereigns, as they are with the individual states.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman
Also: note that Ron Paul calls it an "unnecessary civil war".
By calling it "a civil war," Ron Paul basically forfeits the argument, since that implies that the USA is a sovereign nation-- which, by definition, has the absolute right to preserve and maintain its sovereign territorial integrity against secession-attempts, JUST like against invasions.
However the USA is NOT a sovereign nation--on the contrary, each STATE is a sovereign nation unto itself, so secession is OK
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Not always, not in case of Switzerland for example. The national government has less power over people than canton governments do (sort of like 'states').
romanmir01 1 month ago
Listen to this Douchebag---
"You would suggest that Lincoln STARTED the Civil War, and just to get rid of the original intent of the republic!"
Would you like to take this opportunity to publicly TAKE BACK those remarks?"
Oh HEAVENS! You DARE to question and defame our GREAT FUHRER?!!!!
Fucking butthurt sheep-shill.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Same myths as always... Tariffs were not the reason or economics. Southerners had written the tariff of 1857 and had the lowest rates since 1816. The reasons given for South Carolina seceding in the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union talks about slavery as the reason to secede. He's just propping up the same ideology as always.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach
Or maybe sovereign nations have the right to secede from unions FOR ANY FUCKING REASON THEY WANT.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman I'm not arguing against rights of secession from the Union. I was pointing out that Ron Paul is perpetuating myth rather than clear historical fact. The reasons he gave for secession were invented after the fact and are not supported by factual evidence. South Carolina specifically gave the reason of not enforcing the fugitive slave act and the perceived threat of abolishing slavery.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
It's "Dr. Paul", you mass-media establishment dipshits.
striker3369 1 month ago
Comment removed
striker3369 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I swear on the alter of Almighty God that if I ever see that smart-ass idiot that arrogantly and foolishly called Paul a "crackpot", that I will punch him straight in the mouth so dang hard that his nickname will be "crackhead" for his entire freaking life.
isaias1776 1 month ago
Comment removed
isaias1776 1 month ago
Ending slavery was not the reason to START the war, and slavery can be ended much CHEAPER without a war and without killing 600,000 people.
You buy the slaves and free them and you pass a Constitutional amendment to ensure slavery is illegal on the Federal level and you fight it with enormous IMPORT TAXES and eventually nobody has any slaves.
Ron Paul 2012.
romanmir01 1 month ago
@romanmir01 are you this dense, they wouldnt give up the slaves... they wouldnt pay the taxes. thats why there was an actual physical war... duh
13stevejohnson 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson The war was about sovereignty, not about slavery or taxes, though those things of-course are up to the sovereign nation to decide upon.
However there is always a price for the goods on the market, priced correctly slaves could have been bought out, that's what happened in most other cases where slavery was abolished.
romanmir01 1 month ago
@romanmir01 you really think a given price would have made the southern slave owners whos total wealth was agricultural give up there slaves? why give up free labor and free wealth? you cant put a price on that. they would have said no. there had to be a war dude... we had to physically free the slaves!
13stevejohnson 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson
Slaves are not FREE. They represent a specific dollar-investment, and have a specific cost in lifelong support-obligations which has to be discounted against their productive value,which has to be weighed against the cost of free labor.
And with the coming of labor from China and Europe with the invention of steam-vessels and transcontinental railroads, the Irish Potato-Famine etc, that value was PLUMMETING.
But the North didn't WANT to free slaves--but to TAX them for pork!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman this is what you teabagger idiots dont understand. you must have taxes in order for a society to function. no taxes, no peace. read hobbes and the state of nature
13stevejohnson 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson
Yeah right society didn't function before 1913, geez you're dumb.
Then I guess you think it can't function without a federal reserve either.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson In fact in the North the industrial revolution was the real cause behind ending of slavery, because slavery is uneconomic, free people work better.
However, yes, the cost of war and loss of 600,000 people could have been prevented by buying slaves out, and there is ALWAYS a price, and it's ALWAYS less than 600,000 people's lives.
romanmir01 1 month ago
@romanmir01
The North just doubled taxes on slave-products; obviously they didnt WANT to free them!
They wanted a bigger piece of the pie, not to let all the blackbirds fly out free (no racial pun intended)!
Slavery was only abolished as a LIQUIDATION-MEASURE where it was no longer PROFITABLE-- i.e. it was ended for purely ECONOMIC and RACIST reasons--NEVER humanitarian!!
The hyopcrisy is so thick, you KNOW they simply doth protest too much!
(Good call on national sovereignty of states, BTW)
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@13stevejohnson
Sovereign nations can refused to do that, yeah.
It's what makes them SOVEREIGN.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@romanmir01 Thumbs Up*
SouljaAli810Flint 1 month ago
@romanmir01
Furthermore, ending slavery in sovereign nations is NEVER a reason to start a war against them-- and is strictly prohibited by EVERY NATION ON EARTH!
THAT is the real issue here-- and the reason that slavery is built up into some type of crime against humanity, when in reality only 1% of African slaves ever CAME to America-- and they had the HIGHEST standard of living among all of them.
It's standard Marxist proletarianism or Jihad, right out of The Communist Manifesto or Koran.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Who attacked Fort Sumter that STARTED the war?! The south seceded and attacked the union's armaments and men at Fort Sumter. The union responded by getting a volunteer army to recapture federal property. To even suppose that the war was started to end slavery is to rewrite history to serve your ideology. The war was started to preserve slavery as stated by the seceding states at the time.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach
The states are sovereign nations.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@romanmir01 The civil war started after southern states seceded because of a perceived threat to abolish slavery (as it hadn't been abolished at the start of the war) and what they said was a failure of northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act. Lincoln himself stated the war was about preserving the union whether slavery be abolished completely, in part, or not at all. Repeating Ron Paul's assertions no matter how many times doesn't make them true.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
MSNBC just got fucking PWND! Lying idiots. Who was the douche at the end who said "you're talking to the wrong guy"? I'd love to debate that ignorant jackass!
falcondriver100 1 month ago
@falcondriver100
Joe Scarborough?
Why? he's obviously a liar who would just weasel out of everything by spewing insults and dogma, he'd never argue legit. You'd need a good moderator, and he'd never agree to one.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Not a Paul fan but he's 100% correct on this issue! Slavery had nearly NOTHING to do with the Civil War. Liberals love to spew that bullshit lie. It was over economic oppression of the Southern States by the North, PERIOD!
Lincoln didn't give two shit about slavery "morning Joe"! What a douchebag!
falcondriver100 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@falcondriver100 Even if he did, it's a completely circular argument, since slavery was built up into a crime against humanity PRECISELY as a carte blanche to justify Lincoln's war by shill history!
Objectively, only 1% of African slaves ever came to the US, and they were the TOP 1% in living-standards among ALL of them; meanwhile elsewhere slaves were freed only to avoid them STARVING-- including the North!
So naturally, it became necessary to VILLIFY slavery in the south, to JUSTIFY the war.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@falcondriver100 So when South Carolina wrote the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union why did they only mention slavery and the failure to enforce the fugitive slave act as their reasons for secession? They didn't ever say anything about economic oppression and the tariff laws of the day were both written by southerners and gave them the lowest rates since 1816. Try looking up the facts.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
Why did all the Western World Countries find a way to resolve slavery except the USA and Haiti? Haiti was also fighting for its Independence. So Mr. Lincoln why did you commit a MAJOR FAIL and plunge this country into a war that cost 600,000 lives and also caused the Federal Gov't to become the Monster it is today.....? It ain't Called The War of Northern Aggression For Nothing. God Bless Dixie!
darrelpaulwilson1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darrelpaulwilson1 "Why did all the Western World Countries find a way to resolve slavery except the USA and Haiti?"
Actually they didn't-- the way found THEM, by slavery becoming UNPROFITABLE.
Same with the Northern states.
Just one more proof that the claim of "war of abolition" is a big steaming pile of hypocrisy.
They didn't want to free slaves-- they wanted TAX them, but it just backfired and they got away!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@darrelpaulwilson1 What other western nations had nations inside of a nation? Where else was there a union of nations? To assert that Lincoln plunged us into civil war is to negate that the south seceded and South Carolina started the war by attacking Fort Sumter. It also ignores that Lincoln wanted to preserve the union not end slavery. You can call it northern aggression but usually the aggressor is the one who attacks the other so you may want to reconsider.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
Wow, "Morning Joe" is such a slimy, smarmy, little douche bag.
heatseekerx51 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heatseekerx51 >"Morning Joe" is such a slimy, smarmy, little douche bag.
That's a LIE!
He's the BIGGEST douchebag I've EVER seen!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Its amazing how dumb a presidential canidate is. The civil war was fought to perserve the union, but the slavery debate is what split it apart. Lincolns only real goal was preserving the union, but slavery was at the wars roots and it was not a tool. Already by 1860 everyone else had dropped slavery, we needed to drop it immediately, and a war was needed
mrogers301 1 month ago
@mrogers301 you are an ignorant fool. The root cause for the US civil war was to ensure the power of the federal government and to prevent ability of individual States to go on their own because they felt that the contract (Constitution) was broken by the federal gov't.
Slavery only became a side-cause 2 years into the war, and Ron Paul is absolutely correct that it's much cheaper to buy out the slaves and free them and pass Constitutional amendment to end slavery on federal level.
romanmir01 1 month ago
@romanmir01 "The root cause for the US civil war was to ensure the power of the federal government and to prevent ability of individual States to go on their own because they felt that the contract (Constitution) was broken by the federal gov't."
Or to NULLIFY federal laws FOR ANY REASON; remember that this was INITIATED under the Jackson administration, which originally AUTHORIZED the use of military force against states which attempted it. This is ALL covered in my channel-video; please look.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romanmir01 You need to get your facts straight. South Carolina as well as the other states all gave the reason of secession as slavery and you can go read the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and look it up yourself. The south perceived a threat to slavery in the national government so they seceded and then attacked Fort Sumter. What's this 2 years in BS?!
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@mrogers301
Ever heard of the 5th Amendment right against property-infringement without just compensation?
Tell me, how much were the slave-owners COMPENSATED for the infringement against their right to slavery in the territories?
I'll help you: NOTHING!
So how much were they able to expect from further infrigements?
Take the first answer and double it, and you get the idea.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Ron Paul fucking shit up, what a surprise.
Erictheredd2 1 month ago
@Erictheredd2
He sure fucked up that little shit Joe Scarborough!
Just like he fucks up EVERY TV-douchebag that parrots the old kool-aid.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Ron Paul is nuts and so are his Paulistinians
WonderBread006 1 month ago
@WonderBread006
More they HAVE nuts-- unlike you neutered partisan lapdogs.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Ron Paul is a loon...
Alexr197 1 month ago
@Alexr197
So was Neil Armstrong!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul for president!!!Ron Paul for president!!!Ron Paul for president!!!
chrisiden1 1 month ago
Ron Paul droppin knowledge once again on these dumb media whores....thats why Ab gave that famous speech "about fearing now even more than at war" cuz he realized what had happened aferwards....See how they twist his words Ron never said he STARTED the war he simply gave WHY it happened and Ab's view on slavery
hashishclay 1 month ago 7
@hashishclay If you want some knowledge dropped try doing some research yourself. Tariff rates where the lowest they had been since 1816 from a law written by southerners. The big evil tariff's are an invention and fabrication. The reasons given by the states who were seceding was slavery and the perceived threat against slavery as well as failure to enforce the fugitive slave act. Then South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter. Lincoln chose to enter the war to save the union.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach hahahahahahahah revisionist where stop reiterating what you learned from your high school history teacher..research myslef haha just got my ba in american history..how about research your self ..read a book "the real lincoln" by Dr.thomas dilorenzo..Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it .”
hashishclay 1 month ago
@hashishclay So you disagree with paul then on this then? Paul stated and defended that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery than going to war, but as you and I know obviously the union was going to war to preserve the union. They did this in reaction to secession of Southern states and the attack of Fort Sumter, after which Lincoln raised a militia to put down what he viewed as a treason.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races,” he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas.....I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” And, “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. . . . We cannot, then, make them equals.” ..another book is "The har hand of war"
hashishclay 1 month ago
@Zachmozach Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in Marching through Georgia that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in “stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command” as war criminals...How did Britian, Spain, Argentina, Columbia, Chile, All of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish Colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. ..
hashishclay 1 month ago
@hashishclay Tell me which of these other countries you have listed where considered nations within in a nation or a union of nations? It seems to me that you're missing the point. The south seceded because they deemed that the northern states were not upholding their duties as stated in the constitution and returning fugitive slaves and a perceived threat to slavery and its expansion. This was the cause of the disunion. The north then entered to keep the union.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
@Zachmozach your an idiot most countries besides very very very small ones are made up of states/provinces.your the one missing the point see i cite actual evidence and Lincolns personal quotes and rhetoric ..you keep spouting a skewed maintstream version of history that you learned in highschool..one minute you the north wasnt upholding the fugitive act now you the south seceded because the returned fugitive slaves?? and your just plain wrong
hashishclay 1 month ago
@hashishclay I've told you to look at the reasons for secession. The reason given by South Carolina was because of failure to return fugitive slaves as well as their view that the north with Lincoln as president would adopt anti-slavery legislation. They saw it as a threat to slavery and seceded. Lincoln entered the war to preserve the union as you have stated. You're straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are weak.
Zachmozach 1 month ago
Thomas DiLorenzo is a pro-south Confederate sympathizer. I suggest Ron Paul actually research and stay away from biased literature.
77thNYSV 1 month ago 2
@77thNYSV DiLorenzo in his book "The Real Lincoln" said that he was in no way endorsing the former Confederacy but the idea of a limited, decentralized government, states rights, secesssion, and that Lincoln was a tyrant. DiLorenzo himself is a northerner. But despite this, I see no harm in one being pro south, why should someone not have love for their home?
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins When the man speaks out in favor of the secession of the Confederacy he is a confederate sympathizer. But my point was that Ron Paul uses as his support a biased anti-Lincoln author when in reality he should be doing his own research or finding someone objective to examine the facts and then make a thesis, not the other way around.
77thNYSV 1 month ago
@77thNYSV 1) I see no harm in being a confederate sympathizer, I am one. 2) Him speaking out in favor of secession simply means he believes in the legality of secession. The same way he would support the secession of the New England states had they of seceded during the Hartford Convention.
And how could one not be a biased anti-Lincoln author? If you are coming to such strong conclusions you must be biased. Teddy Roosevelt said that every good historian must pick sides. And nearly
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
How could one not be a biased anti-Lincoln author?
Easy: by being SANE.
I'm not an anti-Lincoln author, I simply observe BASED ON THE FACTS that he was the most deranged lunatic and charlatan in world history.
That's neither for pro nor anti-Lincoln, any more 2+2 is pro or anti-FOUR.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@77thNYSV every hoistorian is biased. James McPherson is biased towards Lincoln and the Union. Its nothing new.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
McPherson is the biggest WHORE since Madonna met Geraldo.
He's obviously getting paid PENTY in money and prestige for being Pope and kool-aid steward in the Church of Lincoln.
Meanwhile someone like me only writes and researches for purely philosophical reasons, and I have no REASON to be biased one way or the other-- and in fact every reason NOT to be biased, by simple definition of the very term "phiosophical" itself.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're implying that Dilorenzo is NOT objective, when if anything he's pro-Lincoln, in contrast to an objective analysis of the facts regarding the actual sovereignty of the individual states. So is Ron Paul by calling it "a civil war," necessary or otherwise. It wasn't.
So you're DEAD wrong.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
"DiLorenzo in his book "The Real Lincoln" said that he was in no way endorsing the former Confederacy but the idea of a limited, decentralized government,"
In order to have that, it cannot be a NATIONAL government-- which is ALL-powerful by definition.
That's why the Union was always an INTERNATIONAL organization among INDIVIDUAL POPULARLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS, whose sovereign people simply DELEGATED powers to the federal government-- they never RELINQUISHED sovereignty!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
I cannot back Ron Paul anymore if he's going to back Thomas DiLorenzo, a man who makes his living off of being a economic determinist who bashes Lincoln for his paychecks.
GProduct 1 month ago
If America did not remain united after the Civil War it would have potentially been disasterous. Less than 100 years later we faced a hostile Japan & Nazi Germany. If we were not a strong, united nation with a strong federal government it would be conceivable that we could have lost WW2. And then in the cold war we could have lost out to communism that was taking over the globe. So these arguments that Paul uses have been proven wrong though out history, particularly the last 70 years.
jimmys1978 1 month ago
Ron Paul goes on further to criticize Hamilton and federalism but ignoring the weakness that was built in the Articles of Confederation, the first failed constitution of America. America was too divided early after the Revolution and confederation failed. Paul still believes that confederation works. Abe Lincoln preserved the Union. Paul opposes the current union and opposes a strong federal government. Problem here is this issue has been laid to rest by Lincoln, the Civil War.
jimmys1978 1 month ago
For Ron Paul to think that Lincoln could have ended slavery without a war is fallacious. Paul said every other country in the world ended slavery without war. That is really a false argument. Truth is in 1860 there were 4 million slaves in the South. They were the backbone of the south's economy. For the North to take slavery from the South would have started war. What ended up starting war was the electing of Abe Lincoln. The South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter (federal) facility.
jimmys1978 1 month ago
I like Ron Paul. And I believe him when he says if elected President that he would radically cut federal spending and eliminate the Fed. The problem is he would face a Congress whether Democrat of Republican who would fight him tooth and nail to stop him. He also has some very strange ideas about Abe Lincoln, the civil war and slavery and I believe his ideas about them are dangerous.
jimmys1978 1 month ago
@starofsatan666 Look, this is the truth. Abraham Lincoln wanted black men to fuck white women. :^)
willabema 1 month ago
and fuck that guy who calls Ron Paul a crackpot he's supposed to be acting professional and discredits himself
kevboslice112 1 month ago
lincoln still allowed slavery in some states after the civil war just not the confederate ones
kevboslice112 1 month ago
So what? Lincoln did start it. What's wrong with what Paul said?
dldl43b 1 month ago
Unreasonable people no intention to at least listen or read contrary perspectives. Ending it all with "crack pot". The interview falls apart and the commentators argument becomes a joke. RP is on the ball, it confuses the programmed media they confuse the sheep people .
MyXLrobot 1 month ago
@Jim46341 Sorry, Darwin was not the first to suspect evolution, and slavery was hardly the issue. Evolution is a very, very old idea.
2NaughtyLittleFly2 1 month ago
@Jim46341 constitutions the right to secede, Virginia still to this day. If secession was illegal, why did some Congressmen in the mid 1800s try, and fail, to get an amendment passed to ban secession, if it was already illegal. How come so many people, including many of the founding fathers, have said that secession is a constitutional right.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
@Jim46341 "the Supreme Court ruled that all secession was illegal because the union was "perpetual" (as per the Articles of Confederation AND PERPETUAL UNION)." Well technically it was unilateral secession that they ruled to be unconstitutional. But if what else you say is correct, how come the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation when they created the Constitution. How come upon the original ratification of the Constitution, three states (VA, NY, RI) held in their state
RevBillyRayCollins 1 month ago
lol, go learn history Morning Joe folks, Abe was actually a big racist.
Gohndim 1 month ago
Col. j. jewkobs. ziofasists dog. david jewster ziofasists pig. micka jewzinski ziofasists whore. one day.....
67wjordan 1 month ago
Lincoln freed the slaves and turned us all into serfs. RP 2012
hudi42 1 month ago
I never realized that ron paul knew abe lincoln wasn't an abolitionist. i like this guy
Hawkins1117 1 month ago
Ron Paul: Freedom and liberty for everyone other than those damn darkies!
dffykvn 2 months ago
Lincoln was a tyrant that ignored the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
Whipperin1 2 months ago
People today do not understand how people in 1860 felt about slavery. As much as some in the north - and elsewhere - thought it was wrong, not one person fought to free the slaves. That is not why they fought. Blacks were considered to be less evolved humans, just much further back on the evolution cycle, and inferior to whites. Everyone thought that. Like a cross between human and ape. Some felt it was wrong to enslave them and some didn't. The Civil was was about succession, not the slaves.
2NaughtyLittleFly2 2 months ago
Mainstream biased media ignoring the historical truth and Ron Paul owns them! That guy was so flustered lol
Rizzo5ify 2 months ago
Ron Paul's ridiculous version of history is only convincing to people who are totally unfamiliar with the Civil War. Does he seriously believe that the South would have accepted an antislavery amendment without going to war? The election of an antislavery president, Lincoln, was enough to provoke secession. If Lincoln had allowed the South to secede over slavery, but we wouldn't have the US now, slavery would have continued another 50 years, and there would be no civil rights in the South.
Thucydides411 2 months ago
@Thucydides411 His idiot son on maddow was against civil rights and pro segregation, unlike his homophobic bigoted father he was too stupid to lie about not hating blacks.
Naturally his mentally retarded cultists ignore his racist homophobic publications
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn it is just part of the libertarian philosophy that we will eventually gravitate toward civil rights and desegregation without the use of law. Ron and Rand Paul are libertarian. The market systems and strong peace movements would provide all the necessary pressure, in theory.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@rzxwm10 Uhhh those countries enacted LAWS that ended slavery making slavery a CRIME
That would be "tyranny" according to you idiots.
Making a law saying one man can't own another is NOT tyranny
As for the reason why they seceded, they seceded because they were afraid of the abolitionists taking slavery away
Trying to outlaw tyranny? TYRANTS!!!!
Yes, lincoln would have been willing to continue slavery to preserve the union, but the south started the war so why let them keep slaves?
dffykvn 1 month ago
@dffykvn I'm not saying that slavery should stay legal. You have to recognize that at the time, southern culture embraced slavery. You are right about why the south seceded, but slavery wasn't the only reason. Tyranny is forcing states to be a part of a Union they didn't want to be in.Secession was legal, so they were justified to leave. The Unions were building and resupplying ammunitions at Ft. Sumter in preparation for war, the preemptive at attack was also justified.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@dffykvn The case for war in most cases are weak, and diplomacy could have avoided the lost of many american lives.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@rzxwm1 Dude, slavery was in their founding documents
And I call bullshit on your definition of tyranny
Now if I raped you (or if you're female your wife/daughter/wife and daughter at the same time) impregnated them then sold the child off to another man which would be tyranny
A) Saying that that's legal
B) Saying that it isn't legal
And don't bullshit me about slavery dying out as an institution
The only countries that ended slavery ended them via the legal system
to be continued
dffykvn 1 month ago
@r Part 2
If you allowed the market decide like that retard saint ron advocates then the south would STILL have slavery
Hell people like the pauls still bitch and moan about the government ending segregation and enforcing civil rights
The south, to this day would still have that institution, you'd be able to buy people, work them and rape them
And yes, it's a tragedy that slaveowners tricked poor white idiots to fight against freedom and their own economic interests
to be continued
dffykvn 1 month ago
@rzxwm10 Part 3
Lincoln wasn't a saint, the people fighting under him weren't saints
Lincoln would have allowed slavery to continue to preserve the union even though he didn't like slavery or want it to continue
But ending it violently and telling the southern aristocrats to shut their fucking whiny mouths about it is a lot better than living in the 21st century where it's legal to own other people, hobble them, rape them etc
to be continued
dffykvn 1 month ago
@rzxwm10 Part 4
Anyone who complains about the souths freedom (to own slaves!!!!) taken away is either an idiot who probably doesn't know what freedom even means or a racist who's pissed off he can't own people.
To be continued
dffykvn 1 month ago
@rzxwm Part 5
Tell me, do you really think an america that had jim crow, race based prison slavery after the civil war had to have the government crack down on those practices only to still have prison labor doing what regular workers should be doing and only "recently" had the govt desegregate wouldn't still have slavery?
If you think we wouldn't have it down south to this day do you really live in the same america I live in?
Yes, I'm debating while being REALLY pissed off.
dffykvn 1 month ago
@dffykvn No one is advocating for slavery. The argument is for a more peaceful solution to end slavery. The market was already in effect during the civil war. One of the reason the south lost was because Europe halt trade with them. The South was embargoed. Clearly, the market has enough pressure to make the South economy. Jim Crow was a reactionary response to the FORCE lost of slaves. These laws were permitted in the US because racism existed (in the north and south).
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@dffykvn I live in the same america you do. I see that we are policing the entire world when we are in debt. I see that our liberty is being taken away from us. Our miranda rights are now gone, thanks to the passing NDAA. The fourth amendment has been repeal by the Patriot Act. We are attacking nations without a declaration of war and creating more enemies than allies. War-mongers always receive blowbacks and resentment.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn After the civil war ended, it became worse for blacks during the Reconstruction. It was MLK civil disobedience and his contemporaries that shed light of the evil of racism and ended it, not some law or govt force. I believe it would be these same forces that ended slavery in the South had the war not happen. Free blacks in the north would lead the movement.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
HE SHOULD'VE JUST TOLD THEM THAT LINCOLN COULD'VE BOUGHT THE SLAVES AND THAT'S WAY CHEAPER THAN WHAT THE WAR COST LIKE HE ALWAYS SAY
T81591 2 months ago
HAHA I LOVE RON PAUL...HE WAS SO SMOOTH
T81591 2 months ago
Ron Paul is like the Southern Redneck Lost Cause Traditionalists, completely off of his rocker.
Bumper776 2 months ago
stopped at the revolution ha! what a joke! then united states wouldnt exist now because half th country wouldnt have the support.
FaggonDraggon 2 months ago
Ron Paul is a white supremacist just like John Wilkes Booth.
jedi2rock 2 months ago
@jedi2rock absolutely that's why he want to end the war on drugs
trueconservatie33 2 months ago
The Confederates attack the Union first at Fort Sumter - so they drew first blood and the Union ended it. It was God's divine providence.
jedi2rock 2 months ago
@jedi2rock Right...so let's totally excuse Lincoln's deception of the Southern Secession Council and two Supreme Court justice mediators as to his true intentions in fortifying Sumter as well as the shameless artifice involved in his portrayal of Northern "humanitarianism" as the prime motivation for the troop mobilization to bring bread to "starving" Major Anderson.
OperationIntrudeN313 2 months ago
@jedi2rock Or the fact that Lincoln openly admitted his scheme to force the South to fire upon bread to close friend and confidant Senator Orville Browning who recorded the full conversation in his daily diary. Keep your divine providence bullshit out of history; Lincoln engineered the war to consolidate a national union by destroying Southern credibility and economic viability with oppressive tariffs, the reduction of states rights, and an unconstitutionally invoked militia.
OperationIntrudeN313 2 months ago
@OperationIntrudeN313 There were no oppressive tariffs against the South at the time of the Civil War. In fact, tariffs weren't even mentioned by the Southern states in their declarations of secession. Do you know what they did mention in those declarations? Slavery. In fact, the declarations that each seceding state passed were almost exclusively about slavery, and how the evil North was going to free their slaves if they didn't defend their "right" to own other human beings.
Thucydides411 2 months ago
@Thucydides411 This is like babies first Civil War. Saying the sole reason for the Civil War was slavery is ignorant. While there might not have been protective tariffs against the South specifically, European nations like England put taxes on our cotton because of their holdings in Egypt. Also the simple differences between the North and the South at this time precipitated the split. The South was very conservative and rural, the north very progressive and industrial.
metzger90 2 months ago
@metzger90 Without slavery, there would have been no Civil War. It was the overriding issue of the time, and the South seceded in order to preserve it. The South didn't secede because England was taxing its cotton, or simply because the North was more industrial. The South was afraid that free states would come to dominate national politics, and eventually outlaw slavery. Nowadays, apologists for the Confederacy like Ron Paul call that "states' rights" - the "right" to treat humans as property.
Thucydides411 2 months ago
@metzger90 In the document as to why they founded the confederacy they cited slavery as the reason, nice try you fucking revisionist
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn Slavery was one of the reason the Confederacy was form, but the North wanted unification and end the idea of secession. The north used slavery as one of the reason for the war, but the true agenda was to promote a strong national govt., and weak state govt.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
@Thucydides411 O'rly...then what's this then? "On March 2, President Buchanan signed the Morril Tariff into law, which was the highest protective tariff in American history, and by early 1862, it reached the averaged amount of 47.06 percent." - Frank Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States, pg. 167
Conveniently imposing protective tariffs on European goods, the primary source for Southern imports, sounds pretty oppressive to me.
OperationIntrudeN313 1 month ago
@OperationIntrudeN313 The Morrill Tariff was passed after the South had already seceded. It was only possible to pass such a tariff because the southern states had withdrawn their representatives from Congress. It replaced the Tariff of 1857, which was written by Southerners. So you're wrong.
Thucydides411 1 month ago
And that was in 2008, look to what lengths they will delve to discredit him. They are doing the same right now in 2011 and it's not working anymore. I really hope those who have been weaned on television are paying attention, lest we should have four more years with the puppet and perhaps a collapse.
Otzmatron 2 months ago
The way the media addresses controversial matters tells me that almost every alternative history book written is in the right. Would you like to take that back? Because you've challenged an important pillar of our propaganda and there cannot be dissent or a debate about the facts. We are slaves who are told what to think and who to vote for, I didn't use to think this way, but the more I watch here on YT and read online, the more I am sure of it.
Otzmatron 2 months ago
Oh lincoln was the best president ever he only wanted to help the slaves. Read up and you will see Dr. Paul is absolutely correct on this issue and mindless lincoln lovers attack him cause it doesn't fit their fake history. Did you know that Abe executed 149 Sioux indians, imprisoned 10000 people that wrote against him, read about sherman the psycho you will see true history is quite different then 3rd grade social studies, Jefferson stated secession was a right
brandonofthedead 2 months ago
@brandonofthedead Sooo the confederacy should have been allowed to secede and own slaves?
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn the slaves part is bad I do not like slavery,this is from the view point of taking away liberty, that said emancipation didn't free all the slaves including border states to the Confederacy or in the north, just the south . Those were slaves were freed on a state and local level. The founders liked the idea of succession to avoid a tyrannical government as leverage and to possibly to leave at a final measure to ensure the republic government. Now the feds have more power than states
brandonofthedead 1 month ago
That smug bullshit smile needs to be slapped off that face of his.
kdemen3826 2 months ago
"He could have just gotten rid of slavery." Absolutely ignorant statement by Paul.
jackfoxxy 2 months ago
@jackfoxxy he obviously doesn't think Lincoln could have ended slavery by magic, the point he was making is that if Lincoln and the republican party had actually cared about ending slavery they could have easily passed an emancipation bill with their significant majority in congress. The truth is Lincoln and the Republicans did not care about slavery they cared about protectionism, because of this they left slavery untouched in the northern states.
monkeyfire087 2 months ago
Comment removed
jackfoxxy 2 months ago
@monkeyfire087 The south felt so strongly about their right to slaves that Lincoln's election caused secession of SC, MD, TN, and TX. They specifically said that they refused to live under a President who doesn't support the right to slavery. The country was nowhere near ready for a bill abolishing slavery; the task would have been impossible. It wasn't until the sixties that it became the social norm to have black people and white people drinking from the same water fountain.
jackfoxxy 2 months ago
@jackfoxxy Lincoln and the republican openly supported an amendment to the Constitution that would make it illegal for the federal government ever to interfere with the institution of slavery so he was obviously not anti slavery. there were mounting tensions over many issues at the time the south had finally had enough and left. but honestly its a mute point it doesn't matter why the south chose to secede, they had a right to self government.
monkeyfire087 2 months ago
@monkeyfire087 read his journals, read the debates, check the history. he hated slavery. Paul's quote of Lincoln in which he writes "if i could save the union without freeing a slave i would do it" is the central argument point for those who would slander lincoln. it is completely taken out of context. if Paul were to take a few hours to actually read lincoln's writings and observe his actions, he may not come across as quite so ignorant.
jackfoxxy 2 months ago
@monkeyfire087 They left the union because they were afraid that abolitionists would get enough support to ban slavery
It was a preemptive secession
They should have been allowed to secede? Should they have been allowed to own slaves right up until today?
Fucking ignorant southern apologist
dffykvn 2 months ago
@dffykvn Ron Paul clearly state that slavery was wrong, and there was a better, more peaceful way to abolish slavery. As many European nations got rid of slavery without a war. He is arguing that the war was mainly to protect the union and end the idea of succession once and for all. Despite the fact the the founding fathers and many abolitionist believes that states could and should secede if necessary to avoid federal tyranny.
rzxwm10 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monkeyfire087 Not magic, by passing a new law. Such an extreme bill at that time would be like suddenly eliminating the right to free speech today. American citizens had a right to own slaves. To suddenly take away a right from the American people... it couldn't be done. There would be outrage and impeachment. Even those who were against slavery in those days still viewed African Americans as lesser then themselves and Abolitionists were in the severe minority.
jackfoxxy 2 months ago