Ron Paul's War

Ron Paul appeared on "Meet the Press" over the weekend, and gave voice to a sentiment scarcely heard in American politics. He claimed that the Civil War was unnecessary, and that Lincoln "never should have gone to war" to stop slavery. A better approach would have been for the federal government to simply purchase freedom for all of the slaves in the country. Watch:



Of course, such a program sounds more than a little strange coming from a man who is so mistrustful of government that he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, and the IRS. But what about the contention that Lincoln went to war to put an end to slavery? Well, perhaps Mr. Paul could do with a refresher course in American history.

In Lincoln's inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned fire. The Civil War had begun.

Blaming Lincoln for the Civil War is a popular position here in the South. Case in point: When Rudy Giuliani addressed the CPAC conference earlier this year and praised the mettle of Honest Abe, he received a decidedly mixed reaction.

While Paul is right to bemoan the deaths of 600,000 in our nation's bloodiest conflict, to say that everything would have been just dandy if the federal government would have just ponied up the dough to free 3,949,557 slaves at the start of the 1860's (as compared with the the 1833 edict which freed a fraction of that amount in British colonies) seems a tad naive. And what would Paul suggest for the slave holders who refused a government buyout? While the British compensated slave owners in the colonies to free their slaves, a high percentage of those plantations subsequently went out of business. Furthermore, one might ask that though the institution of slavery may have indeed withered and died of its own accord, would it be tolerable for Paul to let it continue for the next few generations? A single generation?

While many claim that the Civil War was not about slavery--and indeed, Lincoln himself (who never owned slaves) at first seemed content to allow it to continue in the South--the idea that the conflict was solely about "States Rights" is more than a tad disingenuous. The primary right in question, after all, was slavery itself, as epitomized by the campaign issue of whether it should be permitted in the newly settled West. Lincoln opposed allowing slavery out West. Southerners saw a dangerous precedent. Like it or not, slavery was at the heart of the Civil War.

Should all wars be avoided if possible? Absolutely, and Paul is right that the conflict in Iraq was utterly unnecessary. The Civil War, however, is not, to put it in the words of our former CIA director, such a "slam-dunk case." Historical reductionism is itself a dangerous exercise, whether it overly glamorizes Lincoln or paints him as a totalitarian villain. As others have pointed out, sometimes there's no shoving history's ungainly foot into a present-day ideological slipper.