For those who might have missed Ron Paul on Meet the Press, Paul suggested that Lincoln made a mistake, and was wrong to go to war in 1861:
So, basically, Linclon was a power hungry, iron fisted man, who went to war to get rid of the republic.
There is so much neo-confederate historical revisionism in this interview, that anybody who passed a credible high school american history class should be incredulous at his answer.
One. Linclon went to war to preserve the union, and put down an insurrection. Not to "get rid" of the republic. The issue of slavery in the south was not even on the table, for the first two years of the war. Period.
Two. The south STARTED the civil war. Lincoln didn't start it. Confederate artillery bombarded american soldiers at Fort Sumpter. It was only then that Lincoln declared a state of insurrection, and called for troops to put it down. What was Linclon supposed to do? Ignore the attack on american troops, and the insurrection?
Three. Lincoln's 1860 campaign was NOT to eliminate slavery in the south. It was to keep slavery from expanding to new states. Period. Linclon's campaign position on slavery and emancipation was lukewarm at best, at that time. It was certainly not a direct assualt on the south's own institutions of slavery. He never suggested that the institution of slavery be dismantled or pruned back in the south...only, that it was not spread to other states.
Four. Does anyone think the Civil War was a "senseless" war? It was tragic, bloody, and indeed sad. But senseless? What is he talking about? Senseless is not a word I've ever heard anyone use to describe the civil war. At a minimum, the war saved the republic, and ultimately ended slavery if not outright segregation and discrimination. What was the alternative? To allow the United States to break apart, and allow slavery to continue on for at least decades more?
South Carolina and other states succeeded before Lincoln even took office. Indeed, at least seven southern states suceeded before Lincoln even took the oath of office. There was no legitimate attempt at polical comprimise by the south. Lincoln never even suggested emancipating the blacks in the south in those years. So for all this Ron Paul talk about using the art of political compromise to end slavery, rather than fight a war, does it look like the south was ready to compromise at all? I think not. How long would the south have taken to free slaves all on their own? Twenty years? Fifty years? That's at least or, or more, generations of americans held in bondage.
Now, as for Ron Paul theory of gradual emancipation through the art of political compromise and legislation, here is his position on the Civil Rights Act...he opposses it to this day:
So, he opposes the Civil Rights Act, even to this day. The CRA was the very act of political compromise and legistlation, a tactic he suggested should be used with respect to address slavery and equal rights. Heads I win, tails you lose.
So, basically, Linclon was a power hungry, iron fisted man, who went to war to get rid of the republic.
There is so much neo-confederate historical revisionism in this interview, that anybody who passed a credible high school american history class should be incredulous at his answer.
One. Linclon went to war to preserve the union, and put down an insurrection. Not to "get rid" of the republic. The issue of slavery in the south was not even on the table, for the first two years of the war. Period.
Two. The south STARTED the civil war. Lincoln didn't start it. Confederate artillery bombarded american soldiers at Fort Sumpter. It was only then that Lincoln declared a state of insurrection, and called for troops to put it down. What was Linclon supposed to do? Ignore the attack on american troops, and the insurrection?
Three. Lincoln's 1860 campaign was NOT to eliminate slavery in the south. It was to keep slavery from expanding to new states. Period. Linclon's campaign position on slavery and emancipation was lukewarm at best, at that time. It was certainly not a direct assualt on the south's own institutions of slavery. He never suggested that the institution of slavery be dismantled or pruned back in the south...only, that it was not spread to other states.
Four. Does anyone think the Civil War was a "senseless" war? It was tragic, bloody, and indeed sad. But senseless? What is he talking about? Senseless is not a word I've ever heard anyone use to describe the civil war. At a minimum, the war saved the republic, and ultimately ended slavery if not outright segregation and discrimination. What was the alternative? To allow the United States to break apart, and allow slavery to continue on for at least decades more?
South Carolina and other states succeeded before Lincoln even took office. Indeed, at least seven southern states suceeded before Lincoln even took the oath of office. There was no legitimate attempt at polical comprimise by the south. Lincoln never even suggested emancipating the blacks in the south in those years. So for all this Ron Paul talk about using the art of political compromise to end slavery, rather than fight a war, does it look like the south was ready to compromise at all? I think not. How long would the south have taken to free slaves all on their own? Twenty years? Fifty years? That's at least or, or more, generations of americans held in bondage.
Now, as for Ron Paul theory of gradual emancipation through the art of political compromise and legislation, here is his position on the Civil Rights Act...he opposses it to this day:
So, he opposes the Civil Rights Act, even to this day. The CRA was the very act of political compromise and legistlation, a tactic he suggested should be used with respect to address slavery and equal rights. Heads I win, tails you lose.
