Civil War? Hellz no! Posted: 11 months ago by gammerus
"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"
Comments: 11 Score: [-] 221 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 11 months ago by 2manyusernames:
He has a lot of good ideas.
He has some less than good ideas as well.
He also has a lot of ideas that would be good if humans lived in a world where lemonade flowed in springs and gumdrops grew on trees.
However,
This has got to be the most insane and ignorant idea ever put forward by a politician in recent memory.
This statement could hurt him if he had a chance in hell of being elected.
Score: [-] 106 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by ashlesdc:
Ron Paul is HUGE around these parts.
But you'd think we'd learn our lesson about electing texas republicans to the white house... just saying.
Score: [-] 77 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by melgesevad:
This is horribly funny. The Civil War was no more about slavery than it was Lincoln's fault. It just goes to show that our education system has horribly failed our youth in the area of history (and math and science...). I mean, the same untruths told to children these days, were told to Ron Paul's generation. Blah, rant over.
Score: [-] 80 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by drStrangelove:
His comment was OBVIOUSLY taken out of context. His point was that a war should always be averted if there are alternatives. Especially a civil war that is still the bloodiest in our history. Btw.. slavery was very far from the main reason for the civil war. Look it up.
Score: [-] 121 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by gammerus:
« 2manyusernames : He has a lot of good ideas.
He has some less than good ideas as well.
He also has a lot of ideas that would be good if humans lived in a world where lemonade flowed in springs and gumdrops grew on trees.
However,
This has got to be the most insane and ignorant idea ever put forward by a politician in recent memory.
This statement could hurt him if he had a chance in hell of being elected. I dunno, I think he is generally a reasonable person, with reasonable ideas.
I like the idea of freeing slaves rather than going to war... And if that were the real reason for the war I would have nothing bad to say about his comment.
Score: [-] 47 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by ZebraHDH:
I think he looks crazy because he is honest... which is absolutely insane for a politician...
The more important thing here is that he is criticizing a president that in most of the US citizen's eyes, had done no wrong. And, he is saying that there is always a better way to deal with something when you have the hindsight of the consequences.
Addressing the link, i feel that AOL Time Warner put this clip up for political reasons. And thts pretty messed up. But even if not, people say stupid stuff all the time, be glad its about the 1800's and not 2000's.
Our current president has said he wants OB/GYN's to be able to practice their "love" on women. He so much as said that gynecologists should be able to be sexual with their patients. Did every woman in america spiral into a fit of rage? I don't recall.
Score: [-] 63 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« gammerus : I dunno, I think he is generally a reasonable person, with reasonable ideas.
I like the idea of freeing slaves rather than going to war... And if that were the real reason for the war I would have nothing bad to say about his comment. "if that were the real reason for the war" well that's a big part of the problem, it wasn't.
Okay, let's assume that the issue of slavery was the sole reason for going to war. Let's further assume that the US could afford to purchase the freedom of all the slaves that were in the country at that time. (An assumption that would probably be far fetched. If such an event was attempted, it would be the largest seller's market ever. The prices would have gone through the roof)
Purchasing the freedom of the slaves wouldn't solve anything. Think about it, would purchasing all the drugs currently in the US solve the drug problem? For that matter does throwing money at a problem ever solve anything? Heck, it would have exasperated the problem mega-fold. Slavery would have turned into a huge profit industry. Slaves would have been brought here by droves in order to sell them to the government.
Basically, forgetting his misinterpretation of history and the fact that wars rarely have a single cause, this sort of policy is very dangerous. Not because he was wrong in his assumptions, but what it shows he will try to do.
Will that be his answer the next time we are attacked? Just pay off the attacker? Just give the attacker whatever he wants so as to avoid a war?
His foreign policies is where he is the weakest at, where he would destroy this country. Removing all the soldiers from around the world and bringing them home would be disastrous. Forget about the economic effect it would have here in America, I am talking from a military point of view.
Fighting a war of defense doesn't work. You need to be proactive, prevent the attacks from happening in the first place, not try and do something after they happen. I am not saying that you need to make preemptive strikes necessarily (although that is needed sometimes), just common sense.
Perhaps we should do the same thing with police. Remove all the police from the streets, from walking beats, from driving around, etc. We will only use the police in a defensive posture. When a crime happens then we will utilize the police.
You see, ZebraHDH, it isn't that he said something stupid, it is an indication of his policies. That is the scary part.
Contrary to his belief, the concept of "if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone" is naive.
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by ReBoot:
Not only unnecessary, it was unconstitutional. Lincoln overstepped his bounds when he decided to label the secession of the South a "civil war". Secession was a completely constitutional option for States wishing to leave the Union.
To believe that the war was fought over slavery is very misguided. The war between the states was fought over economics. The North simply could not allow the South and it's rich resources to leave the Union. Had Lincoln not been a tyrant, the South would have the 4th largest economy in the world today.
Score: [-] 75 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by DerAlt1:
Overall the issue was simply states rights.
However, the biggest issue affecting states rights was slavery.
You can't simply disassociate slavery as one of the causes. That was a hot button economic issue for the South and because of it's economic importance generated a much more militant Southern attitude.
A lesser issue may not have caused the war.
While preemptive strikes may sometimes be called for we should make damn sure is isn't for any
misguided, delusional, reasons with hidden agendas.
We need to have a fail safe intelligence network that can truthfully and accurately assure us that military action is the only resort.
Score: [-] 94 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by jameseum:
A couple things people don't know just for informative purposes:
1) The Confederate Constitution outlawed the purchase of any new slaves.
2) Jefferson Davis knew that slavery was at an end, but also knew 2 million uneducated people couldn't be set loose without some planning.
3) Emancipation Proclamation set NoOne free. All states under Northern control were exempted, because the North wanted to keep labor until the war was over.
4) The North had more slave owners than the South did.
There were more slaves in the south, but large numbers were owned by a handfull of plantation owners.
Far more people in the North owned only 1 or 2; maids & such.
5) Between 30,000 and 100,000 blacks served in the confederate army. Not in seperate units, but alongside white soldiers.
Score: [-] 89 [+].
Posted: 11 months ago by gammerus:
« 2manyusernames : His foreign policies is where he is the weakest at, where he would destroy this country. I beg to differ. I believe his foreign policies are essential now more than ever. I do not see why we as Americans have to be on the offence as far as the world is concerned. Of course I am not the most knowledgeable person in the matters of national defense, but based off of what I have read I believe this to be true.
Score: [-] 8 [+].
< 1 >