Hot Seat: Lincoln Wrong to Fight Civil War?

From reading the blogs its esitesasy to see that Ron Paul supporters acttually know thier history and the other Republicans are brainwashed by the major media. I am sure that thier are plenty of people who are gathering data from sites like this, and crunching the numbers to see if thier is a large enough percentage of brainwashed fools yet. Maybe those people who believe Ron Paul is a nut case should move to another country. I for one would like to live in the land of the free home of the brave, not the land of the enslaved home of the cowards... History has repeated itself for as long as we can look back, and America is following exactly the same path every other Republic has followed, Next step in 15 - 25 years, A DICTATOR, not a joke just History, look it up. While your at it Take 15 minutes and look up the "Fabians". Of course reading the post on here Ron Paul Supporters know what I'm Talking about, The rest just believe the Talking heads...

Ron Paul is entertainment, nothing else. His political philosophy is so warped it cannot withstand any type of scrutiny. I hardly think that re-hashing the Civil War is particularly enlightening.

None of you illiterate hicks vote anyway, so I don't know what you're griping about!

Slavery, at least for Blacks, was NOT the issue of the Civil War. After the Civil War Northern slaves were still slaves. Only the slaves in the South were free... why? Because the start of the war was over taxes and that the South was doing too well. They had their own ships and their own trade with nations across the ocean. NOPE Slavery was NOT the issue. States Rights were the issue. Before the war the Constitution limited the federal government and the power structure looked like this:

God > We the People > States > Fed Government

After the war, and because the South lost the war (more on that in a sec), the power structure was this:

Fed Gov > States > People

So you see, the Civil war was not about freeing black slaves, it was about bringing ALL of the people into slavery under the Bankers (fed bankers) who illegally financed the Civil War for Lincoln. The bankers printed illegal "greenbacks" for Lincoln to have the funds to continue the war. Lincoln didn't have the authority to print money, because at that time the federal government was under the control of the Constitution and WE the PEOPLE and could not simply just print out of thin air all the money it wanted. So, Lincoln,he made a deal with the DEvil bankers to put the American people into fiscal slavery. After the war, Lincoln wanted to go back to the regular way of doing things, but the bankers had him assassinated.

So, is Ron Paul right or wrong? If you say, right! then you have the power of proper deduction. If you say wrong!!! then you have a serious problem understanding that you are a slave. Please read a book called The Real Lincoln or go here: http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/pres.htm .

If you don't,won't or Can't read, please watch this video to help you overcome your affliction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJkhBwIf75A&mode=related&search=

Well, It appears there are a lot of people here who believe they have the totally UNQUESTIONABLE right to CONTROL every human on earth - starting with their own country. Hope you fools enjoy the New World Order when it comes to "assigning your job" "assigning your home" "assigning your breeding habits" "assigning your eating habits" "assigning your pittance income". Cuz that is what you are gonna get if you DON'T vote for Ron Paul.

Until people understand the REAL reasons the Civil War was fought, the majority will believe it was all about freeing the slaves. While this did occur, it is far from the main reasons. Just as believing that John Wilkes Booth was a southern sympathizer angry with Lincoln for freeing the slaves. Lincoln was assassinated because he messed with the central bankers by ordering the treasury to issue what became known as the greenbacks (paper money) in direct competition with the central bank.

All wars have been started by the globalists,
one-worlders.

Few Americans are acquainted with the truth about the Civil War. For example, it is a true fact that the UNITED STATES--allied with the so-called northern States--that fought the South...but unbeknowns to most Americans...this UNITED STATES is the District of Columbia and it's territories---the foreign "federal city" (the "federal [municipal] corporation," an absolute legislative democracy/not a Republic or State---which is "foreign" to the 50 State-Republics, as the U.S. Supreme Court has reminded us in many of its cases. Few soldiers were of aware of this true fact. Over 600,000 brave Americans died in this foolish war which led to the destruction of our "Republic" form of government and created a new "provisional" government under Martial Law-Rule, pursuant to the continuing pretext of a Declared State of National Emergency, Military Venue and Authority...and this has not changed since the civil war; origninal "civil" authority has not existed since the Civil War. The U.S. Constitution mandates that the military authority is to be subordinate to the civil power...unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring since the Civil War...and the government is only feigning "civil" authority. This is why the Executive Branch via the President is ruling the country like a dictator and using executive decree to enact law...which the executive branch has no constitutional authority to do (only the legislative branch of government is to make laws.)
I will conclude this presentment by providing 3 websites where this subject can be further researched.
www.supremelaw.org
www.state-citizen.org
www.barefootsworld.net

This question was meant to demean Ron Paul and not to correctly state what he said. He said that all other countries in Europe that had slavery solved the problem through negotiations without firing a shot.

That is what he said Lincoln should have done instead of the war that tore us apart and still today leaves bad feelings between the south with its northern counterpart. That is what you are really voting on and if they had put the question the way it was TRULY PUT BEFORE AND RONS ANSWER WAS TRULY GIVEN THE WAY HE SAID IT, THE RESULTS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED.

Your problem, AOL, is that WE ARE WATCHING and correcting in real time, so that is why all this slander simply doesn't stick. Ron paul doesn't have to respond. The rest of us who follow him STUDY HIS POSITIONS IN DEPTH. He is not a sound bite politician and we are becoming non sound bite voters.

I bet that will stick in your craw! Now what are you going to do??? As more and more people become educated to his positions in full, they come over to our side and as others drop out their followers will relook at all the candidates and we will keep them informed. I promise you that.

Good luck and keep trying to get Ron Paul out of the race... if I were AOL subscribers I would be asking myself, "Why are they doing this"? What is their agenda and why??? Who is the pressure behind this?

You do some research into AOL and its parent company and the answer becomes patently clear. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. LOL

It is necessary to think carefully when examining history which most respondents to this post are failing to do.

this issue here is not slavery, but the fact that civil war produced a change in our fundamental document called the Constitution that injured the financial arrangement between the States and the federal government and THAT WHAT RON PAUL IS REFERRING TO. Nobody is watching the federal til and have not been doing so for too long. Now the hens are coming home to roost and no one is even aware of the cause of the current concern EXCEPT for RP and his supporters.

It is really tragic how our government "education" has brainwashed even our most alert and brilliant citizens about this issue who loyally support Abe Lincoln without even thinking, calling it "state's rights" to be trashed.

It is more much than that; it is financial survival of our Nation that is put at risk by Republicrats overspending without end for the last at least 70 years. The rest of the world that formerly trusted us WILL discipline us, if we do not harken to RP's call to "self-discipline".

It is something we must do!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul's comments on Lincoln are helping to dispel yet another sacred establishment myth, perhaps the most sacred of all. Those who know anything about Lincoln know that he was a white supremacist. He stated his views on race many times, particularly during his debates with Stephen Douglas; and during his first inaugural, he expressed his support for the Corwin Amendment, which would have kept slavery legal in perpetuity, and would have been unamendable. He fought to hold the Southern states in the Union, not to free slaves. As he said to Horace Greeley, he would have gladly kept every slave in bondage if it would have helped to "save the Union." Even in this though, Lincoln was wrong. The Constitution does not forbid states from seceding from the Union, nor does it empower the federal government to hold them by force. Consequently, as per the 9th and 10th amendments, secession is a reserved right of the states and their people. Lincoln had no business waging a war for "union". Indeed, such a war flies in the face of the principle of self-determination, of government-by-consent-of-the-governed, the central tenets upon which the United States of America was formed (as an act of secession from Great Britain, no less).

Out of context. Not fair.

Ron Paul is a nut for suggesting that 620,000 Americans didn't need to die in a brutal civil war? Slavery was on the way out and there were MUCH better ways to abolish slavery. I know there is a simplistic idea that Lincoln freed the slaves via the Civil War, but the truth is, slavery was the emotional trigger but the Civil War was much more about other economic interests and increasing the power of the federal government, which has continued to this day and a bloated and meddlesome federal government is a large part of our problems today.

Americans are easy picking for the media, as many of these posts show. Even a surface study of the true events show the war was about money and control, not slavery.

Yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves, then sent them to the frontline to die. The ones who were left could be taxed.

I challenge you idiots to do some research, and see that the Civil War simply made slaves of us all.

What is the root of all evil? Money of course. What caused Lincoln to invade the South when all she asked was to be let alone? The money the government and businessmen in the North would have lost by a free Dixie. All other reasons are designed to fool the illinformed and gullible. Ron Paul knows more than just the Constitution. He is a student of history, truth and liberty. Me, my family, and all my friends are voting for a true Patriot... Ron Paul. Spread the word.

This letter was discovered within the papers of another political figure from the Civil War era. It was not listed in any index.

The letter was painstakingly reproduced, in word and style below, which is why the format is the way it is. The original letter, handwritten, is 4.5 pages in length. Can you understand what was being discussed?





RICHARD HENRY DANA BRIEF




Boston, August 24, 1868

The Honorable

William M. Evarts,

Attorney General,

Sir,

While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you in form as you now hold a post of official responsibility for the proceeding.

After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question of whether the late civil war was treason and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at nisi prius .

As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words, the legal issue was, whether secession by a state is a constitutional right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

The Supreme Court in the Prize Courts (2 Black’s Ref) held, by happily a unanimous opinion that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy’s territory was a question fact depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Courts has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the lawmaking and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason is matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war.

It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war by independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with powers to find in the negative or affirmative or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury, certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore.

We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy’s territory, which is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one discontent juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a favorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his ascent from the verdict, especially as he need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury room.

The possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in the judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.

If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment, and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time, and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.

In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a reaffirmation by a Circuit Court at nici prius of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn form the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure the results. The risk of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial, are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or natural practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.

Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.

If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all power and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the case is at his disposal.

Very respectfully

Your ob’t. ser’t.

(signed) Richard H. Dana, Jr.

It is amazing how many people accept public school indoctrination without ever doing the primary source research to at least get a snap shot of the truth. The very thing Ron Paul suggests was proposed by Southern Senators and killed by the North in the 1840s, compensated emancipation. The Abolitionists considered the Southerners a corrupte white race because of their integration with the Negroes. Their goal with John Brown and during the war by their own documents was genocide of white Southerners and deportation of former Negro slaves so the South could be resettled with "proper" white people. The South in 1860 sent peace commissioners to pay the Federal government for property lost in the process of secession. Lincoln jailed them and attempted to reinforce Ft. Sumnter to continue to impose tarriffs on the South. The South resisted. To say they "started" the war is like saying you shooting a man trying to rape your wife is you initiating hostilities and charging you with murder. Ron Paul is right. The nut cases are these national socialist types attacking him.

You have to actually read books to understand Ron Paul. We were tought that Lincoln was the slaves best friend. Sorry but he was an extremely racist man. Read some of his speeches. Also how many other nations had to have a war to end slavery?

Ron Paul does believe in a strong military, he just wants us to use our military to protect us here in the U.S. not to protect oil fields in foreign lands.
God bless
ronpaul2008dotcom

read cajontango's post he might educate you folks that don't understand history.

The point Ron Paul was trying to make was that so many other countries ended slavery by peaceful means. We could have ended slavery without bloodshed as well.

I see many comments saying that he and his supporters are nuts. Exactly what is crazy about wanting freedom, smaller government, less wasteful spending, an end to a war we can't win, following the Constitution and protecting our rights and civil liberties?

How many of you have actually visited his website to see where he really stands on the issues instead of just listening to what the mainstream media spoon feeds you. I'd rather be crazy than ignorant.