Ron Paul does not approve of the American Civil war because it was not mentioned in the Constitution.

OK Ron Paul, you can shut up now.

Thanks

--the rest of America

I just watched this interview two days ago where Paul was asked these questions.

His point, in response to Russert's idiotic assertion that we'd still have slavery if the civil war didn't occur: every other civilized nation in the world ended slavery without the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives.

About the civil rights act: he didn't oppose the equal rights of races, he opposed the provisions that allowed the Govt. to own all public land (paraphrasing, don't remember the exact statement, something to that effect).

Suck it, trollmitter.

Car_Ramrod: Ron Paul does not approve of the American Civil war because it was not mentioned in the Constitution.

I lol'ed

yup, this will really end well.

Echoic: Suck it, trollmitter.

Here is an excerpt from a 1992 article in Paul's Political Report (highlights for emphasis)

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

/not the submitter

Code_Archeologist: Here is an excerpt from a 1992 article in Paul's Political Report (highlights for emphasis)

Is this a troll? This has been rehashed in every Paul thread and refuted in every single one since the dawn of time. If this sincerely isn't a troll I can explain but I don't want to waste my time finding links if you're trolling.

I'm probably coming off as a Paulite, but I'm not even planning on voting for him, I actually like Obama, but I think a lot of people misunderstand Paul.

There's so much fail on both sides in that article it's not even funny. FTFA:

"It's an intriguing counterfactual, but what is most telling is that Paul blames Lincoln for the Civil War rather than blaming the South for starting a war to preserve slavery."

Jesus tap dancing Christ, do they not teach history in school anymore? The American Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about succession. Attributing it to "a war to preserve slavery" is a gross oversimplification.

I can't stand the "war of norther aggression" and "the South will rise again" idiots, but even I understand this.

FTFA: Does he love liberty? Or does he merely loathe the federal government?

Bears repeating.

and don't forget: Will Smith loves Hitler!

Wait... is he saying that other nations gave up slavery bloodlessly during the period. I mean, sure Britain and most germanic states did, but it took horribly bloody revolutions and serf insurrections to end it in France, Russia, Spain, and many of the oversees colonies. The actual bills may not have been signed at gunpoint, but the signers often had decades of violent conflict about the idea of slavery to influence and force their decisions.

Does he also mean to say that, as it was a main cause of the collapse of slavery from industrialization, that the practice is justified so long as economic realities allow it to preform in the free market. Britain may have cast of the practice as an affront to human liberty, but it certainly did not stop them from attempting to bankroll the CSA to gain access to it's cheap, slave harvested cotton. Shouldn't someone who constantly exposes the virtues of human limited be so disgusted with any amount of slavery that they would have to act immediately to stop the unbearable suffering of human bondage from continuing for one more minute if it was in there power. A disgusting amount of lives were lost, yes, and most not even for the purpose of ending slavery but...

If Dr. Paul suggest that it is in the interest of liberty to sit and watch your fellow humans writhe under the boot of oppression until market forces align themselves to free them from their chains then he either undervalues the importance of his fellow man or underestimates what a true and horrible loss of freedom slavery is,

Code_Archeologist: a 1992 article in Paul's Political Report

I think he's sufficiently explained himself. The fact that that doesn't sound even remotely like anything else the man has said in 30+ years of public life is good enough for me. If you're a closet racist, it doesn't leak out just once like that.


As for the Civil War- he's perfectly right. Lincoln was a tyrant by any definition of the word. Doesn't mean the South was right, just that Lincoln was wrong. Still, I've read Paul's 1987 book Freedom Under Siege. In it, he quotes Lincoln when talking about liberty, and agrees with him. Paul, who's from Pittsburgh, is obviously not some sort of white supremacist or southern nationalist.

On the Civil Rights Act, again, he's perfectly right. Refusing to associate with someone is not violating their rights, even if it is done for despicable reasons. Even if it were, Congress would have no jurisdiction. The interstate commerce clause has been so twisted and abused that it doesn't even resemble the original intent- which was to simply create a free-trade zone among the states. Paul has said that Congress was within its jurisdiction under the post-Civil War amendments to correct the actions of the states, such as ending state-mandated segregation.

It's an unfortunately nuanced but ultimately correct position. It just doesn't translate well into a soundbite. I think Paul did rather well explaining his positions, though. Particularly with that stooge Russert trying to play his childish game of "gotcha" rather than letting Paul explain. He did the same thing on earmarks.

clgrin: If Dr. Paul suggest that it is in the interest of liberty to sit and watch your fellow humans writhe under the boot of oppression until market forces align themselves to free them from their chains then he either undervalues the importance of his fellow man or underestimates what a true and horrible loss of freedom slavery is,

When did you stop beating your wife?

/Paul wasn't defending slavery

Churchill2004: If you're a closet racist, it doesn't leak out just once like that.

Honestly I do not have a horse in this race... Paul's odds of winning the nomination (or even getting a VP spot) are about as good as me going home tonight to find 3 super models wanting me to star in an impromptu porn video with them.

Just a few figures from measuringworth.com:

The Civil War was one of the most devastating events in the history of our country. It lasted from 1861 to 1865 and has been estimated to have cost about $6.6 billion dollars. Using that number in 1860 dollars, the cost today would be $165 billion using the CPI and $129 billion using the GDP deflator, about the annual cost of the current war in Iraq. However, using the unskilled wage index, it would be about $1 trillion, by GDP per capita the cost is close to $2.1 trillion and as a fraction of GDP it is $20 trillion, or about 145% of our current GDP.

Churchill2004:

When did you stop beating your wife?

/Paul wasn't defending slavery

Your absolutely correct. He was, however, defending inaction in the face of it. Was the Civil War the correct action to take? Probably not. Was it even undertake to defend/absolve slavery? Again, probably not. Is waiting for the economics to prove to the slave-masters that their actions are incorrect and should be changed? Definitely not. Decisive, sometime violent action was need to show and correct for the error of slavery in many other cases around the world and Dr Paul , at lest here, suggests all these action were illegitimate and that populations should have remained enslaved until market forces lead there masters to release them

clgrin: He was, however, defending inaction in the face of it.

Again, no. He was saying that launching a mind-numbingly bloody, probably illegal war that left the South in ruins and simmering in hatred and misery for the next century was the wrong thing to do. That's all.

clgrin: Is waiting for the economics to prove to the slave-masters that their actions are incorrect and should be changed? Definitely not.

I'm sure Paul would agree, as he's never advocated anything like that.

clgrin: Dr Paul , at lest here, suggests all these action were illegitimate

Which they were, something totally unrelated to their necessity.

clgrin: and that populations should have remained enslaved until market forces lead there masters to release them

No, he didn't. You're just making crap up. He specifically offered an example of government action to free slaves.

Fellows: Attributing it to "a war to preserve slavery" is a gross oversimplification.

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

clgrin: Your absolutely correct. He was, however, defending inaction in the face of it. Was the Civil War the correct action to take? Probably not. Was it even undertake to defend/absolve slavery? Again, probably not. Is waiting for the economics to prove to the slave-masters that their actions are incorrect and should be changed? Definitely not. Decisive, sometime violent action was need to show and correct for the error of slavery in many other cases around the world ...

So then why didn't the Union attack themselves, as slavery was permitted in a few northern states?

The American Civil War wasn't about slavery. Understand this.

Fellows: The American Civil War wasn't about slavery. Understand this.

the civil war was engineered by a joint task force made up of Franklin Mint sculptors and Time-Life Books editors.

kingMountain: the civil war was engineered by a joint task force made up of Franklin Mint sculptors and Time-Life Books editors.

Time-Life: We still live in the Good 'ol Days and so can you!

blah blah blah...
You know who else was a Doctor?

Anyone else notice that nearly every link to the WSJ since NewsCorp bought it are bordering on Fox News in objectivity?

Used to be a good paper. Oh well.

Churchill2004: Which they were, something totally unrelated to their necessity.

So you're saying that the government can take illegitimate actions that are still a necessity? I of course agree with you but does that not throw doubt into arguments about government undertaking actions deemed "necessary" in-spite of their constitutionality. As for Dr. Paul example of Britain, I agree with you that it is a far more sensible alternative to violent action. But Britain was not dealing with a large slave population, nor with a nationally vital industry supported by slavery. In situations where you have population unable to be bought, or owners (as they only thing they could spend that money on would be more slaves to support their industry) unwilling to sell, what then?

I do not believe that the Southern slaveholders would have sold en-masse and risk collapsing their entire economy. Presented with this situation, I believe this forceful government action would have been necessary, if only with forced confiscation and reparation to the owners. Though I agree with the doctor that the war itself was fought very little over this, I believe he is dismissing forceful government action in the ending of slavery out of hand, seeing that a passive stance like the British governments buying of all slaves would have not working in the situation

Fellows: clgrin: Your absolutely correct. He was, however, defending inaction in the face of it. Was the Civil War the correct action to take? Probably not. Was it even undertake to defend/absolve slavery? Again, probably not. Is waiting for the economics to prove to the slave-masters that their actions are incorrect and should be changed? Definitely not. Decisive, sometime violent action was need to show and correct for the error of slavery in many other cases around the world ...

So then why didn't the Union attack themselves, as slavery was permitted in a few northern states?The American Civil War wasn't about slavery. Understand this.

Yes... I know

clgrin: So you're saying that the government can take illegitimate actions that are still a necessity?

I don't think so, no. Lincoln obviously thought he could.


clgrin: As for Dr. Paul example of Britain, I agree with you that it is a far more sensible alternative to violent action. But Britain was not dealing with a large slave population, nor with a nationally vital industry supported by slavery.

It's not like Paul was giving an academic answer. He was simply countering the ridiculous claim that we'd still have slavery if it wasn't for the Civil War. I think you're overanalyzing this.

clgrin: I believe he is dismissing forceful government action in the ending of slavery out of hand

He never dismissed it. Again, you're extremely overanalyzing this. It wasn't a research paper, it was a 30-second soundbite.

Churchill2004:

He never dismissed it. Again, you're extremely overanalyzing this. It wasn't a research paper, it was a 30-second soundbite.

I suppose you're right... that is a bit of digging for that one clip

Fellows: The American Civil War wasn't about slavery. Understand this.

Fellows, please!

If the American Civil War was about State's Rights or secession or any other version of the 'they's violatin' the Constitution!', at the heart of it was the South's conviction that, in time, their states' rights to choose to have slavery would be taken away. A century of revisionist blather trying to sugarcoat it and cast it in a more pc light just cheapens what so many suffered and died to resolve.

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Fellows: The American Civil War wasn't about slavery. Understand this.

Fellows, please!

If the American Civil War was about State's Rights or secession or any other version of the 'they's violatin' the Constitution!', at the heart of it was the South's conviction that, in time, their states' rights to choose to have slavery would be taken away. A century of revisionist blather trying to sugarcoat it and cast it in a more pc light just cheapens what so many suffered and died to resolve.

Nobody ever disputed that the Constitution didn't allow the Federal government to touch slavery in the states, including Abe Lincoln.

Churchill2004: Nobody ever disputed that the Constitution didn't allow the Federal government to touch slavery in the states, including Abe Lincoln.

Wait wait, slavery isn't unconstitutional?

I'm currently reading Bruce Catton's centennial triolgy of the Civil War...As far as Lincoln was concerned, the war was not fought over slavery, it was fought on the terms of suppressing an insurrection. The people hung on the slave issue were the Southern "aristocracy"...Catton points out that the institution would have probably died on it's own without the need for the war...

And had the Union capitalized on the Point Royal expedition, the war would have possibly been over by 1862.

Great books if anyone has the inclination to digest 1200 pages...

Churchill2004: Nobody ever disputed that the Constitution didn't allow the Federal government to touch slavery in the states, including Abe Lincoln.

Well, I think it was mainly they felt they would eventually be outvoted by new non-slave states added, but your point makes it all the more silly that they fired the first shot...which resulted in 'their states' rights to choose to have slavery' being taken away.

Ryan2065: Wait wait, slavery isn't unconstitutional?

13th Amendment wasn't until after the war. Prior to the war, it was accepted as fact on both sides that slavery inside a state was Constitutionally protected. The issue was always slavery in the Federal territories and in new states entering the Union.

I've never understood the "It wasn't about slavery" argument. Slavery was the 900 lb gorilla of 18th and 19th century politics. It was a stumbling block to the formation of the Constitution and nearly led to several secessions prior to the Civil War. Every major issue of the day, be it westward expansion, foreign relations, states rights, economic development, was tied directly or indirectly to slavery. It caused fist fights on the floor of the Senate, massacres in Kansas and Missouri, aborted slave rebellions in the South and diplomatic pressure from the European powers. Was it Lincoln's express purpose to end slavery when he decided on war? No, but that didn't stop many Union generals from seeing the war as a holy crusade to end slavery. Several times Lincoln had to overrule or even fire popular abolitionist generals for fear that their actions would have pushed the border states into the Confederacy. Everyone involved in the war had their own motivations, and true, sometimes those motivations had nothing to do with slavery. On the whole, however, it just isn't possible to remove slavery as the major cause of the war.

Mentat: On the whole, however, it just isn't possible to remove slavery as the major cause of the war

I don't think any one denies that slavery was the major underlying cause. The legal dispute, however, was the immediate cause of the war and too often it gets overlooked. Lincoln looks a lot better in the history books as a holy crusader against slavery than the reality, which was that he was a military dictator who launched an extremely destructive, bloody war on questionable legal grounds.

Churchill2004: Lincoln looks a lot better in the history books as a holy crusader against slavery than the reality, which was that he was a military dictator who launched an extremely destructive, bloody war on questionable legal grounds

Exactly.

I'm still hung up on the uncontested fact that civil war is, by definition, outside any possible constitution.

The question really should be, was secession constitutional? Lincoln did not think it was. South Carolina seceded immediately after Lincoln was elected and before he was inaugurated. Lincoln thought that if he did not act to oppose that secession, then he was violating his oath of office to defend the constitution.

The secession states thought that Lincoln's actions to obstruct secession were unconstitutional. But wasn't their secession the precipitating act? Upon that act, everything that followed was outside the constitution. The constitution made no provision for how the federal government should act in the face of secession.

Arguing that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional must presuppose that South Carolina's secession was somehow constitutional. How is that possible?

Ron Paul is saying that the Civil War should not have been fought. All well and good, but it was fought, and it became a second American revolution. The post-Civil War constitutional amendments were passed, and the states became beholden to the federal government.

Is he saying he wants to turn back the clock, to a time when the states operated practically as sovereign nations as far as their internal affairs. That train has left the station. A civil war was fought and won to defeat that very notion.

We have the country that we inherited, and the constitution, with the post-Civil War amendments, stands as it is. Is he willing to accept that?

Churchill2004: Lincoln looks a lot better in the history books as a holy crusader against slavery than the reality, which was that he was a military dictator who launched an extremely destructive, bloody war on questionable legal grounds

Lincoln attacked Fort Sumter?

Wow, what a douchebag.

VelcroFez: The constitution made no provision for how the federal government should act in the face of secession.

10th Amendment. They had no power to suppress it, ergo they were supposed to do nothing.

It's a legal principle that barring some sort of entrenchment clause, any law can be repealed by the same authority who passed it. The Constitution was ratified by the people of the states in elected conventions. Identical conventions met to repeal that ratification. Under commonly understood legal principle, it was perfectly valid. Lincoln threw a hissy fit and decided he didn't want things to be that way, but he had no legal basis for his argument.

VelcroFez: Upon that act, everything that followed was outside the constitution.

Exactly. What Lincoln claimed, and what became accepted, is that the secession was somehow invalid and therefore the Constitution really still did apply. Which is very contradictory, since for most of the war the Union functioned acknowledging the reality that the Southern states were no longer in the Union. That's how West Virginia was admitted without the Constitutional mandate that Virgina consent. That admission would have been invalid if, as is the accepted legal theory, secession was never really valid.

dameron: Lincoln attacked Fort Sumter?

Fort Sumter was in a foreign country, which had every right under international law to seize the property of a foreign government within its jurisdiction.

VelcroFez: We have the country that we inherited, and the constitution, with the post-Civil War amendments, stands as it is. Is he willing to accept that?

He's the only one who is.

Newsflash: It's possible to oppose something (like segregation) while not supporting a particular method of ending it (like expanding the federal government's Commerce Clause powers, as the 1964 Civil Rights Act did).

Those who are attacking Ron Paul for these comments are acting as though there was only one method of ending slavery and only one method of ending segregation. Obviously, there were multiple ways both atrocities could've been ended.

But Ron Paul is a man who would rather be right than be president. He will say things that allow his opponents to easily attack him simply because he is honest and principled and won't lie or mince words to get votes. If you really consider that a negative, you should do some soul-searching of your own.

If there had not been slavery, there would have been no civil war.

Fellows: The American Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about succession. Attributing it to "a war to preserve slavery" is a gross oversimplification.

No, it's an accurate statement. Were slavery to have not existed, the civil war would not have happened. Behind every major issue that lead to the war is the hand of slavery: legal rights, economics, balance of power, state rights, etc. All of these were issues because of the existence of slavery and all of them were issues because the south wanted to continue to own slaves.

And if you don't think southerners thought it was about slavery, let's listen to what Alexander Hamilton Stephens (the confederate Vice-President) said about the civil war in his Cornerstone Speech: "(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition."

Stephens later said (after he'd lost) in his A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States that the war was not about slavery but states' rights. The whole "it wasn't about slavery" argument was created by some of the first apologists for the Confederacy after it lost.

Whatsleft: If there had not been slavery, there would have been no civil war.

nor comfortable cotton trousers.

Churchill2004: I don't think any one denies that slavery was the major underlying cause. The legal dispute, however, was the immediate cause of the war and too often it gets overlooked. Lincoln looks a lot better in the history books as a holy crusader against slavery than the reality, which was that he was a military dictator who launched an extremely destructive, bloody war on questionable legal grounds.

First, there are people who deny that slavery was the root cause, and it isn't just Southern heritage types who buy into that theory. These are the types who will say, "the war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights!" while ignoring the fact that the state right the South was ultimately fighting for was the right to keep slaves.

Second, while I agree with you that the war hinged on a specific legal question, that being "does a state have the right to secede?", I think that gets into a forest vs. the trees issue. While this legal question itself was not directly about slavery, it would have been a moot point if the South hadn't seceded, which brings you right back to slavery. This might be quibbling over semantics, but I think it's important when discussing history to maintain a broad scope that puts individual facts into the proper perspective. To use another historical example, it's the difference between saying that Julius Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic and understanding the complex social, civil and military factors that ultimately put the Republic in a position to be subverted.

I would also disagree with you on the issue of Lincoln as a military dictator, but since I have no references with me, you win this round.

At least Nader made sense most of the time.

Churchill2004: which was that he was a military dictator who launched an extremely destructive, bloody war on questionable legal grounds.

keep in mind the South A: seceded first, well before Lincoln was ever inaugurated, and B: Fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. The South was not some innocent victim in the civil war. It knew exactly what it was doing.

For some reason, the neocons love to see military solutions to every problem.

Many people treat Ron Paul like a King, but he sounds more like a Duke to me.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was grossly unconstitutional.

The Civil War was a war of aggression waged by the north.

What's the big deal?