Chuck DeVore publicly attacks Ron Paul, says he should be "ashamed"

[aclove]

Read it here:

hxxp://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/ron-paul-is-wro.html

[FrankRep]

Chuck DeVore needs to read the Real Lincoln.


The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/the-real-lincoln.html)

- Thomas DiLorenzo



As DiLorenzo reveals, the myths surrounding Lincoln obscure the true origins of the Civil War. DiLorenzo looks beyond Lincoln's iconic image, detailing how his policies undermined federalism and helped create the modern imperial presidency. (2003, 384pp, pb)

http://www.shopjbs.org/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/R/e/Real-Lincoln.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/books/the-real-lincoln.html)

[puppetmaster]

There are so many flaws in this guys argument. And lots of good comments

"For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

Mr. Paul’s statement blaming the Civil War and its “six hundred thousand” deaths on President Lincoln and calling the war “senseless” is wrong historically and, even worse, wrong on principle. True libertarians understand that individual liberty trumps a wrongheaded notion of “states rights.” States can violate liberty just as the federal government can. Slavery was a violent violation of that fundamental liberty, and Mr. Paul should know better

more-- from Lew Rockwell http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/63141.html

[Southron]

He claims secession is illegal.

If that's the case does he defend our illegal secession from England?

[klamath]

This is the one area that I part with RP. The civil war was the result of a long festering flaw in the constitution. Lincoln did a lot of bad shit but the war was not to be avoided by the time it hit. All sides were fighting for the glorious flags right down to the average man. No one man could have started or stopped that war.

[Jeremy]

This is the one area that I part with RP. The civil war was the result of a long festering flaw in the constitution. Lincoln did a lot of bad shit but the war was not to be avoided by the time it hit. All sides were fighting for the glorious flags right down to the average man. No one man could have started or stopped that war.

Doesn't change the fact that DeVore thinks secession is illegal.

[Jeremy]

No need to break the link http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/ron-paul-is-wro.html

[AlexMerced]

This is the one area that I part with RP. The civil war was the result of a long festering flaw in the constitution. Lincoln did a lot of bad shit but the war was not to be avoided by the time it hit. All sides were fighting for the glorious flags right down to the average man. No one man could have started or stopped that war.

Well, I don't think Ron Paul thinks the war could've been avoid in it's actual context, but in the context of slavery which most people think about it, he points out if it was about slavery it could've been easily avoid, at the end of the day it was really about government revenue that would've dried up if the secession occured.

Inevitable perhaps, the interests of the north and south were very conflicting, but iwas due in part of Lincoln, it was the republicans who were running on a platform of protectionism for the north. If Lincoln had not won the race, and Democrats who were the free market party of the time did (Jackson, Van Buren), it would've been a different story cause the tariffs that intitiated the souths secession wouldn't of occured arguably in which case slavery would've probably existed a bit longer.

The sescessionist were the ones who made it about slavery, cause they couldn't get enough popular support based on constitutional base alone so they made up claims that Lincoln was was going to abolish... if they hadn't of done that the south would've had much more external support and would've never promted Lincoln to take advatage of the rumors and use slavery as a issue to drive people against the south.


Bottom Line... it was a realllllly stupid war on both sides

[klamath]

Doesn't change the fact that DeVore thinks secession is illegal.And firing on a a fort with no time for talks to resolve the issue was in my book illegal. I don't totally agree with Devore nor RP on this.

[Epic]

And firing on a a fort with no time for talks to resolve the issue was in my book illegal. I don't totally agree with Devore nor RP on this.

You haven't even gotten RP's side - Devore was selectively quoting. Do you really think RP has gone on the record favoring firing on the fort?? Please.

[klamath]

Well, I don't think Ron Paul thinks the war could've been avoid in it's actual context, but in the context of slavery which most people think about it, he points out if it was about slavery it could've been easily avoid, at the end of the day it was really about government revenue that would've dried up if the secession occured.

Inevitable perhaps, the interests of the north and south were very conflicting, but iwas due in part of Lincoln, it was the republicans who were running on a platform of protectionism for the north. If Lincoln had not won the race, and Democrats who were the free market party of the time did (Jackson, Van Buren), it would've been a different story cause the tariffs that intitiated the souths secession wouldn't of occured arguably in which case slavery would've probably existed a bit longer.

The sescessionist were the ones who made it about slavery, cause they couldn't get enough popular support based on constitutional base alone so they made up claims that Lincoln was was going to abolish... if they hadn't of done that the south would've had much more external support and would've never promted Lincoln to take advatage of the rumors and use slavery as a issue to drive people against the south.


Bottom Line... it was a realllllly stupid war on both sides
Are you talking about the same jackson that violated the supreme court ruling on the indians land and ordered the trail of tears? Or the same Jackson that told SC he would send federal troops after them if they seceded?

[klamath]

You haven't even gotten RP's side - Devore was selectively quoting. Do you really think RP has gone on the record favoring firing on the fort?? Please.

I did not say RP said that but I can see how you might have confused my statements.
My point is that there were wrongs on all sides and no one man could have stopped it. In all honesty I think Lincoln would have been impeached had he not responded to the secession.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is there really a need to publicly dwell on obscure historical debates between the Claremont and Mises organizations?

From the comments section of the article:




This is a vastly more complex issue than anyone here is acknowledging. Yes, slavery is a large component, but it is not the only one.

I can hardly think anyone would disagree with the notion that the civil war was viciously brutal, and yes in many ways a senseless tragedy. The very notion of "war" changed in Pennsylvania and Georgia-giving the world the cursed gift of "total" war as it is now practiced. In that sort of conflict there are no good guys.

Was Lincoln a fascist bastard? Well, he certainly was a duplicitous, conniving, and in my view stunningly corrupt (not an uncommon thing in politicians of that time...or any time really) politician. It is, I think, dangerous to canonize such creatures, but we need not demonize them overmuch either. When Lincoln chose to raise an army and send it south, neither he or anyone else expected the utter devastation that was coming-that was simply not an aspect of war at the time. For instance, more men died in Pickett's charge than died in the ENTIRE span of the revolutionary war.

One might blame such brutality on those who lead it-but that was not only Lincoln, but also the generals and assundry politicians one BOTH sides. The elite of both sides in that conflict deserve scorn.

It is easy to see why the populace on both sides was outraged-the fugitive slave act was an abomination, as were many of the restrictive tariffs imposed by northern politicians.

Add to that that Lincoln and the republicans were not even on the ballot in large parts of the south, and you realize that the union was divided long, long before a shot was fired.

DeVore seems to think that two (or a list) of wrongs add up to a right. They don't. The war really could have been avoided-and I think would have been had anyone known that it was to be such a slaughter.
...

[HOLLYWOOD]

What about all the other illegal moves by Lincoln... taking of freedoms/liberties/speech?

Pretty ballsy of DeVore, considering conservative Orange county liked Ron Paul more than most other counties in the 2008 GOP primary.

Another politician moved to the 'Crack Candidate"bucket.

[lester1/2jr]

I sometimes see anti ron paul articles and comment on them but they are usually really lame. I know that's not objective but they really. most people who know what the movement is about and are honest don't peddle this sort of nonsense

[low preference guy]

Chuck DeVore has no shame and no future political career.

[Kotin]

Chuck DeVore has no shame and no future political career.

I kinda hope you're right.

[low preference guy]

I kinda hope you're right.

He will at least get big F U from the Ron Paul faction after this. Many of us were rooting for him during his last run. That won't happen again.

[teamrican1]

This is the one area that I part with RP. The civil war was the result of a long festering flaw in the constitution. Lincoln did a lot of bad shit but the war was not to be avoided by the time it hit. All sides were fighting for the glorious flags right down to the average man. No one man could have started or stopped that war.

All that had to happen to "stop" the war was for a sane President to allow the South to peacefully leave. You have it arse backwards- only a murderous lunatic could have have started the Civil War. There was no war under President Buchanan. Virginia and the other non-Deep South states even voted to remain in the Union originally. It was only when Lincoln declared his intention to invade the South that those states left the Union.

[james1906]

DeVore is generally a good guy, but you can tell he hasn't researched history outside of his public education.

I want to see DeVore and Paul discuss this on Freedom Watch.

[BetaMale]

The reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's legacy are perhaps the two most mislead historic events in American history. The poster who recommended 'The Real Lincoln' had it right, that's the book that should be taught in highschool. The republic was never the same after Lincoln, but we're taught that he destroyed all of the racists from the south.

[Legend1104]

Everything I wanted to say has pretty much already been said, so I will just add this. Many in the South hoped and prayed war would not come, including Jefferson Davis himself. As a matter of fact a number of invoys and ambassadors were sent to lincoln before ft. sumter was fired upon, but he refused to accept or acknowledge any of them. Lincoln did not want peace, he wanted war.

[malkusm]

He will at least get big F U from the Ron Paul faction after this. Many of us were rooting for him during his last run. That won't happen again.

I never understood why he was considered a candidate worth supporting to begin with....definitely not to the extent that he deserved his own sub-forum.

[klamath]

All that had to happen to "stop" the war was for a sane President to allow the South to peacefully leave. You have it arse backwards- only a murderous lunatic could have have started the Civil War. There was no war under President Buchanan. Virginia and the other non-Deep South states even voted to remain in the Union originally. It was only when Lincoln declared his intention to invade the South that those states left the Union.
The south started the goddamned shooting war. The states left the union before lincoln even came into office. If we want to revise history enough to counter that fact then maybe we might want to question whether there even was a civil war. Maybe there wasn't and it was all made up in history:rolleyes:

[nate895]

And firing on a a fort with no time for talks to resolve the issue was in my book illegal. I don't totally agree with Devore nor RP on this.

The Confederate and South Carolina governments had been talking to the Union for months over Fort Sumter. Negotiations broke down when the Southern Commissioners in Washington found out that the ship sent out to supply Ft. Sumter contained a weapons shipments, something Lincoln had promised not to do.


I never understood why he was considered a candidate worth supporting to begin with....definitely not to the extent that he deserved his own sub-forum.

Especially when Clint Didier and David Hedrick don't.

[djdellisanti4]

Everything I wanted to say has pretty much already been said, so I will just add this. Many in the South hoped and prayed war would not come, including Jefferson Davis himself. As a matter of fact a number of invoys and ambassadors were sent to lincoln before ft. sumter was fired upon, but he refused to accept or acknowledge any of them. Lincoln did not want peace, he wanted war.

And to take the moral high ground, lincoln knew he had to let the south fire first.

[nate895]

And to take the moral high ground, lincoln knew he had to let the south fire first.

My eighth grade teacher went all into how brilliant Lincoln was to force the South to fire first. That was when I first started to question the whole "Lincoln is a Saint" hypothesis.

[klamath]

Everything I wanted to say has pretty much already been said, so I will just add this. Many in the South hoped and prayed war would not come, including Jefferson Davis himself. As a matter of fact a number of invoys and ambassadors were sent to lincoln before ft. sumter was fired upon, but he refused to accept or acknowledge any of them. Lincoln did not want peace, he wanted war.

Great lot of time they gave for a peaseful solution:rolleyes: Damn George Bush even gave more time before Iraq than the south did beore they started shooting.

In this case it was RP not Devore that was the fool. This plays right into the hands of the newsetters.

[Southron]

The south started the goddamned shooting war. The states left the union before lincoln even came into office. If we want to revise history enough to counter that fact then maybe we might want to question whether there even was a civil war. Maybe there wasn't and it was all made up in history:rolleyes:

There was no "civil war".

It was a war for Southern Independence about any way you slice it.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Great lot of time they gave for a peaseful solution:rolleyes: Damn George Bush even gave more time before Iraq that the south did beore they started shooting.

In this case it was RP not Devore that was the fool. This plays right into the hands of the newsetters.

Just out of curiosity... have you ever read a book or done any independent research?

[sratiug]

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. A slave nation cannot invade another slave nation to end slavery. That did not happen. It is an outright lie. Lincoln supported an amendment to enshrine slavery forever in the constitution. He lied and manipulated the entire situation toward war. He tried to resupply Fort Sumter (in South Carolina, an act of war) against the advice of his officers so it was shelled in self defense. Were there casualties?

The first deaths of the Civil War were in Baltimore where troops were fired upon by the population. But did Lincoln invade the slave state of Maryland and burn it to the ground to free the slaves and put down the rebellion? Why not? Because Maryland still gave him money but South Carolina and its Charleston port did not.

Without Lincoln's invasion, there would have been no war. What was it, six slave states in the Union AFTER the South seceded? Did Lincoln not have the power or the will or the popular support to end slavery in his own Confederate-less Union?

Please, spare us the slavery bullshit after the fact rationalization for a war that impoverished former slaves, free blacks (who were more numerous in the South than the North) and whites in the South for a hundred years while we are busy killing Afgan women and their children so they can be equal to their dead men just as Lincoln killed thousands of slaves fighting for the Confederacy using slaves (not former slaves, real slaves) to assist his murderous generals that invented terrorist total war tactics. It lacks truthfulness or sensitivity.

[Legend1104]

Great lot of time they gave for a peaseful solution:rolleyes: Damn George Bush even gave more time before Iraq than the south did beore they started shooting.

In this case it was RP not Devore that was the fool. This plays right into the hands of the newsetters.

I am confused about what your trying to prove. In the Iraq case it was an unlawful invasion due to UN resolutions. In the CW it was an unlawful invasion due to the firing upon a foreign enemy on southern territory. Those two events are not even remotely similar.

[Legend1104]

Actually I take that back. They are a little similar. They both involved a foreign nation enfringing upon another soverign nation. In both cases Iraq and the South wer justified in reisistance.

[Bossobass]

1 Ron Paul = 1,000 Devores.

'nuff said.

Bosso

[klamath]

Just out of curiosity... have you ever read a book or done any independent research?

Quite a lot. Used to be a southern sympather. As a stupid teenager I thought it would have been glorious to die for Lee and states rights on Cemetary ridge.
I really could not continue believing that when I found that I believed in individual rights greater than states rights. I don't take either side in the war anymore but I sure as hell can't support the south.

[klamath]

I am confused about what your trying to prove. In the Iraq case it was an unlawful invasion due to UN resolutions. In the CW it was an unlawful invasion due to the firing upon a foreign enemy on southern territory. Those two events are not even remotely similar.
Fort sumpter was a federal installation paid for by all US taxpayers. Much of the south was bought by Jefferson using tax dollars from all US citizens. They owed it to the rest of the nation to spend a little time talking about it before they started shooting.

[low preference guy]

Fort sumpter was a federal installation paid for by all US taxpayers. Much of the south was bought by Jefferson using tax dollars from all US citizens. They owed it to the rest of the nation to spend a little time talking about it before they started shooting.

Jefferson buy was unconstitutional, so it was nothing to be thankful for.

[klamath]

Jefferson buy was unconstitutional, so it was nothing to be thankful for.

Besides the point. The land was paid for by all Americans.

[low preference guy]

Besides the point. The land was paid for by all Americans.

It's not besides the point because you're trying to portray an offense as a positive action.

[Vessol]

YouTube - ‪Why Abraham Lincoln Sucked‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DVetsSldQw&feature=player_embedded)

[Legend1104]

Fort sumpter was a federal installation paid for by all US taxpayers. Much of the south was bought by Jefferson using tax dollars from all US citizens. They owed it to the rest of the nation to spend a little time talking about it before they started shooting.

I already made the point. They did try to "talk about it" but Lincoln refused to talk or even acknowledge that the CSA even existed.

[klamath]

It's not besides the point because you're trying to portray an offense as a positive action.
The offense was on the part of the south. Federal troops were not shooting or killing southerners.They were in a fort that had existed for decades. It wasn't like the north went down and established a base after the south had seceded. Any sane man would have realized that with an established base with no historical protocal within the country it would take diplomatic time to resolve the issue. Once you raise the dispute to bloodletting violence you will reap what you sew. Wilson knew this quite will when he wanted us in WWI. It was a no go until he got the lusatania sunk then he had public passion behind him. Once shots were fired the passions for war were unstopable.

[klamath]

I already made the point. They did try to "talk about it" but Lincoln refused to talk or even acknowledge that the CSA even existed.
They gave it no time. They wanted war and they got war. It was an unprecedented situation a new president needed time to resolve. They gave him none.
Was the south legal to leave? So said the state legislators that had been elected by a white only voting block. Had the blacks been able to vote for legislators would there have been a vote to leave the union? Does the majority of what might not be the majority have the right to force the minority to leave the Union?

[nate895]

They gave it no time. They wanted war and they got war. It was an unprecedented situation a new president needed time to resolve. They gave him none.
Was the south legal to leave? So said the state legislators that had been elected by a white only voting block. Had the blacks been able to vote for legislators would there have been a vote to leave the union? Does the majority of what might not be the majority have the right to force the minority to leave the Union?

Lincoln was the one who sent armaments to the Ft. Sumter when he promised he wouldn't.

[BlackTerrel]

Read it here:

hxxp://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/ron-paul-is-wro.html

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone else notice the stupidity in arguing about a war that took place 150 year ago?

I guess we have no current problems if people are arguing about events that happened long before any of our grand parents were born.

How about we focus on the problems here and now and then when all of those are solved we'll start arguing about the war of 1812.

PS: I find it ironic that a number of the posters who claim sports are a distraction are spending time arguing about this. Talk about a distraction...

[klamath]

Lincoln was the one who sent armaments to the Ft. Sumter when he promised he wouldn't.
Piss poor excuse. The south was raising armies. Had all the people been allowed to vote would the south have voted to secede? So was it a legal secession? What makes a legal secession?

[low preference guy]

Piss poor excuse. The south was raising armies. Had all the people been allowed to vote would the south have voted to secede? So was it a legal secession? What makes a legal secession?

The Federal Government doesn't have among its enumerated powers the authority to wage war against a state, only against foreign enemies. So by not accepting the South's independence they didn't consider them another country, therefore have no authority to wage the war.

[klamath]

The Federal Government doesn't have among its enumerated powers the authority to wage war against a state, only against foreign enemies. So by not accepting the South's independence they didn't consider them another country, therefore have no authority to wage the war.
Nor did the possibly monority government of the south. Without the votes of the slaves the southern government was an ilegal government and had no rights to raise and draft armies.

[Vessol]

http://www.soflamarlins.com/images/smilies/Michael+Jackson+Jackson_popcorn.gif

[klamath]

http://www.soflamarlins.com/images/smilies/Michael+Jackson+Jackson_popcorn.gif:D

[nate895]

Piss poor excuse. The south was raising armies. Had all the people been allowed to vote would the south have voted to secede? So was it a legal secession? What makes a legal secession?

The South was not raising an army. The South called up 60,000 men after the war started, and the states had called up some militia to force forts to surrender, all of which did besides Ft. Sumter and one other in Florida. As for your question on how people would have voted if everyone had the right to vote, that question is an irrelevant hypotheses contrary to fact. The fact is that Northern states also refused the right to vote for blacks. They were not voters at the time anywhere, to say they should have counted them is to apply a standard irrelevant to the time period. A legal secession has always been when the state gathers in convention and adopts an ordinance rescinding its ratification of the Constitutional compact between it and the rest of the states of the Union. That is what happened when the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation, and that is how the South did it in 1860-61.

[low preference guy]

Nor did the possibly monority government of the south. Without the votes of the slaves the southern government was an ilegal government and had no rights to raise and draft armies.

Nonsense. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the states having to allow people to vote. They could be a theocracy if they want to, according to the original Constitution. They were given numerous and undefined powers, unlike the Federal Government.

[klamath]

The South was not raising an army. The South called up 60,000 men after the war started, and the states had called up some militia to force forts to surrender, all of which did besides Ft. Sumter and one other in Florida. As for your question on how people would have voted if everyone had the right to vote, that question is an irrelevant hypotheses contrary to fact. The fact is that Northern states also refused the right to vote for blacks. They were not voters at the time anywhere, to say they should have counted them is to apply a standard irrelevant to the time period. A legal secession has always been when the state gathers in convention and adopts an ordinance rescinding its ratification of the Constitutional compact between it and the rest of the states of the Union. That is what happened when the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation, and that is how the South did it in 1860-61.
So the states calling up the militia against the federal forts is such a peaceful move.:rolleyes:
I'm not here to defend the north. both sides were guilty of insanity in my book. In reality citing law is a joke in this case. The entire Fu***** rule of law had completely collapsed on both sides at that point as is always the case when man resorts to the one ultimate law. Killing and FORCE!

[robert68]

...A legal secession has always been when the state gathers in convention and adopts an ordinance rescinding its ratification of the Constitutional compact between it and the rest of the states of the Union. That is what happened when the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation, and that is how the South did it in 1860-61.

The Articles of Confederation required unanimous approval of the States to be amended, and this was never achieved.

[klamath]

Nonsense. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the states having to allow people to vote. They could be a theocracy if they want to, according to the original Constitution. They were given numerous and undefined powers, unlike the Federal Government.

Since we are quoting the constitution that was utterly ignored by all sides at this point, it did say;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[low preference guy]

Since we are quoting the constitution that was utterly ignored by all sides at this point, it did say;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That's not a power to prevent secession.

See here (http://www.constitution.org/js/js_322.htm).

[klamath]

That's not a power to prevent secession.

See here (http://www.constitution.org/js/js_322.htm).
Someone elses comentary? Isn't that what we are doing here?
As I said before the constution was null and void at the time of the civil war. No point in quoting it as all sides were breaking it and couldn't agree on who was breaking it worse so they apealed it to the war gods.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The states left the union before lincoln even came into office.

It's a historical fact that the deep south states left because of Lincoln's election. Had, say, Breckinridge won in 1860 it wouldn't have happened.

November 1860: Lincoln elected.

December 1860: South Carolina becomes first state to secede.

[low preference guy]

Someone elses comentary? Isn't that what we are doing here?
As I said before the constution was null and void at the time of the civil war. No point in quoting it as all sides were breaking it and couldn't agree on who was breaking it worse so they apealed it to the war gods.

Given your argument that both sides broke the law, I would also argue that both sides used slaves.

Now what differentiates the South's actions from the North's actions apart from the above violations? The North converted a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. It destroyed Federalism and the ability of states to be experiments in government. And you suggest they are equally guilty? That's like saying that is equally good to have or not have the Feds today raiding people's houses in California looking for marijuana, killing innocents in the process.

The South committed many crimes, including slavery. They're inexcusable. But were they worse than the North? Of course not, because the North not only committed those crimes, but also, as I said above, turned a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion and destroyed Federalism, and we suffer from that still today, and it's something the South never intended to do.

[Number19]

This is the one area that I part with RP. The civil war was the result of a long festering flaw in the constitution. Lincoln did a lot of bad shit but the war was not to be avoided by the time it hit. All sides were fighting for the glorious flags right down to the average man. No one man could have started or stopped that war.Let's look at the timeline :

1) In late 1860, Southern States were arguing their rights of nullification & secession.

2) On February 4, 1861 the Confederate States of America was formed, with 7 states seceding from the Union. The outgoing Buchanan administration rejected the legality of secession.

3) On March 4th, Lincoln took the oath of office, declaring in his inaugural speech that the secession was legally void.

4) In April, two events occurred, the attack upon and the surrender of Ft Sumter; and the Union blockade of the South.

Leading up to Ft Sumter, in late December, Union forces abandoned Ft Moultrie and relocated to Ft Sumter. During January and February the government of South Carolina repeatedly called for the evacuation of Ft Sumter; the North was attempting to reinforce the garrison; these attempts to reinforce were prevented; and finally, Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships into Charleston Harbor to support the fort, arriving in the early morning hours of April 11.

That day, an envoy was dispatched to the fort calling for its surrender, which was refused. On April 12, Southern forces began the bombardment and the fort surrendered on the 13th.

5) On April 19th, Lincoln announced the Union blockade of all the Southern ports.

6) In July, Lincoln sent the Northern Army into Virgina.


In my mind, the aggressor is clear.

Now, although there were myriad reasons behind the hostilities, it is apparent that the direct and immediate escalation of this hostility into warfare was the secession of the Southern States and the refusal of Lincoln to allow this to happen.

[Number19]

Piss poor excuse. The south was raising armies. Had all the people been allowed to vote would the south have voted to secede? So was it a legal secession? What makes a legal secession?I will grant that there was some disagreement and difference of opinion, but still, there is a large body of historical writing to support the position that there was a strong, prevailing political position, from the time of the ratification of the Constitution up until 1860, that the states had a right of nullification and secession. The belief is that this right was protected by the 10th Amendment.

[klamath]

Let's look at the timeline :

1) In late 1860, Southern States were arguing their rights of nullification & secession.

2) On February 4, 1861 the Confederate States of America was formed, with 7 states seceding from the Union. The outgoing Buchanan administration rejected the legality of secession.

3) On March 4th, Lincoln took the oath of office, declaring in his inaugural speech that the secession was legally void.

4) In April, two events occurred, the attack upon and the surrender of Ft Sumter; and the Union blockade of the South.

Leading up to Ft Sumter, in late December, Union forces abandoned Ft Moultrie and relocated to Ft Sumter. During January and February the government of South Carolina repeatedly called for the evacuation of Ft Sumter; the North was attempting to reinforce the garrison; these attempts to reinforce were prevented; and finally, Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships into Charleston Harbor to support the fort, arriving in the early morning hours of April 11.

That day, an envoy was dispatched to the fort calling for its surrender, which was refused. On April 12, Southern forces began the bombardment and the fort surrendered on the 13th.

5) On April 19th, Lincoln announced the Union blockade of all the Southern ports.

6) In July, Lincoln sent the Northern Army into Virgina.


In my mind, the aggressor is clear.

Now, although there were myriad reasons behind the hostilities, it is apparent that the direct and immediate escalation of this hostility into warfare was the secession of the Southern States and the refusal of Lincoln to allow this to happen.

Quite clearly to me too.

[klamath]

I will grant that there was some disagreement and difference of opinion, but still, there is a large body of historical writing to support the position that there was a strong, prevailing political position, from the time of the ratification of the Constitution up until 1860, that the states had a right of nullification and secession. The belief is that this right was protected by the 10th Amendment.
What did the southern president Jackson say to SC when they threatened secede?

[low preference guy]

:mad:
What did the southern president Jackson say to SC when they threatened secede?

At this point is pretty clear that you're not arguing for or against slavery or for or against obeying the law. You're arguing for a strong centralized government in which states are not experiments in government. You're arguing against Federalism.

[klamath]

:mad:

At this point is pretty clear that you're not arguing for or against slavery or for or against obeying the law. You're arguing for a strong centralized government in which states are not experiments in government. You're arguing against Federalism.
I hate jackson because of what he did to the indians. My point is that there is strong prior evidence that to secede would start a war which is to counter the argument that all the states thought they could just leave up until that point.
I guess it is pretty clear your are arguing for state enforced slavery of private individuals:mad:

[TNforPaul45]

The reasons for the Civil War and Lincoln's legacy are perhaps the two most mislead historic events in American history. The poster who recommended 'The Real Lincoln' had it right, that's the book that should be taught in highschool. The republic was never the same after Lincoln, but we're taught that he destroyed all of the racists from the south.

There was no more Republic after the Civil war. There was only the Imperial States of Northern America and their conquered Southern and Island territories.

The Imperial States continues today, a place where the coward is the hero, the moocher is the producer, and disputes are not decided by ideas but by guns. A place where no man has the right to either their person or their property, nor their time, since it must be spent in service of the taxes needed to feed the "productive needy" all around them.

[low preference guy]

I guess it is pretty clear your are arguing for state enforced slavery of private individuals

Wrong. I argued against slavery. But since both sides committed this crime, I argued that the North was worse for also destroying Federalism.


Given your argument that both sides broke the law, I would also argue that both sides used slaves.

Now, what differentiates the South's actions from the North's actions apart from the above violations? The North converted a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. It destroyed Federalism and the ability of states to be experiments in government. And you suggest they are equally guilty? That's like saying that is equally good to have or not have the Feds today raiding people's houses in California looking for marijuana, killing innocents in the process.

The South committed many crimes, including slavery. They're inexcusable. But were they worse than the North? Of course not, because the North not only committed those crimes, but also, as I said above, turned a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion and destroyed Federalism, and we suffer from that still today, and it's something the South never intended to do.

[TNforPaul45]

Quite clearly to me too.

The state seceeded as is their right under the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln caused the aggression by an aggressive act of his own: He sent Battleships to the fort.

Egged on by this, the South had no choice but to acknowledge a threat to their soverignty and attack the fort.

Lincoln started a war that killed 600,000+ people because he wanted the political advantage it would give him, both during and afterwards, and because he refused to evacuate ONE LITTLE FORT. He REFUSED to allow for a cooling off period, but kept ignoring the cries of injustice.

Yes slavery was very very wrong. The civil war was part of us, as a nation, paying for the crime that we commited by enslaving other human beings. Jefferson saw this coming, when he reflected on the soverign Justice that God operates under, along with his unblinking eye.

But it would have ended on its own very soon if Lincoln had rested his laurels on IDEAS to end it, not GUNS. But no, Lincoln studied under the school of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that force and debt are the two glues that hold a country together, and who convinced WAshington to turn on his own countrymen and put down a smaller rebellion in the north.

Lincoln listened to Hamilton, not even a natural born citizen of our country, but a foreign profiteering ursurper, who came here and fought to operate under the British view of people, that they are subjects to the STATE and must be thinned out when they start thinking for themselves.

Don't approach thinking men and expect them to believe your drivel that the South was the aggressor. The North oppressed them with harsh economic policies for decades before the civil war. Then had the audacity to tell them that they were the subjects of an "eternal union," bound with chains of association that can never be severed, except in the event of death of the chained. They had the unmitigated gall to say that the Rebels were being led by the "Aristocratic Ursurpers" and the "Wealthy plantation owners." We see this bullcrap pulled today. The RICH and PRODUCING members of society are ENEMIES of the state, they say, they are selfish and do not think of the good of the rest of the nation. We refuse to produce, so they must be made to supply us with our life resources, at the end of a gun if necessary.

This is the essence of the Civil War. All other issues are simplified distractions aimed at a large number of people who have never been educated on the fine details.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[klamath]

Wrong. I argued against slavery. But since both sides committed this crime, I argued that the North was worse for also destroying Federalism.

and I am arguing against the south for starting the war that destroyed legitiment cases for states rights.

[low preference guy]

and I am arguing against the south for starting the war that destroyed legitiment cases for states rights.

How can the South starting a war destroy another state's rights? LOL!!!!

That's like saying that if your son does something wrong, you should punish your daughter for his act. And who is to blame for the parent punishing the innocent daughter? The son, of course!

Dude, you're insane.

[Number19]

Quite clearly to me too.Simply to make my next point, I'm going to concede on this point.

Ft Sumter was really a very minor altercation and resulted in no lose of life. It is not at all uncommon for such incidents to be overlooked or put aside - unless one side or the other has a broader agenda to propagate a war.

Every action that Lincoln took, from the time of his inaugural address, was pointed toward instigating warfare and culminated in his decision to send the Union Army into Virgina in July. With its defeat at Manassas and retreat back to Washington, there was no turning back at that point.

Lincoln had his war.

The fact is, the Confederate States were open to a peaceful resolution. Lincoln was not.

[klamath]

The state seceeded as is their right under the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln caused the aggression by an aggressive act of his own: He sent Battleships to the fort.

Egged on by this, the South had no choice but to acknowledge a threat to their soverignty and attack the fort.

Lincoln started a war that killed 600,000+ people because he wanted the political advantage it would give him, both during and afterwards, and because he refused to evacuate ONE LITTLE FORT. He REFUSED to allow for a cooling off period, but kept ignoring the cries of injustice.

Yes slavery was very very wrong. The civil war was part of us, as a nation, paying for the crime that we commited by enslaving other human beings. Jefferson saw this coming, when he reflected on the soverign Justice that God operates under, along with his unblinking eye.

But it would have ended on its own very soon if Lincoln had rested his laurels on IDEAS to end it, not GUNS. But no, Lincoln studied under the school of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that force and debt are the two glues that hold a country together, and who convinced WAshington to turn on his own countrymen and put down a smaller rebellion in the north.

Lincoln listened to Hamilton, not even a natural born citizen of our country, but a foreign profiteering ursurper, who came here and fought to operate under the British view of people, that they are subjects to the STATE and must be thinned out when they start thinking for themselves.

Don't approach thinking men and expect them to believe your drivel that the South was the aggressor. The North oppressed them with harsh economic policies for decades before the civil war. Then had the audacity to tell them that they were the subjects of an "eternal union," bound with chains of association that can never be severed, except in the event of death of the chained. They had the unmitigated gall to say that the Rebels were being led by the "Aristocratic Ursurpers" and the "Wealthy plantation owners." We see this bullcrap pulled today. The RICH and PRODUCING members of society are ENEMIES of the state, they say, they are selfish and do not think of the good of the rest of the nation. We refuse to produce, so they must be made to supply us with our life resources, at the end of a gun if necessary.

This is the essence of the Civil War. All other issues are simplified distractions aimed at a large number of people who have never been educated on the fine details.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
And once again the south pulled the trigger. No matter how it is twisted. No matter how it was justified they drew first blood in the war that would cost the lives of so many innocents.

[low preference guy]

And once again the south pulled the trigger. No matter how it is twisted. No matter how it was justified they drew first blood in the war that would cost the lives of so many innocents.

No matter how you twist it, the South didn't destroy Federalism. The South didn't convert a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. If you actually believe that, well, I guess I can't help you. That's so nonsensical that you'd need professional help.

[Number19]

What did the southern president Jackson say to SC when they threatened secede?Did you read the first half of my opening sentence? Perhaps you only misconstrued my point. I recognize that there was some historical disagreement over this point. That does not win the argument or address the point that there was widespread historical acceptance of the political position that States had the Rights of nullification and secession.

[TNforPaul45]

And once again the south pulled the trigger. No matter how it is twisted. No matter how it was justified they drew first blood in the war that would cost the lives of so many innocents.

A man is walking down an alleyway. He is minding his own business, it is night.
He notices that another man emerges from the shadows, and pulls a knife. The stranger does not advance on him, but keeps pace, keeping the knife visible.
Another person emerges from the shadows, with a bat.
The scared pedestrian now picks up their pace, they see a bend in the alley ahead.
A third aggressor emerges from the shadows, carrying a gun. A fourth with a butchers cleaver.
As they all go around the bend, the scared pedestrian sees that the alley is a dead end. As he is backed into the corner, the four armed men approach him and the lead says "We are going to kill you because you refuse to join us."

The scared man, seeing no other way out, after trying to peacefully get away from them, lunges into the four men, fighting for all his might, trying to escape. They kill him after a struggle, but they are a beat up as well.

Who, then, was the aggressor here? The man defending himself against the inevitable, or the men who cornered him with deadly weapons and intent?

Answer this, and you answer this debate.

[klamath]

Simply to make my next point, I'm going to concede on this point.

Ft Sumter was really a very minor altercation and resulted in no lose of life. It is not at all uncommon for such incidents to be overlooked or put aside - unless one side or the other has a broader agenda to propagate a war.

Every action that Lincoln took, from the time of his inaugural address, was pointed toward instigating warfare and culminated in his decision to send the Union Army into Virgina in July. With its defeat at Manassas and retreat back to Washington, there was no turning back at that point.

Lincoln had his war.

The fact is, the Confederate States were open to a peaceful resolution. Lincoln was not.

The fact is neither side was open to a peaceful resolution but the south lite the fuse and will be remembered in history for it. Had they not done it first the north very well have done it but we will never know. The sad unfortunate truth is both sides thought it would be a lark and both sides have their crosses to bear.

[Number19]

...My point is that there is strong prior evidence that to secede would start a war which is to counter the argument that all the states thought they could just leave up until that point...Finally, your point. I don't have an answer to this. You may very well be right. Any reasonable person may very well have seen this consequence at the time. I would hazard a guess that the Southern politicians did recognize this probability. But they also believed in their Rights and their Liberty and their Freedom and they were willing to put their lives on the line to defend their beliefs.

[klamath]

A man is walking down an alleyway. He is minding his own business, it is night.
He notices that another man emerges from the shadows, and pulls a knife. The stranger does not advance on him, but keeps pace, keeping the knife visible.
Another person emerges from the shadows, with a bat.
The scared pedestrian now picks up their pace, they see a bend in the alley ahead.
A third aggressor emerges from the shadows, carrying a gun. A fourth with a butchers cleaver.
As they all go around the bend, the scared pedestrian sees that the alley is a dead end. As he is backed into the corner, the four armed men approach him and the lead says "We are going to kill you because you refuse to join us."

The scared man, seeing no other way out, after trying to peacefully get away from them, lunges into the four men, fighting for all his might, trying to escape. They kill him after a struggle, but they are a beat up as well.

Who, then, was the aggressor here? The man defending himself against the inevitable, or the men who cornered him with deadly weapons and intent?

Answer this, and you answer this debate.

Hows this one. A man robs a bank containing another mans labor and when the police show up he attempts to leave but with a bunch of hostages held at gunpoint, shoots at the police then screams police brutality when they return fire.

[Number19]

The fact is neither side was open to a peaceful resolution...Now this is an interesting claim and I would appreciate, for my knowledge, anything which would back it up.

Having seceded from the Union and formed their own government, are you saying that the South would then have invaded the North? To what purpose? The Southern governments, having created their own nation, had the goal of removing all Union presence from their newly created nation. Ft Sumter controlled Charleston Harbor and its control by Union forces was unacceptable. They had no desire for aggression beyond this ( this is only my opinion, not supported by research ).

I maintain my statement that the South was open to a peaceful resolution.

[klamath]

No matter how you twist it, the South didn't destroy Federalism. The South didn't convert a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. If you actually believe that, well, I guess I can't help you. That's so nonsensical that you'd need professional help.
The war and the political fallout from it did. It gave the big federal government politicians the upper hand in the north.
No, but the south still managed to crush the individual freedoms of millions of Americans for the next hundred years.

[klamath]

Now this is an interesting claim and I would appreciate, for my knowledge, anything which would back it up.

Having seceded from the Union and formed their own government, are you saying that the South would then have invaded the North? To what purpose? The Southern governments, having created their own nation, had the goal of removing all Union presence from their newly created nation. Ft Sumter controlled Charleston Harbor and its control by Union forces was unacceptable. They had no desire for aggression beyond this ( this is only my opinion, not supported by research ).

I maintain my statement that the South was open to a peaceful resolution.

So peaceful they lite the fuses on the canons:rolleyes:

[Number19]

So peaceful they lite the fuses on the canons:rolleyes:This altercation, which resulted in no lose of life, did not justify sending the Union Army into Northern Virgina, resulting in an all out armed conflict, costing the lives of 600,000 soldiers on both sides.

Lincoln really didn't use very good judgment. Or was conflict his intent?

[randolphfuller]

Lincoln had sentt warships to Ft. Sumter, paid for by Southerners as well as Northerners. Their purpose was to" subjugate our people". If the South had ever dreamed they could not leave a Union peacefully and voluntarily entered into, they would never have joined! All other Union forts in the Confederacy had been surrendered. Why Lincoln chose to start War over Sumter must remain something of a mystery.

[TNforPaul45]

Hows this one. A man robs a bank containing another mans labor and when the police show up he attempts to leave but with a bunch of hostages held at gunpoint, shoots at the police then screams police brutality when they return fire.

How are we to apply this analogy? Is the "bank" Ft. Sumpter and the "hostages" the african-american slaves in the south? What point of ownership are you trying to say that the south was robbing from? That the Federal Government owned both, and the South was stealing both from it? Or are you exposing your ultimate point, that people have no right to anything, and that the centralized State has the right to own and control both people and property? And that any time a person acts under their own intent, to do something with themselves or their property (do not try to imply that I am labeling slavery with ownership here, I have already stated the nation was wrong for slavery) that they are stealing from the State?

Your opinion is revealed. That once a territory became a state, the Federal Government became eternal owner of every jot and tithe contained within that state, both people and property, and that no persons other than the members Federal Government had the right to control those assets.

South Carolina removed itself from the "eternal Union," as is the rights of any state. It asked the Union Troops to leave. Instead of pulling them out, Lincoln instead decided to act like an angry parent and send battleships. He intended to show that the Federals could piss more than the States.

The right to withdraw from the Union is the inalienable notion that no person alive has the right to command upon those who will be alive in the future an association which those future persons may not find pursant to their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." The association of the states is a voluntary association which gains agreed upon mutual profit. When one party feels the agreement is no longer profitable or pleasurable, they have the right as a free being to leave. When the other party, by use of violence or force, "insists" that the association stay, it is a grave wrong that is committed.

Be it by Southern peoples upon the african-american population, or be it by a Federal Leadership upon states.

If the Confederacy had instantly released every slave into freedom, and delivered them to the North, after the events of Ft. Sumpter, the war would have still went on. Because the war was NOT about Slavery, but about OBEDIENCE to the State.

[Number19]

How are we to apply this analogy? Is the "bank" Ft. Sumpter and the "hostages" the african-american slaves in the south? What point of ownership are you trying to say that the south was robbing from? That the Federal Government owned both, and the South was stealing both from it? Or are you exposing your ultimate point, that people have no right to anything, and that the centralized State has the right to own and control both people and property? And that any time a person acts under their own intent, to do something with themselves or their property (do not try to imply that I am labeling slavery with ownership here, I have already stated the nation was wrong for slavery) that they are stealing from the State?

Your opinion is revealed. That once a territory became a state, the Federal Government became eternal owner of every jot and tithe contained within that state, both people and property, and that no persons other than the members Federal Government had the right to control those assets.

South Carolina removed itself from the "eternal Union," as is the rights of any state. It asked the Union Troops to leave. Instead of pulling them out, Lincoln instead decided to act like an angry parent and send battleships. He intended to show that the Federals could piss more than the States.

The right to withdraw from the Union is the inalienable notion that no person alive has the right to command upon those who will be alive in the future an association which those future persons may not find pursant to their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." The association of the states is a voluntary association which gains agreed upon mutual profit. When one party feels the agreement is no longer profitable or pleasurable, they have the right as a free being to leave. When the other party, by use of violence or force, "insists" that the association stay, it is a grave wrong that is committed.

Be it by Southern peoples upon the african-american population, or be it by a Federal Leadership upon states.

If the Confederacy had instantly released every slave into freedom, and delivered them to the North, after the events of Ft. Sumpter, the war would have still went on. Because the war was NOT about Slavery, but about OBEDIENCE to the State.Nullification and secession is a fundamental right. The Civil War & 14th Amendment supposedly settled this issue with the negative conclusion. It did not die and was back with the 60's and George Wallace. It was supposedly settled with the negative conclusion. It's back again today.

Fundamental Rights are fundamental precisely because free people have an inherent knowledge of right from wrong. Fundamental Rights cannot be killed or denied through laws or legislation; they are always in the hearts of patriots and will reappear as a political issue when free people are pushed too far.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

So peaceful they lite the fuses on the canons:rolleyes:

You know, that bombardment killed a grand total of zero people. Can you imagine if Presidents of our country today used such flimsy pretenses to justify an invasion of an at least somewhat equal military power that resulted in 620,000 dead Americans?

[klamath]

This altercation, which resulted in no lose of life, did not justify sending the Union Army into Northern Virgina, resulting in an all out armed conflict, costing the lives of 600,000 soldiers on both sides.

Lincoln really didn't use very good judgment. Or was conflict his intent?

Agreed with the bold. No he thought would be a quick march down to Richmond and it would all be over just like the south though it would all be over after Sumpter.
Hindsight is 20/20

[sailingaway]

Devore said anti Ron stuff during the primary, which is why I initially decided not to vote for him. Any politician waxing snarky about Ron Paul doesn't have the people's interest in mind IMHO. And I put McClintock on that list, who said Ron 'didn't have the stature' to be president, then gladly took his endorsement to help (narrowly) win his US house seat. He may be conservative, but not my kind.

[trey4sports]

what are the chances of another civil war?

[low preference guy]

what are the chances of another civil war?

You mean another secession war?

As likely as the chances to declare independence. In my book, forcing people to buy a product crosses a line and is a valid justification for secession. Not even King George got away with forcing people to buy products. But alas, tolerance for oppression is much higher among Americans these days.

[YumYum]

Lincoln really didn't use very good judgment.

The South didn't use very good judgment seceding from the Union and firing upon Ft. Sumter. Why? They got their asses kicked.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why? They got their asses kicked.

More union soldiers died than Confederate. 360,000 total union dead to 260,000 total for the confederacy.

With every advantage under the sun: an army twice as large (2,100,000 to 1,064,000) and a huge manufacturing base the south didn't have; many at the time predicted a six month long war at the most. It went four years.

[Number19]

The South didn't use very good judgment seceding from the Union and firing upon Ft. Sumter. Why? They got their asses kicked.I agree with klamath that Lincoln's decision was as much miscalculation as poor judgement. As for the South's decisions, these were different times. People were still alive who had been born before the Revolution, and certainly people who had fathers and grandfathers who had fought in the War for Independence. This generation of Southerners was willing to risk their all defending their rights and freedoms. Sure, slavery was a political issue, but how do you explain the majority who did not own slaves, who none the less willingly took up arms against the Union.

Was this poor judgment? Possibly, from the perspective of our culture today. But then? They had a different code of ethics.

[low preference guy]

I agree with klamath that Lincoln's decision was as much as miscalculation as poor judgement. As for the South's decisions, these were different times. People were still alive who had been born before the Revolution, and certainly people who had fathers and grandfathers who had fought in the War for Independence. This generation of Southerners was willing to risk their all defending their rights and freedoms. Sure, slavery was a political issue, but how do you explain the majority who did not own slaves, who none the less willingly took up arms against the Union.

Was this poor judgment? Possibly, from the perspective of our culture today. But then? They had a different code of ethics.

The decision to defend the South is justified still today. Lincoln converted a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. He destroyed Federalism, and we suffer the consequences still today, one example is every innocent that dies when the Fed raids some house looking for marijuana in California. All those things are wrong and are a consequence of destroying Federalism, so if one could go to the past, the right decision would be to fight against Lincoln even harder.

[klamath]

The sad truth is the north was fighting for the union while selling it to the people and soldiers as a war to free slaves while the south was fighting to preserve slavery while selling it to the people and the soldiers it was for their states.

[YumYum]

I agree with klamath that Lincoln's decision was as much as miscalculation as poor judgement. As for the South's decisions, these were different times. People were still alive who had been born before the Revolution, and certainly people who had fathers and grandfathers who had fought in the War for Independence. This generation of Southerners was willing to risk their all defending their rights and freedoms. Sure, slavery was a political issue, but how do you explain the majority who did not own slaves, who none the less willingly took up arms against the Union.

Was this poor judgment? Possibly, from the perspective of our culture today. But then? They had a different code of ethics.

Its no different today. Look how everybody in this country was willing to go into Iraq, and yet Iraq had done nothing to us. Its lies and propaganda that compels people to want to go to war. The South was no different. The first seven states seceded because they assumed that when Lincoln got elected he would try to abolish slavery, even though Lincoln made it clear that he had no intention of abolishing slavery.

Why is it that people on this forum, who do not trust government, especially the United States government, are apologists for the government of the Confederacy? The Confederate government was just as corrupt as the U.S. government. The poor white southerners who didn't own slaves and fought for the South were told by their government that they were defending their homes. They might have been once the war began, but, unbeknownst to them, they were really fighting for the bankers and the wealthy plantation owners, according to G. Edward Griffin.

Its no different than the lie being propagated right now to go to war with Iran. Our government tells us its to protect our "national security".

[Agorism]

DeVore is the guy who wanted to ban the muslim protestors from a local campus.

[klamath]

Its no different today. Look how everybody in this country was willing to go into Iraq, and yet Iraq had done nothing to us. Its lies and propaganda that compels people to want to go to war. The South was no different. The first seven states seceded because they assumed that when Lincoln got elected he would try to abolish slavery, even though Lincoln made it clear that he had no intention of abolishing slavery.

Why is it that people on this forum, who do not trust government, especially the United States government, are apologists for the government of the Confederacy? The Confederate government was just as corrupt as the U.S. government. The poor white southerners who didn't own slaves and fought for the South were told by their government that they were defending their homes. They might have been once the war began, but, unbeknownst to them, they were really fighting for the bankers and the wealthy plantation owners, according to G. Edward Griffin.

Its no different than the lie being propagated right now to go to war with Iran. Our government tells us its to protect our "national security".
I have to agree with the democrat:D

[YumYum]

I have to agree with the democrat:D

Jeffersonian Democrat! :D

[Agorism]

DeVore kept his mouth shut during the election riding the support of Libertarians.

Good thing he lost.

Fiorini never bothered to vote until 2008. At least she knew that that which party is in power matters very little. I kind of like her.

[low preference guy]

Fiorini never bothered to vote until 2008. At least she knew that that which party is in power matters very little. I kind of like her.

Are you serious? You like someone who wants to regulate the internet and supported the bailouts?

[Number19]

The sad truth is the north was fighting for the union while selling it to the people and soldiers as a war to free slaves while the south was fighting to preserve slavery while selling it to the people and the soldiers it was for their states.I can't comment on how accurate this is, but I can comment that is not entirely accurate.

My g-g-grandfather fought for the South - a soldier of the famous Kentucky Orphan Brigade. Kentucky was a Union state, yet 4000 enlisted to fight for the South. The Orphans were renowned, during the war, for their bravery in battle, suffering 80% casualties. Fewer than 600 survived to return to their homes.

My ancestor and his comrades fought and died for what they believed was right, not because they had been "sold" on falsehoods.

[Number19]

... The poor white southerners who didn't own slaves and fought for the South were told by their government that they were defending their homes...There may or may not be some validity in this statement, but it simply is not accurate. Texans were never defending their homes, yet just as my ancestor and his comrades left Kentucky to fight for the South, Texans joined up, rode a thousand miles and fought for a cause which didn't directly impact their homes and families.

[klamath]

I can't comment on how accurate this is, but I can comment that is not entirely accurate.

My g-g-grandfather fought for the South - a soldier of the famous Kentucky Orphan Brigade. Kentucky was a Union state, yet 4000 enlisted to fight for the South. The Orphans were renowned, during the war, for their bravery in battle, suffering 80% casualties. Fewer than 600 survived to return to their homes.

My ancestor and his comrades fought and died for what they believed was right, not because they had been "sold" on falsehoods.

You know what. I have a story that is a little closer. A good friend of mine I served with in Iraq was shot down over Baghdad dragged from his helicopter and executed. He died believing he was fighting for his family his country and freedom.
Was he?

[Agorism]

Are you serious? You like someone who wants to regulate the internet and supported the bailouts?

I like her ideology of ambition not so much her beliefs if she has those. She is a bit machiavellian.

[low preference guy]

I like her ideology of ambition not so much her beliefs. She is a bit machiavellian.

yeah. it's really exciting how she is going to dilute or take away your wealth to give it to failed corporations.

[Agorism]

Carly open mic. So funny.

YouTube - ‪Carly Fiorina Caught on Open Mic‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg_80OgpRsg)

[Number19]

You know what. I have a story that is a little closer. A good friend of mine I served with in Iraq was shot down over Baghdad dragged from his helicopter and executed. He died believing he was fighting for his family his country and freedom.
Was he?Are the two situations similar? You are comparing modern society with it's educational and news media induced propaganda capability, with the mid-19th century and its limited educational system and a media system limited to newspapers. 19th century Americans held, and were fighting for, the same social values held by their ancestors, cussed and discussed in the taverns, in their churches and in their homes for the previous 80 years. Today's youth believe and fight after being educated in government schools and immersed in modern media propaganda.

So you are asking : what is truth. In so far as your friend believed what he believed to be true, that was his reality, so yes he died for these values.

Were some people supporting the War Between the States on behest of bankers and plantation owners? Certainly. But their ability to propagate and spread this reasoning was extremely limited in the rural South.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A lot of people in this thread do not realize that half the states (ultimately) in the CSA didn't seceede until Lincoln declared war on the CSA, and mobilized and marched a Federal Army onto those states who seceeded. The war was about many things. Tariffs, autonomy of the states, slavery, tyranny, etc.

The North however, was never just in its cause, while the South at least on more occassions were. Nevertheless, the North was the aggressor, and anyone who supports such a thing is mistaken. (I do support the right of a slave seeking volunteers to come to their aid, but the North fueled their entire campaign through conscription, taxation, and plunder -- unacceptable)

[South Park Fan]

I regret having voted for him for Senate. At least he won't be my state rep in a few months.

[Number19]

A lot of people in this thread do not realize that half the states (ultimately) in the CSA didn't seceede until Lincoln declared war on the CSA, and mobilized and marched a Federal Army onto those states who seceeded...This is so true. I had never considered this timeline, but the Kentucky volunteers did not organize until after Lincoln's army had marched into Virgina, in July. In researching the history of the Orphans, I'll have to keep this in mind. Thanks.

[jmdrake]

He claims secession is illegal.

If that's the case does he defend our illegal secession from England?

Well there was a thread recently where pro confederates complained about the "illegal secession" of West Virginia from Virginia. The bottom line is this. There was no "right of secession" in the constitution and there was no "right of secession" in the Magna Carta either. What makes something "right" historically is A) who actually won the war and B) what kind of "spin" can you put on the reasons for fighting it.

There's no doubt about who won the U.S. civil war, so spin is all that remains. Some modern pro confederates want to "spin" the war between the states as totally about states rights (not true) and some modern pro unionists want to spin it as totally about slavery (also not true). It was a mixture of both. One thing I can say for sure. Slave states were quite willing to violate the rights of other states when it fit their aims! Look in the articles of secession where almost all secession states named lack of enforcement of "fugitive slave laws" and "growing antagonism towards slavery" as reasons to secede. Why either of those things matter if they truly believed in "states rights"? Should other states be free not to return slaves? Shouldn't other states be free to hate the institution of slavery? And look at the confederate constitution. That vile document barred member states from ending slavery! Now some may come back and counter argue that confederate states could seceded from the confederacy. But such a right of secession from the confederacy is NOT in the confederate constitution! Further, don't forget that then general Andrew Jackson invaded Spanish controlled Florida to put an end to Seminole Indians making raids to free slaves. He made that at the behest of slave states bordering Florida. So if these states cared so little about the sovereignty of another country that they would call for an invasion to stop the loss of their "property" why would anyone believe that they would allow a "belligerent" free state on their borders?

Last point. Ron Paul is right that slavery could have ended from compensated emancipation. Where he is wrong (and yes Ron Paul is indeed wrong on this) is that he ignores the question of whether an agreement on this could have actually been reached. Lincoln tried compensated emancipation with the border states (slave states that did not seceded) and failed! The reason for the failure? The slave states wanted more money, and the free states thought the price was too high.

I'm not a big fan of Chuck Devore. And I think his analysis was a bit superficial. (He should have mentioned the fact that Lincoln attempted compensated emancipation). And yes I know most people in the south didn't own slaves. Most people in the North didn't own factories either and didn't directly benefit from protective tariffs. Most Americans today don't own oil wells also. That doesn't mean oil doesn't direct our foreign policy. The problem in 1863, and the problem in 2010 lies with the lying politicians on all sides of every conflict. We do this movement a disservice by taking the simplistic view of "south = good and Lincoln/union = bad". It's far more complicated than that.

[jmdrake]

This is so true. I had never considered this timeline, but the Kentucky volunteers did not organize until after Lincoln's army had marched into Virgina, in July. In researching the history of the Orphans, I'll have to keep this in mind. Thanks.

And there were parts of Alabama, Tennessee and other states that seceded that took up arms against the confederacy.

See:
http://www.archives.state.al.us/emblems/st_drama.html
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=3425&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search

Klamath's point was 100% accurate. The problem with talking about the causes of wars is that people get too hung up on the honor of their ancestors. Sure there were honorable people fighting for the south. There were also honorable people fighting for the north. There are honorable people fighting on both sides in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there are despicable people fighting on both sides.

[jmdrake]

Its no different today. Look how everybody in this country was willing to go into Iraq, and yet Iraq had done nothing to us. Its lies and propaganda that compels people to want to go to war. The South was no different. The first seven states seceded because they assumed that when Lincoln got elected he would try to abolish slavery, even though Lincoln made it clear that he had no intention of abolishing slavery.

Why is it that people on this forum, who do not trust government, especially the United States government, are apologists for the government of the Confederacy? The Confederate government was just as corrupt as the U.S. government. The poor white southerners who didn't own slaves and fought for the South were told by their government that they were defending their homes. They might have been once the war began, but, unbeknownst to them, they were really fighting for the bankers and the wealthy plantation owners, according to G. Edward Griffin.

Its no different than the lie being propagated right now to go to war with Iran. Our government tells us its to protect our "national security".

Man you really nailed it!

[Number19]

... slavery could have ended from compensated emancipation. Where he is wrong (and yes Ron Paul is indeed wrong on this) is that he ignores the question of whether an agreement on this could have actually been reached. Lincoln tried compensated emancipation with the border states (slave states that did not seceded) and failed! The reason for the failure? The slave states wanted more money, and the free states thought the price was too high...The one comment I would make would address "compensated emancipation". Your perspective and expectation takes too short of a historical view. The social and political pressures at that time was leading the world to abolish slavery. Even if it had taken the rest of the 19th century, slavery would have been abolished in the South voluntarily. Considering the racial problems that existed on into the 1960's, taking 30 or 40 years to achieve a voluntary abolition is not unreasonable and would have been far more preferable than the abolition by force.

[jmdrake]

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone else notice the stupidity in arguing about a war that took place 150 year ago?

I guess we have no current problems if people are arguing about events that happened long before any of our grand parents were born.

How about we focus on the problems here and now and then when all of those are solved we'll start arguing about the war of 1812.

PS: I find it ironic that a number of the posters who claim sports are a distraction are spending time arguing about this. Talk about a distraction...

^This. Plus it's funny that the forum is so "worried" about turning off potential voters with talk of "conspiracies" that such talk gets immediately relegated to HT, but we have one of these "let's re-fight the civil war" threads in the main forums every month or so. The people I interact with are less turned off by "9/11 was an inside job" than they are by "the south will rise again".

[low preference guy]

The people I interact with are less turned off by "9/11 was an inside job" than they are by "the south will rise again".

Who made that statement in this thread?

[jmdrake]

The one comment I would make would address "compensated emancipation". Your perspective and expectation takes too short of a historical view. The social and political pressures at that time was leading the world to abolish slavery. Even if it had taken the rest of the 19th century, slavery would have been abolished in the South voluntarily. Considering the racial problems that existed on into the 1960's, taking 30 or 40 years to achieve a voluntary abolition is not unreasonable and would have been far more preferable than the abolition by force.

1) That's armchair 20/20 hindsight history that's almost never right.
2) Slavery still exists in some parts of the world TODAY.
3) Slavery was about to end years earlier before the "cotton gin".
4) If the southern planters of the time really believed slavery was on the way out then they should have taken the "inadequate" money Lincoln was offering anyway.
5) Using the same argument above we never should have had the revolutionary war. England over time gave more freedoms to their majority white colonies that didn't revolt. (i.e. Canada).
6) Ron Paul's argument was not "Slavery would have just voluntarily disappeared" but that "slavery could have been ended through compensated emancipation". My only point is when Lincoln tried it, it didn't work.
7) For the slaves who were freed by the 13th amendment, that was more preferable than waiting 30 or 40 years, just like for those who benefited from freedom from the revolutionary war, that was preferable to waiting for the U.S. colony to get the same level of autonomy that was eventually granted to Canada.

[jmdrake]

Who made that statement in this thread?

It's implied. Further it's shorthand for all of the "The south was right...we still have a right of secession....let's secede" stuff we see over and over again. But I can count on you to miss the forest for the trees. I tell you what. Next MLK day go to your local rally and try doing a "The south was right" lecture and get someone else to do a "9/11 was an inside job" lecture. See which lecture was better received and get back with us.

[low preference guy]

It's implied.

or more like jmdrake's made it up.

[jmdrake]

or more like jmdrake's made it up.

I might respond to your quote above if it was even grammatically correct. :rolleyes:

Ah hell. I'll respond anyway. Take all of the talk of how we still should exercise the "right of secession" along with all of the arguments that "the south was totally right" and for anyone with half a brain (I realize that excludes you) that implies "The south will rise again". That's certainly the way something like that would be interpreted. But hey, you want to be literal? Fine. With the people I interact with talk about "The south was 100% right" is less palatable than talking about 9/11 or the New World Order or any of the other "hush - don't talk about that" topics at RPF.

[low preference guy]

I might respond to your quote above if it was even grammatically correct. :rolleyes:

that's fine. a false statement without even an attempt to justify it is not going to be believed by anyone.

[jmdrake]

that's fine. a false statement without even an attempt to justify it is not going to be believed by anyone.

I never said anyone said "The south will rise again". I mentioned that as the type of talk that won't fly with the type of people I'm trying to reach. So you made the false statement. The apologizing going on about the south in this and other threads is on par with "The south will rise again". But I realize you're just trolling. You can't argue against the substance of my statement, so you're going with a strawman.

[low preference guy]

If you're dumb enough to think that, cool. I already know you're a few cards short of a complete deck. Anyone with any brains knows what I'm talking about.

name calling at me doesn't make your smear any more credible.

[jmdrake]

name calling at me doesn't make your smear any more credible.

I never said anyone said "The south will rise again". I mentioned that as the type of talk that won't fly with the type of people I'm trying to reach. So you made the false statement. The apologizing going on about the south in this and other threads is on par with "The south will rise again". But I realize you're just trolling. You can't argue against the substance of my statement, so you're going with a strawman.

And I see you still don't want to address the substance. I'm not surprised. Also I didn't call you a name. I said "If you're dumb enough to believe that". You might not actually believe what you write. ;)

[low preference guy]

I never said anyone said "The south will rise again".

it was implied.

[jmdrake]

it was implied.

Ah. So you want to use that term when it suits you. ;) Like I said. I don't think you actually believe everything you write.

[Brian4Liberty]

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone else notice the stupidity in arguing about a war that took place 150 year ago?


Yep, I posted something to that effect somewhere close to the first page...


DeVore is the guy who wanted to ban the muslim protestors from a local campus.

Actually, the Muslim Union on a public school campus tried to ban him from their meetings first...


Fiorini never bothered to vote until 2008. At least she knew that that which party is in power matters very little. I kind of like her.

Fiorina, the person who was already notorious for destroying companies and behaving as though she were royalty, or as the media liked to say a "rockstar". If she wins in CA, will she borrow Pelosi's personal jets, or will she just order a few new custom ones on the taxpayer's dime, like she did at HP with the shareholders money?

[low preference guy]

I don't think you actually believe everything you write.

no problem. keep believing that if it makes you happy.

[jmdrake]

no problem. keep believing that if it makes you happy.

I'm happy that you know what the term "implied" means even if you won't apply it evenly. ;)

[Agorism]

Fiorina, the person who was already notorious for destroying companies and behaving as though she were royalty, or as the media liked to say a "rockstar". If she wins in CA, will she borrow Pelosi's personal jets, or will she just order a few new custom ones on the taxpayer's dime, like she did at HP with the shareholders money?

To her it's just another business proposition. She doesn't even vote because she knows it's mostly pointless.

I can respect that.

[LibertyEagle]

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone else notice the stupidity in arguing about a war that took place 150 year ago?

I guess we have no current problems if people are arguing about events that happened long before any of our grand parents were born.

How about we focus on the problems here and now and then when all of those are solved we'll start arguing about the war of 1812.

PS: I find it ironic that a number of the posters who claim sports are a distraction are spending time arguing about this. Talk about a distraction...

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

[Number19]

I haven't read this entire thread but does anyone else notice the stupidity in arguing about a war that took place 150 year ago?

I guess we have no current problems if people are arguing about events that happened long before any of our grand parents were born.

How about we focus on the problems here and now and then when all of those are solved we'll start arguing about the war of 1812.

PS: I find it ironic that a number of the posters who claim sports are a distraction are spending time arguing about this. Talk about a distraction...Pick up the paper on almost any day and you might see an item on "nullification"; occasionally on "seceding" . The past week or two there's been reports on amending the 14th Amendment.

[robert68]

The decision to defend the South is justified still today. Lincoln converted a voluntary union into an union kept by coercion. He destroyed Federalism, and we suffer the consequences still today, one example is every innocent that dies when the Fed raids some house looking for marijuana in California. All those things are wrong and are a consequence of destroying Federalism, so if one could go to the past, the right decision would be to fight against Lincoln even harder.

Any cause that requires conscription (slavery) and inflated currency to be advanced, as was the case in the Civil war with the Confederacy (as well and the Union), is not advancing individual liberty, IMO. The wrong means doesn’t lead to the right ends.

[jmdrake]

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

Yeah. Like those who seem oblivious to the fact that it was Andrew Jackson that effectively killed the "states rights" of nullification and secession and not Lincoln. It's funny that in this very thread someone praised Andrew Jackson as being of the "free market" party as opposed to Lincoln, when it was Andrew Jackson who first threatened to hang South Caroline secessionists who wanted out over protective tariffs. I will give that same person (Alex Merced) credit though for at least recognizing that the war was stupid on both sides and that the secessionists should have kept their cause pure by not linking it to slavery.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2829618&postcount=8

So the lesson that the liberty movement is unfortunately forgetting is to make your case without linking it to dubious causes. (And the south clearly linked their cause to slavery both by their secession documents and by the confederate constitution which took away the right of member states to end slavery inside their own borders. States rights my foot!) The case for nullification can be made without harping on the civil war. But to do it requires taking on some "founding fathers" that some people here either hold up as icons or in the very least are loath to criticize. It means taking on Andrew Jackson for squelching nullification and slavery when wasn't even a point of discussion. It means taking on George Washington for enforcing one of the most unjust and anti free market taxes ever in the history of this nation when he put down the "Whiskey Rebellion". Some people what to excuse this by saying "Washington pardoned everyone involved". So what? They gave up without much of a fight. Jackson didn't hang and SC secessionists either, but those who think he wouldn't have if they had called their bluff do not know much about "Old Hickory".

So yes. Know your history. ALL of it.

[jmdrake]

Pick up the paper on almost any day and you might see an item on "nullification"; occasionally on "seceding" . The past week or two there's been reports on amending the 14th Amendment.

Yeah. And you can talk about nullification without making it about the civil war. Talk about what a tyrant Andrew Jackson was if you want. (I personally think Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson was a mixed bag. But I think that of most presidents including Lincoln). The confederacy "poisoned the well" on secession when it ignored states rights in drafting its own constitution.

[Number19]

The disagreement over the right of states to secede goes back as far as the adoption of the Constitution and basically is the same as the division between the federalists and the anti-federalist.

And to some extent, it's nothing but semantics. James Madison, in his letter to Webster, said that states did not have a right to break from the union for the sole reason of going their own way, but did have the right to break from the union as an act of revolution.

Andy Jackson and his dispute with South Carolina is brought up. Not mentioned is the fact that Vice-President Calhoun took the opposing side and supported secession. And even Jackson took the same point of view as Madison.

The one constant agreed upon by both sides is that when people are oppressed, they have a right to break away from their oppressor as an act of revolution. So the question becomes : who gets to decide when the "oppression" is great enough to warrant breaking away, the oppressor or the oppressed?

Bringing the issue forward to our point in time, the question then becomes, must the revolution be an armed conflict costing lives on both sides? Or have we advanced far enough to allow the concept of a bloodless revolution?

The issue becomes one of "the People" vs the "power of the State". And the power of the State is magnitudes greater than it was in times past. Any armed conflict between the two and I'm going to place my money on the fire power of the State and any act of armed revolution, today, becomes a gamble of risky judgment.

Our forefathers, before declaring their Independence, had tried to work a peaceable resolution. Today, words and actions and declarations of nullification and secession are intended to bring about a bloodless revolution.

[jmdrake]

Andy Jackson and his dispute with South Carolina is brought up. Not mentioned is the fact that Vice-President Calhoun took the opposing side and supported secession. And even Jackson took the same point of view as Madison.


I'm not sure why you think the views of vice president are even relevant. Anyway Andrew Jackson said one of his great regrets in life was not hanging John Calhoun. Also John Calhoun argued against the right of kidnapped people to defend themselves against their kidnappers in the Amistad incident, so he hardly qualifies as a champion for those standing up against government oppression.



The one constant agreed upon by both sides is that when people are oppressed, they have a right to break away from their oppressor as an act of revolution. So the question becomes : who gets to decide when the "oppression" is great enough to warrant breaking away, the oppressor or the oppressed?


Except John C. Calhoun didn't think that right applied to Africans.




Bringing the issue forward to our point in time, the question then becomes, must the revolution be an armed conflict costing lives on both sides? Or have we advanced far enough to allow the concept of a bloodless revolution?


The pro nullification argument can be made without making it an issue about the confederacy. In fact that's the whole point about talking about Andrew Jackson. Jackson was wrong with regards to South Carolina. And that case can be made without any reference to slavery. See:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=256278

[klamath]

Yeah. Like those who seem oblivious to the fact that it was Andrew Jackson that effectively killed the "states rights" of nullification and secession and not Lincoln. It's funny that in this very thread someone praised Andrew Jackson as being of the "free market" party as opposed to Lincoln, when it was Andrew Jackson who first threatened to hang South Caroline secessionists who wanted out over protective tariffs. I will give that same person (Alex Merced) credit though for at least recognizing that the war was stupid on both sides and that the secessionists should have kept their cause pure by not linking it to slavery.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2829618&postcount=8

So the lesson that the liberty movement is unfortunately forgetting is to make your case without linking it to dubious causes. (And the south clearly linked their cause to slavery both by their secession documents and by the confederate constitution which took away the right of member states to end slavery inside their own borders. States rights my foot!) The case for nullification can be made without harping on the civil war. But to do it requires taking on some "founding fathers" that some people here either hold up as icons or in the very least are loath to criticize. It means taking on Andrew Jackson for squelching nullification and slavery when wasn't even a point of discussion. It means taking on George Washington for enforcing one of the most unjust and anti free market taxes ever in the history of this nation when he put down the "Whiskey Rebellion". Some people what to excuse this by saying "Washington pardoned everyone involved". So what? They gave up without much of a fight. Jackson didn't hang and SC secessionists either, but those who think he wouldn't have if they had called their bluff do not know much about "Old Hickory".

So yes. Know your history. ALL of it.

Well said JM. You have to hold all sides accountable including our own.
Tying states rights to the south is the quickest way to destroy the argument as it is the biggest hyprocrasy in history. Scream about your rights while taking 3 million people with you as hostages that hold absolutely zero rights. States rights might have made a partial comeback had the idiot south not not pushed all the way to the 60's to destroy individual rights. They even tried to destroy the second amendment by passing laws against the ownership of guns by blacks as late as the 30's. It wasn't an individual right they said.

[teamrican1]

The only people who should be "ashamed" are those in the liberty movement who spent time shilling for Chuck Devore when they could have been dedicating their efforts to true liberty candidates such as Clint Didier up in Washington or Peter Schiff in Connecticut. DeVore always struck me as a neocon statist, so his stance on this issue doesn't exactly surprise me. Good thing is he's getting out of politics so hopefully after this thead fades in to oblivion, we'll never have to hear his traitorous name again.