More on Ron Paul and the Wrongness of Lincoln's War.
League of the South's Mike Tuggle takes ohn CA Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.
Exsurps:
If you’ve ever wondered why the establishment goes nutso at the mention of Ron Paul, it’s because his core message—that the Federal government has wrongfully usurped power and perverted what the Founders established—strikes the beast at the heart. Check out this attack, all the more devious by its pretended admiration for Paul’s originalist stand on the Constitution. Apparently, it’s ok to profess devotion to the Constitution as long as you don’t really appreciate (or mention) that today’s assault on liberty originated in Mr. Lincoln’s War—instead, you’re supposed to blame “those liberals” or “those RINOS” or “the threat of Islamomeanies”—ANYTHING other than the facts. . . .
Where to start? It’s obvious only to the author that the ratification of the Constitution, which was done STATE by STATE, could only be rescinded by the entire body – which effectively meant it would never be allowed. So, by resisting the central government’s perversion of the original intent, the Southern States are at fault for everything that Lincoln, Sherman, and Sheridan did to prevent self-government. Some argument. . . .
Talk about cherry-picking the facts. First of all, the Declaration of Independence is NOT a proclamation of Marxist equality, but – as the name implies – is a manifesto of the right of all peoples to govern themselves. Also, slavery persisted in the North until the 13th amendment was ratified. The war was not about enforcing equality, but about whether the central government could usurp powers the Founders never contemplated. And if the war was a struggle to force the South to live up to the equal rights guaranteed to all, why did the Nothern states allow slavery until after the war, and deny freed slave the right to vote in their states? In 1867, Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, and Minnesota rejected proposals to allow blacks to vote. The Republican Party Platform of 1868 provided that “The question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belong to the people of those States,” thereby endorsing selective liberation. In 1883, Oregon rejected an attempt to remove an amendment prohibiting blacks from voting. Why didn’t DC invade those States after teaching those Southerners a lesson in how to be good Americans, hmmm?
Simple—because the argument that the War for Southern Independence was fought over slavery is pure propaganda. In the real world, wars are fought over money and power, not to perform good deeds for downtrodden people in far-away places (true in 1861 America, and true in Iraq today). That, of course, is why Mr. DeVore ( send him email) has to attack Paul—that’s the only way he can defend the DC empire Lincoln founded.
See related discusshuns right-cheer, right-cheer 'n right-cheer. 'N y'all stay tuned fo' further discussion.
S. Jones
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
in Damn Fool Liberals and No-Account Neocons, Snaggle-Tooth Debates The War of Northern Aggression with DeGrow, Sharf, et al., The Federals
|
2 Comments
Reader Comments (2)
I could hardly believe it when I wrote this - some of the arguments you cited contradict your case, others attack a strawman. More later ...
'L, we'll see. You also thank I committed the "post hoc" fallacy in a recent post, which, as ye'll see whin I get around to it (after the grandbabies leave on Feb. 2), ain't the case.