John McCain supports Bush's wiretapping, and will also spy on Americans!
O.K., I have generally avoided the Ron Paul thing where possible. He’s a principled guy and says what he honestly believes, and for that, he is to be commended in this world of otherwise duplicitous politicians. I can further understand the attraction for a guy who will not allow politics to dampen his beliefs or curb his message. Normally, such backbone is a sign of intelligence.
It’s just unfortunate that, in this case, the guy’s fucking nuts. That’s the only down side, though I must admit it’s a formidable obstacle to the presidency. Have a look at this supposed bedrock Republican trashing the only Republican I’d consider voting for:
Folks, this one’s like shooting ducks in a barrel. Ducks with unusually large ears. But let’s line ‘em up, shall we?
Let me begin with where I agree with Mr. Paul. Slavery was almost certainly on a collision course with it’s own ineffectuality, soon to be phased out in American life, with or without a civil war. Slavery turned out to be a remarkably expensive, dangerous habit that was a powder keg waiting to go off. Think Nat Turner.
But, while I am not a student of British or otherwise European slave-holding history, I am certainly familiar enough with American history to say that there was ample opposition to abolition in the South prior to the Civil War to have prevented any smooth path from slavery to freedom, if indeed such a path is possible. What’s more, while there is no denying that the Civil War was about slavery above all other things, slavery had really become emblematic of problems brewing between North and South, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. We were a young nation of vastly different people lacking even the most basic common bonds, being torn apart by our Original Sin of slavery.
But clearly, Ron Paul is not familiar with Bleeding Kansas, not familiar with Nat Turner’s Rebellion, not familiar with the name John Brown. If that’s the case, he could almost be forgiven for not apprehending the siege mentality that had overtaken the South in the decade prior to the Civil War. He is apparently unaware that nine Southern states had declared their independence before Lincoln was even inaugurated, or that Confederate troops bombarded Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861. Rather, he comes dangerously close to accepting the Southern excuse for the war - Stephen Douglass‘ campaign platform in this, his second bad-blood election feud with our sixteenth president - that Lincoln was elected to destroy the original intent of the Republic and impose some sort of fascism:
“No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and. . . get rid of the original intent of the Republic. I mean, it was the Iron Fist of Washington. . . “
I’ll bet a lot of Ron Paul supporters are glad Tim Russert, doofus that he is, interrupted Paul at that moment, or we would have had the sound-byte from hell that would have ended his candidacy. Paul was achingly close to beginning the tirade of Southern seceshes against Lincoln, defaming what is generally regarded as our wisest president. In fact, like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, he was dying to do it. Punkin’ Head had himself the quote of quotes, and interrupted Paul to insert his own inane two-cents. Like I said: doofus.
And if Ron Paul’s unfortunate misapprehension of the history that actually happened is a bit befuddling for those of us who attended high school American History classes in our youth, his bang-up idea for eliminating the problem of slavery - his “pretty reasonable approach” - briefly left me deaf but for the rushing of blood through my ears. His solution of buying the slaves and then setting them free ignores a few basic facts about American slavery.
For a start, there were approximately 4 million slaves in the United States by the 1860 census. How does Ron Paul propose the Federal government, the entity from whom Paul is so keen to remove tax money, pay for such a large number of slaves, and what does he propose to do with them once they’re free? The British did indeed pay for some - though not all - to be set free, but their number was a scant 15,000. The total cost to the crown was a mere 20 million pounds. Projecting that cost over 4 million slaves here, we arrive at a cost of approximately 5 billion pounds to accomplish the same in America. And remember that the dollar was nowhere near as valuable as the British pound; remember also that Ron Paul does not approve of Federal debt, which we already had by that point to the tune of 65 million dollars.
As a basic proof of concept, consider that if we lacked the resources to send Africans to Liberia, certainly we lacked the resources to buy them all. . . . and then send them to Liberia. As a side note, consider this lesson whenever you hear that fat-ass doofus Lou Dobbs bloviating on the need to send 10 million illegal aliens - here voluntarily, not slaves - back to their countries of origin.
What’s more, because slavery was found to be illegal in British Common Law, the end of slavery as a practical legal matter was foreordained. No such case had yet been made here. And the slaves of the South would almost certainly not have been for sale, as the South had grown hostile to all Northern intentions.
While I agree that slavery had to come to an end one way or the other in this country, I don’t believe Paul’s blithe dismissal of it bears any relation to the reality of the times. For one, if slavery did indeed end without an American Civil War, there’s really no telling how much uglier the slave revolts might have become before they ended. Though he may bemoan the hatred that has existed between the races since that time, there’s almost no way that such hatred could have been avoided - no way that a civil war of some type or another could have been avoided - simply by avoiding the War Between the States.
As unfortunate as any war most certainly is, the American Civil War was not going to just fail to happen if we’d elected Stephan Douglass in place of Lincoln, and any idiot who has paid attention to history knows that.
4 Responses to “Ron Paul’s Misbegotten Sense of History”
Leave a reply
- Election NewsPhoto: BBC.com
In spite of the mounting media narrative of Clinton hostility, the former president prove beyond doubt that he is above all a professional politician, endorsing Obama by name 15 times and passing the torch of "young leader" on to the Dem candidate.Related News:
-
Get Your Gravatar!
Gravatars are:
G-lobally
R-ecognized
Avatars.
Get one today, and they'll show up on my site and many more sites you comment on!
Hard-pressed Fannie to shake up management structure || msnbc.com
Despite gains, Rochester's poverty rate nearly double the state average || Democrat and Chronicle
Bill Clinton a no-show for Obama's acceptance speech || CNN.com Blogs
Bi-partisan energy plan gaining momentum in Congress || CNN Money
McCain foreign policy adviser lobbied to keep guns in the hands of terrorists || TPMMuckraker- Get the Feed
As a big fan of “People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present,” by Howard Zinn, and generally preferring peaceful means over war I don’t tend to think that people who say such things about the American Civil War are really all that nuts.
The Civil War is popularly misconceived as a war over slavery, but as the 100 years of history after the war proves, many people were not too wrapped up over the rights of the African American People.
Sure you have all the examples you listed yourself of racial tensions, but really what it all came down to was money.
The southern economy was built off of the cheap labor of the slave culture. The abrupt end of slavery would certainly cause many economic problems for the south - and it did after the war. People fought in the war for many of the same reasons they fight today - blind, ignorant, patriotism.
If you were from Virginia (Robert E. Lee) then you fought for Virginia - thus the South. White people north and south of the mason dixon line were still overwhelmingly racist and oppressive to the blacks.
Lincoln was on the side of Big northern business. I’ll give you the fact that slavery plays a large part in all of the decisions made at the time by the politicians and upper class business men - but I don’t think many white men quit their day jobs to go fight and die in a war over the freedom of the black people.
Republicans get to boast in Lincoln’s legacy that he freed the slaves, but ask any post war, Jim Crow law, share cropper, blacks if they were really all that free…
Lincoln by today’s standards would have been a democrat because by entering into the civil war he was supporting the federal government and superseding the rights of the states with the will of the Union.
Ron Paul might still be nuts, but as a former civil war geek, I thought I should throw in my two cents here.
OK, there’s lots of stuff in here. . .
You mistake the actions of “God Fearing” people who object to the immorality of slavery for the actions of people who then give a shit about Africans. The two are not necessarily associated, and certainly weren’t in the Civil War.
But to put my point another way, “American Civil War” is to “Slavery” what “Meathead beating the shit out of some other dude in a bar” is to “the other dude looked at Meathead’s old lady.” It does not equate to “Meathead beating the shit out of someone at a bar,” is to “Meathead’s deep-seated sense of inadequacy over the length of his penis and his continued insecurity over his unspoken desire to have sex with his mother.” The reasons for the Civil War are legion, but if slavery wasn’t the tinderbox that started the whole thing, I’ll eat my hat.
That’s what I mean about Nat Turner, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown: they weren’t just about “racial tensions,” they were skirmishes in a larger war that was fast becoming inevitable. And you acknowledge slavery’s primacy, too, in your own argument:
As for poor people fighting in the war, again, reasons are as numerous as men who fought in the war. But on balance, I would say that the “siege mentality” and paranoia over the federal government (which continues to this day) was the largest reason for Southern men, and yes, I believe Christian guilt over slavery was a huge contributor to Northern men fighting. Again, do not confuse moral guilt with love of black people.
As for Lincoln, once again, he didn’t secede from the Union and he didn’t shell Fort Sumter. He also didn’t have much to do about the secession, because it all happened between his election and his inauguration. He reacted to acts of war committed by the South, and what other reaction would have been possible, under the circumstances?
And by the way, to say that he could have just let the South go its own way ignores the fact that European powers were still highly active in the affairs of what they saw as a still-recent and still-ongoing rebellion from England. There is also a reason that the North needed the South in the Revolution, and separating the South’s agricultural base from the North’s money would have surely crushed both of them.
I guess my point is that conditions are such that if you have an educated opinion other than the grammar school history book interpretation that Lincoln freed the slaves and the North fought the south purely over slavery than everyone looks at you like you’re an asshole.
How are we to really know, since this all happened around 150 years ago?
All I’m saying is that it was a series of events that finally led to the civil war. It was pigheadedness on both sides since the founding of the country and in the last 10 years prior to the war, the northern states did everything they could to piss off the south to the point that they were threatening succession and the north was like, “Yeah? Go ahead bitches!” The southern states were equally at fault due to overwhelming fear and propaganda that the north would change their way of life.
Say you were born into a wealthy southern family back then. You didn’t agree with slavery, but you also understood the fact that ending it tomorrow would mean you’d be out on the street. Many people lack the moral compass to say, “I’d rather be poor.” Add to that the fear of the slaves revolting and killing you or the north coming in and taking over your plantation… it made things difficult.
Getting out of a fucked up situation sometimes requires government incentives or very careful planning, over a period of time.
It’s also important to remember that because the Democrats split in two and thus 3 candidates ran for president in 1860, Lincoln won even though more than half the country did not support him.
Lincoln although he had spoke against slavery publicly in the 1850’s was actually fairly moderate and also had no immediate plans to end slavery in the slave states. Rather he wished to halt it progressing into the new territories. He hoped that one day slavery would die out all over the country. Once the war began he was pressured to end slavery to hurt the Southern economy. Some border states that fought for the union actually had slaves until 1862 when Lincoln signed the Emancipation. Kentucky and Delaware who fought for the north, held their slaves till the 13th amendment was enacted in 1865.
It is the unwillingness of either side in this country - even today - to work together towards a solution that will agree with everyone.
It just sucks that no matter what history or what facts you use to counterpoint the popular opinion, on this issue in particular people get very fired up if you say the civil war was foolish war, or that the war wasn’t fought over slavery.
Personally, I think all if not most wars are generally foolish and can always be avoided. But once they start it’s a bit too late for that.
Again, Slavery was a big issue and one that led to many political decisions which then dominoed into war. I don’t dispute that at all.
I’m just saying John P. Smith who grabbed up his musket and went a marchin’ for the Union was probably not fighting for the end of slavery. He was fighting for his country and against the rebellion in the south. It also equates to the fact that many southern soldiers were not fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting against an army that was fighting against their homes and a government which they felt was not representative of their own interpretation of freedom.
Both sides refused to listen to each other and got wrapped up in the drum beats for war.
You and I could beat this into the ground, but we’ll just be two more voices in a 150 year old debate.
Just for the record, I don’t own a Confederate flag and I don’t have one in the back window of my pick-up next to Calvin pissing on a Chevy symbol, framed nicely by a gun rack.
[...] the near-tragedy that happened on Meet the Press a few weeks back, where Paul was close to revealing much, much more about his beliefs than is being [...]