Hot Seat: Lincoln Wrong to Fight Civil War?

I wonder what he would have done for WWII, capitulated for sure!

This guy even looks dumb. I think he is a basket case. I would be totally ashamed of this man if he were dog catcher in our town. He needs to be in an old folks' home.

cclydcjhd

Wow, how can people be so stupid. Doesn't he have any idea about our country's history. Lincoln never wanted war, it was thrusted on him. He never got to make any policy what so ever before the war. Once he was elected South Carolina succeeded. Pretty hard way to start your administration. We were very very lucky to have Lincoln in the right place at the right time or this country as we know it would not exist.

I am just going to say, that had we not faught the Civil War, we would be divided into two seperate countries a this point. Would that be such a bad thing? All of the ignorant, slow, and down-trodden would be sequestered in the southern states and the strong great minded individuals residing in the north. The north would have national health care, no national debt, and a 75 ft brick wall running the length of the mason dixon line. The north would be the strongest country in the world. Probably going so far as to buy Canada and intergrate their systems and policies. So far, a pretty great nation of the north....huh? The south would slowly kill them selvesx off with guns and drugs and marriage that eventually creates a one family system of government. Spending would be throught the roof, therer would be no law other than the control of one color over another. And the main point. The great split United States wouldn't be a a haven for the type of people that cause and thought up the events of and before 9/11. The north would be full of educated individuals with the wherewithall to control the people in and out of its customs houses. And the south wuldn't allow any one of that type to muddy up its gene pool. So tell me where the bad part is. Who loses? The north is filled with scholars, men of ideas and goals that are attainable and the south is filled with self-serving governement officials. Because they all have to be in office, they woud all be related.

I don't care a hoot or a holler about Mr. Paul and his opinions but I do care what the totally and truly ignorant people of the United States believe and have been taught regarding the Civil War in our country. There is a cure for your ignorance, KNOWLEDGE. Do you know what was taking place in your congress the years before the war? Do you know what was happening in the United States Supreme Court, (your) supreme court, prior to the Civil War? Do you know what the fight about the taxes was all about, or even what taxes were being fought over? Do you know why certain peoples were not counted as individuals and treated as less than an individual, and by whom this treatment was being dished out? Do you know what Secession would have meant to the north, the death of the northern states because they didn't have the resources to survive on their own merits alone, WHY? Do you know how many salves there were in the north? Do you know why Mr. Lincoln and others did not want the issue of secession heard before the supreme court? Do you know how fast secession was spreading and how many states had voted to seceed before the Civil War started? You may think you know the answers to these questions but chances are you belong to the 99% group of United States Citizens that ignorgantly don't have a clue. So before you open your mouths to defend your mistaken position you need to pick up some books and read them and then engage in some intelligent conversations to expand on your base of knowledge. Once you have acquired the knowledge to no longer be ignorant, then and only then open your mouth to put that really stupid person in their place.

I feel that in my heart of hearts Ron Paul was correct when he had said that the civil war was unnecessary. I believe slavery was on the brink of doom anyway and it never made sense. To me, it was becoming the equivalent to a family, who only needed a gallon of milk every third day or a stick of butter every other day, having to care for a cow every day. In the case of slavery, the owner first had to lay out large amounts of cash to acquire the slave, then he had to feed, cloth, house, and nurse him back to health. Or if he became lame, now you had to deal with a sick, lame slave. The owner was also always left with the worry that his slave may run off or just refuse to work or, worse, he may rebel and cause harm to the family or their belongings.
What I am saying here is not out of support of slavery, but observing a historical event and logically picking it apart.

Being a slave owner was not as easy as it may have seemed and I think a lot of people were beginning to figure that out. I think what came along was more useful than slavery, and that was day labor. Then the biggest thing to come along was the minimum wage. It came at a very cheap price with no ties and you would simply take the same money that was once used to feed and house and cloth his old slave and use it to pay the minimum wage. In this case, if people grew to sickly, old, or an not performing up to the business owner’s standards, it is much easier to replace the individual, for there were always others looking for extra money. It also became a way to share good labor and if there was a drought and no crops to harvest, you would simply let go of your help to fend for himself. But in the case of slavery, you would have to keep those slaves alive, even when there was no work to be done.

As much as I don’t care for the Democratic Party, I feel that one of the greatest things they did was raise the minimum wage. I feel it should be made into a living wage, but that is a whole new subject. Unfortunately, I believe that if not for them, the minimum wage would still probably be locked in at about $1.55/hr due to the greed among this nation’s wealthy.

I'm guessing all the people who disagree still believe that the civil war was fought over slavery...

It is typically the case that the ignorant out number the enlightened.

He is absolutely correct. The War was about power and economics. Freeing the "slaves" was the farthest thought from Lincoln's mind. In fact the "Emancipation Proclamation" came well after the war started and the whole idea behind it was strategic. The idea was if the Blacks were told they were free they would rise up and revolt against the Confederacy and the South would have to fight against the slaves. But the revolt never came. Most of the slaves were happy with the status quo at the time.
That being said, the South was doomed from the beginning. An agricultural economy using slave labor was not the way to go and this way of life was going to end with or without the Civil War.
The Civil War was a humongous waste of American lives for no damn good reason. The main cause was Lincoln's ego.

It would appear that many of the negative comments towards Dr. Paul are coming from uninformed posters that didn't bother to read what Dr. Paul said. Rather than "reading into" the question as the MSM has conditioned us to do, why don't you read what was said before making a snap judgment. Below is the transcript. Please READ and COMPREHEND.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

Melissa has it right.

AOL's National Enquirer tactics won't sway my vote. Slapping some b.s. one line headline taken out of context in order to gain readers is craptastic. It's the same concept used by tabloids. Brad Pitt is pregnant!, Ark of the covenant found in Arizona!, Britney gives birth to 3 headed child! At this point they are gonna have to catch Ron Paul sodomizing some young boy to get me not to vote for him. To hell with what everyone else says. Ron Paul has already said too many things that I agree with to get me to vote for any of the other corporate controlled puppets in either political party.

When are we going to get some decent candidates? It seems like all we get are Texans and Arkansans trying to run the country. There is not a candidate in the bunch who could outsmart Putin of Russia or deal with any of the leaders in China.

Lay off Lincoln! He's done more good for this country than than you can ever hope for.

The power elite are afraid of Ron Paul to the point they have threathened to assasinate him. But unlike the assasination of JFK, they've decided to use the media to assasinate his character by distorting who he is to hurt his support. Ron Paul is not saying slavery should not have been abolished. He's debating the method used, war.

Those who support the war in Iraq are the same one's who will never fight in a war themselves, BUSH AND CHENEY. They will send our kids to die in a war over a lie but will never send their own.

The war in Iraq was planned BEFORE 911 as a method to STEAL OIL. 911 was an Inside Job planned by the NeoCons as a method to get the American people to support attacking a country that had done nothing to us. Iraq is another war that did not have to happen because not only is it illegal but it's a crime.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.
Ron Paul is a nut for sure! There are so many young people that like this man and his ideas. I pity our future and these young people IF we haven't taught them how to pick a candidate and IF they can't tell the difference between a REAL candidate and this nut! I know it's hard to tell sometimes but that's why you have to search for the truth on their own and not take the networks views. But by all means VOTE for someone. Don't sit at home and not vote. Please just don't vote for this nut.

I don't care what you people say, War is not alway's the answer. You sure in hell would change your mind if it was our country suffering the bomb's. Ron Paul, will end the war in Iraq, bring our troop's home, strengthen our boarder's, get rid of illegal immigrant's, and reform our social security. How is that bad? Some people around here is just blood thirsty. Ron Paul has my vote.

Obviously this picture was the worst he could find.

1. Ron paul is not a liberal, he is running as a republican, which was the same party that president lincoln belonged to.
2. Had Lincoln not gone to war, the U.S. would have fallen apart. The British would have supported the south and we would have to weak nations. The British supported the south for the cotten, The French supported the north because they disliked the British, the war was unavoidable.

Paul is right. You need to understand that the Civil War was not about slavery. Most people knew then (except for rich fatcats in both the South and the North) just as most people now know that slavery is 100% wrong. Of course it is.

But the war started because of, and fought because of oppressively high tariffs imposed by the federal government.

There was a secession move in the North first if I recall correctly, and had I been living I would have fought tooth and nail for that. Then, the secession move in the South began, and had I been living I would have fought tooth and nail for that too. The rights of the individual were (and are) far too important to save the union over.

As for racism and segregation, they were both rampant in the North too, even in my lifetime. I grew up in upstate NY then moved to NYC to begin a career. (I'm an anglo.) I lived in a Jewish neighborhood where eyebrows went up when they learned that I am not Jewish. I didn't care. To me everyone is a friend until I learn differently.

One day in the elevator a neighbor says that a black family was moving in. My response: So? He says, "well I don't like it. Integration is OK but intermarriage isn't." My response: Huh?

No, Paul is right. The war was unnecessary, senseless and actually as illegal as the Vietnam war was.

See the essay I wrote:
http://alicelillieandher.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html

and see what Lincoln did, also Roosevelt and Bush. There are lots of footnotes. If I believed in reincarnation I'd say they must all be the same man.

Ron Paul is just another stupid Republican who just talks and knows little. Another Bush.