David Shuster responds to email

[newbitech]

Original email I sent.


Don't you have anything better to question Doctor Paul about? I think
Dr.
Paul made his point rather clear on Meet the Press. The civil war could
have been avoided if the Federal Government respected the people. The
Civil War was a very tragic event in our history that set the stage for
a power hungry Federal Government that would do anything to maintain
control over the country and it's people.

To say that the Civil War was fought to end slavery is very short
sighted indeed. Do a simple little search for the causes of the civil
war. Here, I will help you out. Go to
http://americancivilwar.com/kids_zone/causes.html

Yeah its the Kids Zone so this doesn't even go into the deeper issues.
But this is a great site that has plenty of historical facts that make
it clear that what Dr. Paul was speaking about Lincoln and the reasons
for the Civil War are the truth.

That you would try and smear him over the Civil War is a distraction to
what American's want to hear. We want to know where Paul stands on
issues important to us today. However it is ironic that you would claim
that Dr.
Paul is wrong when clearly a Kid Zone article about the causes of the
Civil War show you to be the one in need of a history lesson.

Want to see how your drive by on Dr. Paul relates to todays campaign?
Read this quote from the above cited source.

"The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857
that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers
found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks
that had suffered financial losses through poor investment."

The Civil War fought for the same reasons that every war is fought.
Corruption, greed, power, money, a few self proclaimed elitist trying to
control the sheep masses. The difference this time is that the elite
have severely under estimated the sheep. We are on the verge of another
type of Civil War, another Revolution. Of course no one wants to fight
their neighbors or their brothers. Remember the Civil War pitted Father
against Son, Brother against Brother.

This time, We the People are going to do it right. We are going to
elect someone who represents us and we will take no, Dr. No for our
answer.

Thanks for putting Dr. Paul up and allowing him to educate us further
and please if you know what is good for this country, let the people
decide and stop trying to shape opinion be ending your piece saying that
Dr. Paul is wrong about Lincoln. The history proves he is right and you
really make your show and people on it look ignorant when you disrespect
the campaign process by spouting lies.

Thanks,

John in FL.

David's response,


John,

I never said the civil war was fought to avoid slavery... I said, as did
Dr. Paul, that Lincoln was trying to "contain the spread" of slavery,
not abolish it. However, it is wrong for Dr. Paul to say that Abraham
Lincoln "started" the civil war... The civil war was started when
confederate troops fired on Ft. Sumpter. This came after South Carolina
withdrew from the union. What exactly was Lincoln supposed to do?

Regards,
D

My response,




David,

The South had legally seceded from the Union (Jan. 1861) before Lincoln became president. South Carolina created its own government. The government of South Carolina asked the Union to give up this base and President Buchanan refused. This was in Feb. 1861 still before Lincoln was president. The South took over the base and turned away a resupply ship.

Lincoln was inaugurated in March of 1861 and said in his speech that he had no plans to end slavery but he would not accept the states to secede.

In April 1861 Lincoln again tried to resupply Fort Sumter. This was after the Confederate Constitution was drafted and signed. So again, knowing that the South Carolina was getting out of the Union legally, and wanted to protect its sovereignty from the aggression of the North, Lincoln still provoked the South by sending supplies (getting ready for war?).

What could have Lincoln done? For starters, he could have respected States rights and the constitution. Also, he could have not tried to enforce the tariff laws which was his only legal means of sending military supplies into a State that had decided it didn't want to be a party to a country that didn't follow its own laws.

Simple, Lincoln should have respected the rule of law and should have not tried to again resupply the fort.

[FSP-Rebel]

I doubt you'll get a 2nd response from him, I'm sure his inbox is flooded by now:cool:

[Zydeco]

Fort "Sumpter"...real Civil War scholar Shuster is

[hellah10]

gotta admit... thats a solid response you sent to David... straight up facts that he cannot ignore

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

nice job newbitech.

[daviddee]

Great e-mail discussion.

[matthylland]

gotta admit... thats a solid response you sent to David... straight up facts that he cannot ignore

thats exactly why he wont respond back im sure...

[Delain]

Original email I sent.



David's response,



My response,

Props to you!

Best line is right at the beginning.

"Don't you have anything better to question Doctor Paul about?"

Hear Hear!

[pacelli]

I think the re-education is complete. There's no reason to beat this guy up any further, I'm sure he won't make the same mistake again. I'm worried that a barrage of rude emails (which we have been accused by the MSM of engaging in) will negatively reflect on the campaign.

[RonPaulFever]

I think the re-education is complete. There's no reason to beat this guy up any further, I'm sure he won't make the same mistake again. I'm worried that a barrage of rude emails (which we have been accused by the MSM of engaging in) will negatively reflect on the campaign.

We're way past that point. It's always a good idea to be courteous, but the MSM will find something to use against us no matter what. Stop being afraid of them. They don't have any power unless you give it to them!

[Dan Klaus]

good response...but we shouldn't let him shift us away from the real issues of the campaign...I feel this is a concerted effort to get people to not consider troops and taxes....don't let him do it...

[NewEnd]

I'm sorry, but I think saying the Civil War could have been avoided is ridiculous. There were too many causes, and it was coming to a head.

[Liberty]

good response...but we shouldn't let him shift us away from the real issues of the campaign...I feel this is a concerted effort to get people to not consider troops and taxes....don't let him do it...

Yes, however, poor attempts at GOTCHA reporting is more important to these people than the future of the country.

[daikonv]

this was an excellent email and response that you gave. very clear and well written. great job.

[mconder]

What could have Lincoln done? For starters, he could have respected States rights and the constitution.

He could have done what Ron Paul wants to do with Iraq. Open trade relations with the South, allow travel between the two countries. Take the Union troops off the borders. Duh.

[RPinSEAZ]

I'm sorry, but I think saying the Civil War could have been avoided is ridiculous. There were too many causes, and it was coming to a head.

The confederate states wanted nothing to do with the union and offered to buy Union federal property like Fort Sumter. The idea that the Union needed to be maintained by force if necessary is what caused the Civil War.

[newbitech]

I'm sorry, but I think saying the Civil War could have been avoided is ridiculous. There were too many causes, and it was coming to a head.

its not so much that it could have been avoided, its the point that when the Federal Government gets involved with national building many thousands of people will die.

Just think, what would have happened if Lincoln said to South Carolina, ok have your Fort back I will withdraw the troops from your territory?

You never know. Of course it was destined to happen, but the more I think about the causes of the Civil War, the more I start to realize that we never really settled the issues. Kind of a scary thought. I am glad that slavery was ended, but I think we could have done it without going to war.

Again, wars boil down greed, money, power, corruption. We can't change the past, but we can sure as heck look at the mistakes that were made and not repeat them.

Thats the point.

[NewEnd]

You never know.

Hypotheticals have never been a good argument to me. We can speculate about alot of things.... but the civil war was bound to happen, and the confederates were hardly the victims.

[newbitech]

Hypotheticals have never been a good argument to me. We can speculate about alot of things.... but the civil war was bound to happen, and the confederates were hardly the victims.

We are talking history though. It's not like we can go back and test the theories. The decisions were made, what is done is done. The point is that it was a mistake for Lincoln to provoke the Nation of South Carolina.

He could have taken a different course. He took the course he took because he believed despite the Law of Land that what South Carolina did was illegal. Rather than working it out through the democratic process, he choose to go to war. Sure its a fact that South Carolina fired the first shot, but its also a fact that no one died at Ft. Sumter because of hostilities.

South Carolina was protecting her right to sovereignty as a state. Lincoln violated that right. Both side were equally responsible in so much as neither side could find a peaceful resolution. Lincoln had the power to make the history, and we know that he choose to kill 620,000 Americans so that his personal beliefs would be preserved. This is a fact and the man had choice to make right or wrong it was his choice and he made it. He could have choose differently. That is also a fact. He did not have to provoke the war right or wrong.

Anyways, I am done with this issue. Ron Paul was right, old media was wrong. Anyway you cut it, the truth is the truth.

[Shavenyak]

Hypotheticals have never been a good argument to me. We can speculate about alot of things.... but the civil war was bound to happen, and the confederates were hardly the victims.

Just to draw a parallel, they had declared their independence from the northern states and drafted their own constitution. How would we feel if in say 1812, England reunited us with them? True, these are all hypotheticals, but Lincoln's first and foremost goal was to "Preserve the union," which in this case DENIED the southern state's rights to secede.

[malibu]

Super great job on the email response . . .

newbitech, is Florida still disallowed from delegates at the Democrats National Convention in August ?

I hope we can get enough Floridians registered to participate in the GOP primary, but they only have until Dec 31 to change party affiliation.

[NewEnd]

So, basically, you all are telling me the south should have been allowed to form a new country.... a slave haven country? That Lincoln messed up.... and Atlanta should not have a NFL team?

That shit ain't ever going to sell with the American public. It's WORSE than 9-11 shit, because it has the stigma of racism, and it is all armchair quarterbacking a war that happened 140 years ago.

[Joe3113]

So, basically, you all are telling me the south should have been allowed to form a new country.... a slave haven country? That Lincoln messed up.... and Atlanta should not have a NFL team?

That shit ain't ever going to sell with the American public. It's WORSE than 9-11 shit, because it has the stigma of racism, and it is all armchair quarterbacking a war that happened 140 years ago.

Yeah I agree, lets not speak our mind. Lets accept the status quo and just say the things that are palatable to the wider audience and MSM. :rolleyes:

[RonPaulMania]

So, basically, you all are telling me the south should have been allowed to form a new country.... a slave haven country? That Lincoln messed up.... and Atlanta should not have a NFL team?

That shit ain't ever going to sell with the American public. It's WORSE than 9-11 shit, because it has the stigma of racism, and it is all armchair quarterbacking a war that happened 140 years ago.

It had little to do with slavery. That's a pandering jackass argument that is spewed by millions of morons everywhere. It was about a state's rights in the Republic and the Constitution of the US.

The real question is: Did the south have the right to secede? You are pandering to the racist question when Lincoln was in favor of slavery.

[newbitech]

So, basically, you all are telling me the south should have been allowed to form a new country.... a slave haven country? That Lincoln messed up.... and Atlanta should not have a NFL team?

That shit ain't ever going to sell with the American public. It's WORSE than 9-11 shit, because it has the stigma of racism, and it is all armchair quarterbacking a war that happened 140 years ago.

The South did form a new country. Legally and in accordance with the Constitution. edit: find out why S.C. quit the Unites States. http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html

On a side note, regardless of what happened in the past, I still think that Atlanta should not have an NFL team! Go Bucs!

[me3]

NE, I think Dr. Paul has the right approach on this. He isn't talking about defending slavery, he talks about the loss of life and how it could have been handled better.

It's brilliant IMO.

[shadowhooch]

So what would America look like today if we allowed States to separate from the USA?

Would we be a united nation?

Is our unity a bad thing or has it made us more prosperous?

[NewEnd]

It had little to do with slavery. That's a pandering jackass argument that is spewed by millions of morons everywhere. It was about a state's rights in the Republic and the Constitution of the US.

The real question is: Did the south have the right to secede? You are pandering to the racist question when Lincoln was in favor of slavery.

Its not a jackass argument. Let's be realistic... slavery had a whole hell of alot to do with the Civil War.

Did the south have the right to secede? I don't think so. For one, the consent of all people of the south was not taken into consideration, since the slaves had no voting power whatsoever.


Yeah I agree, lets not speak our mind.

I am speaking my mind, and since the civil war has been a favorite subject of mine for decades.....

[MsDoodahs]

I am speaking my mind, and since the civil war has been a favorite subject of mine for decades.....

cracked me up!

;)

[Omnis]

Original email I sent.



David's response,



My response,

Your original kids' lesson link does not support the facts in your response. In fact, it supports Schuster's argument that Abe went to war because the South attacked Sumter.

I know you're right, but please be more aware of these types of things in the future. You just lost the argument with data provided contradictory to your claim.

[literatim]

The southern States had full right to secede just like they have the right to secede now.

[NewEnd]

The southern States had full right to secede just like they have the right to secede now.

What was the opinion of the slaves, and was that taken into consideration by the state legislature, befoer they voted to secede? The population of the slaves in most southern states was close to, or even sometimes more than, the population of the whites.

[newbitech]

Your original kids' lesson link does not support the facts in your response. In fact, it supports Schuster's argument that Abe went to war because the South attacked Sumter.

I know you're right, but please be more aware of these types of things in the future. You just lost the argument with data provided contradictory to your claim.

Actually, you should read it again. I did not claim anything at all. I simply pointed out the facts. How can facts disprove other facts?

[Oliver]

Props to you!

Best line is right at the beginning.

"Don't you have anything better to question Doctor Paul about?"

Hear Hear!

+1

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy better than enraged complaints! :)

[newbitech]

What was the opinion of the slaves, and was that taken into consideration by the state legislature, befoer they voted to secede? The population of the slaves in most southern states was close to, or even sometimes more than, the population of the whites.

Ever hear of the 3/5th compromise?

The fact of the matter is that people who opposed slavery did not want to count slave's when counting representation.

We would not have a country without slavery and without this compromise. I hate the fact that this is the legacy of our country but what I hate even more is that people continue to turn a blind eye towards historical facts because of an emotional response.

Slavery is terrible and antithesis to the freedom message, but the fact is without slavery, our country as we know it would not exist. INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION of which Ron Paul is the Champion.

Its just a fact, sad as it may be that when our country was created no one was concerned about making slaves free. Without this compromise, it was unlikely that the southern states would have ratified the Constitution.

[Omnis]

Actually, you should read it again. I did not claim anything at all. I simply pointed out the facts. How can facts disprove other facts?

Look, I'm calling it from Schuster's POV here. The article specifically says that the confederates attacked Fort Sumter, which triggered Abe Lincoln to go to war. Schuster responded to you based on this. Problem is, your follow-up does not match the previous citation you gave him. So, basically, you gave him a set of facts and dismissed them afterwards. It's a minor mistake, but, to Schuster, it's probably glaringly erroneous.

[literatim]

What was the opinion of the slaves, and was that taken into consideration by the state legislature, befoer they voted to secede? The population of the slaves in most southern states was close to, or even sometimes more than, the population of the whites.

It doesn't matter what feel good reason you have for excusing the blatant violation of State rights. The law was the law. If one wanted slavery abolished, one needed to do it through the law. The Civil War is the entire reason State rights aren't respected to this very day.

[NewEnd]

Ever hear of the 3/5th compromise?

The fact of the matter is that people who opposed slavery did not want to count slave's when counting representation.

.

3/5th compromise had nothing to do with slaves not having any voice in the South Carolina State legislature.


It doesn't matter what feel good reason you have for excusing the blatant violation of State rights. The law was the law. If one wanted slavery abolished, one needed to do it through the law. The Civil War is the entire reason State rights aren't respected to this very day.

Because someone is a slave, they have no right to vote for their state representative, therefore, it is not knowable what the true opinion of South Carolina was regarding secession from the union. White males, above the age of 21 wanted to secede, but that doesn't mean the people of the state wanted to secede.


Its just a fact, sad as it may be that when our country was created no one was concerned about making slaves free.

Yes they did, slavery was a huge issue, even at the ratification of the constitution, and Franklin's last speech at the congresional convention, before he died, was a plea to end slavery.

[slantedview]

well that was a good second response.

cheers.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

It's always a good idea to be courteous, but the MSM will find something to use against us no matter what. Stop being afraid of them. They don't have any power unless you give it to them!

I totally agree !! They should FEAL the POWER of THE PEOPLE it is the only way to get these reporters in line!!!!

[john_anderson_ii]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Slowly, since the revolution and formation of a United States, the Federal government stopped believing in the above quote while the Several States still held it to be true. That is the real cause of the civil war.

So, what should Lincoln have done? Lincoln should have followed the law and said 'good day and best of luck to ya' to South Carolina. Then he would have been open to peruse diplomatic means of maintaining the Union. The very idea that the Federal Government used military might to force a state into a political bond that was no longer acceptable to the people of that state should anger an American.

[VoluntaryMan]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones." [Abe Lincoln]

[SteveMartin]

The attempt to re-supply Sumter, which was within the sovereign territorial waters of South Carolina was the original provocation, and an act of war, not South Carolina's response to it.

[Oliver]

Original email I sent.

David's response,

My response,

Out of curiosity: What's his E-Mail address?
(Keep it civil like Newbitech, People!)

[Richandler]

Shuster is a complete clown and I think his double assault on Paul might have been and audition for a show replacing Tuckers slot. I'm not 100% sure on that but I just have a feeling that might come to truth.

[RlxdN10sity]

Shuster is a complete clown and I think his double assault on Paul might have been and audition for a show replacing Tuckers slot. I'm not 100% sure on that but I just have a feeling that might come to truth.

Yeah, especially since Tucker has sided with RP. Can't have that on MSM.

[kaberUSA]

thats exactly why he wont respond back im sure...

Straight facts are good. I've started reading these books by DiLorenzo, amazing insight. I never knew that this perspective even existed.

[Mark]

Out of curiosity: What's his E-Mail address?
(Keep it civil like Newbitech, People!)

Need EMAIL ADDRESS Please Newbitech.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

gotta admit... thats a solid response you sent to David... straight up facts that he cannot ignore

unfortunately i'm sure he will... Awesome post, thanks for sharing

[SteveMartin]

Attempting to resupply an enemy post on the soil of another sovereign power IS an act of war, and THAT act began the War Between the States, not the South's response to it.