Ron Paul: Abraham Lincoln was not one of our greatest presidents

[AKteacher 104]

Many people on the extreme right seem to want to label anything having to do with a possible solution to a problem that involves government as "socialist." A smear tactic, pure and simple. People who can't win arguments based on the facts often use smear tactics such as this to generate hype and distract us from the real issues. I find it ironic that many of our country's greatest presidents, including Lincoln, would probably be unelectable today.

I would submit that there are SOME instances where government is better at doing certain things. For example, I moved from California to Oregon several years ago. California had privatized automobile smog testing. In order to have my car smogged, I had to find a mechanic, make an appointment, leave my car, come back again after at least several hours, and pay about $50. In Oregon, the government runs the system. No appointment is necessary. You drive up and the car gets tested without the driver (me) even having to get out of the car. It's the same test, the whole process takes 5-10 minutes, and costs me 1/2 as much. I think it's pretty obvious which system is better for most people.

Single-payer medical insurance anyone? Nope, that's "socialist!" Is it really? Well for those who don't know, the definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production, and that's certainly not the case with singe-payer medical insurance. The whole medical insurance issue is much more complicated than auto smogging, and deserves to be addressed based on facts and not innuendo. Mind you, I'm not advocating single-payer medical, only saying that name calling degrades the debate and clouds the real issues. But of course just for bringing that up somebody will probably call me a "socialist" or some other name.

Having said all that, I do think that private companies do a better job than government in most areas of our economy. But to label anyone who advocates any kind of government action as a solution (or even a partial solution) to any problem at all as a "socialist" reminds me of being back in the schoolyard where kids are pointing and name calling. That sort of approach might get people's attention but it really does nothing to solve the problems of our country, and indeed just serves to polarize and degrade political discourse.

Our country has too many problems that need solutions, not schoolyard smear tactics, so name callers please GROW UP! And people that fall for that trash talk should try to become more educated (and less angry!) by listening to fact-based arguments instead of all the name calling and innuendo on the airwaves these days.

Have a nice day!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Many people on the extreme right seem to want to label anything having to do with a possible solution to a problem that involves government as "socialist." A smear tactic, pure and simple. People who can't win arguments based on the facts often use smear tactics such as this to generate hype and distract us from the real issues. I find it ironic that many of our country's greatest presidents, including Lincoln, would probably be unelectable today.

I would submit that there are SOME instances where government is better at doing certain things. For example, I moved from California to Oregon several years ago. California had privatized automobile smog testing. In order to have my car smogged, I had to find a mechanic, make an appointment, leave my car, come back again after at least several hours, and pay about $50. In Oregon, the government runs the system. No appointment is necessary. You drive up and the car gets tested without the driver (me) even having to get out of the car. It's the same test, the whole process takes 5-10 minutes, and costs me 1/2 as much. I think it's pretty obvious which system is better for most people.

Single-payer medical insurance anyone? Nope, that's "socialist!" Is it really? Well for those who don't know, the definition of socialism is when the government owns the means of production, and that's certainly not the case with singe-payer medical insurance. The whole medical insurance issue is much more complicated than auto smogging, and deserves to be addressed based on facts and not innuendo. Mind you, I'm not advocating single-payer medical, only saying that name calling degrades the debate and clouds the real issues. But of course just for bringing that up somebody will probably call me a "socialist" or some other name.

Having said all that, I do think that private companies do a better job than government in most areas of our economy. But to label anyone who advocates any kind of government action as a solution (or even a partial solution) to any problem at all as a "socialist" reminds me of being back in the schoolyard where kids are pointing and name calling. That sort of approach might get people's attention but it really does nothing to solve the problems of our country, and indeed just serves to polarize and degrade political discourse.

Our country has too many problems that need solutions, not schoolyard smear tactics, so name callers please GROW UP! And people that fall for that trash talk should try to become more educated (and less angry!) by listening to fact-based arguments instead of all the name calling and innuendo on the airwaves these days.

Have a nice day!

Great post and welcome to VJ political threads!

[wayno 9]

Now having said that I will say that I love my country---the USA. Historically speaking I think the south got the short end of the stick and the south seperating was over some of the same principles the USA seperated from England during the American Revolution. I have no problem showing my feelings of the side I would have been on over 150 years ago had I been around then. My beliefs sided with the southern side of the Mason Dixon line! Many others here in MD had the same beliefs as this was trully a brother against brother state.

However, in a modern sence, Lincoln did keep MD from succeeding by basically putting away the ones who would be making the vote on whether MD would sepperate. It was the belief at the time that the state would succeed and join the Confederacy ( and history points that it probably would have) but Lincoln could not posibly allow that to happen as because of the location of the capital.

I feel if MD was permited to join the confederacy the outcome of the war would have been totally different. Perhaps I am wrong but there is only speculation as to how it would have ended up. For the record of the present time, I love my country (the USA.

Probably why we (MD) still arent really accepted by the other states. Neither the north or the south will claim us. I am called southern when in NY or NJ but am a yankee when I'm down in N.C. or FL. But thats a whole different storu!

[Danno 1,228]

The evidence is pretty strong that Lincoln was gay, just like there's evidence that Jefferson sired children with his slaves. The truth shall set you free.

Steve the Last time you made these claims I posted the DNA based evidence that proves it was a false claim shot down by science.

AS for him being GaY, please post WHY you believe that and lets see if there is enough probable cause to convict him of that.

And if not.... and it's only speculation, well I guess you are entitled to that right but I don't want to hear anymore crying when wild speculations are made about Team-Obama.

I'm not sure what it is about SOME people on the left who gravitate toward such things... it's like they WANT so badly.. to believe such things are true about American historical figures.

[luckytxn 2,264]

An Interview With Ron Paul

...

Q: Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we've ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?

A: No, I don't think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don't see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that's what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.

The people who disagree want to turn around and say, "Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery." But that's just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.

http://rightwingnews.com/2010/03/an-interview-with-ron-paul/

Ron Paul never said that the Feds should have bought all the slaves but that they could have at 1/100 the cost. I have read history though and that idea was thought about back then seriously. Most people in the south actually hated slavery and the economics of it. (jobs) Eventually slavery would have died out. It was extremely hard to import slaves and illegal to do so. It brought the price of slaves up to ridiculous amounts. The south was isolated. The Feds were getting stronger and eventually made what illegal slaves were being brought in even harder. The compromises were getting harder to do. Eventually the states would have been lop sided and anti slavery votes would have been against the south in congress.

Edited April 11, 2010 by luckytxn

[Danno 1,228]

Now having said that I will say that I love my country---the USA. Historically speaking I think the south got the short end of the stick and the south seperating was over some of the same principles the USA seperated from England during the American Revolution. I have no problem showing my feelings of the side I would have been on over 150 years ago had I been around then. My beliefs sided with the southern side of the Mason Dixon line! Many others here in MD had the same beliefs as this was trully a brother against brother state.

However, in a modern sence, Lincoln did keep MD from succeeding by basically putting away the ones who would be making the vote on whether MD would sepperate. It was the belief at the time that the state would succeed and join the Confederacy ( and history points that it probably would have) but Lincoln could not posibly allow that to happen as because of the location of the capital.

I feel if MD was permited to join the confederacy the outcome of the war would have been totally different. Perhaps I am wrong but there is only speculation as to how it would have ended up. For the record of the present time, I love my country (the USA.

Probably why we (MD) still arent really accepted by the other states. Neither the north or the south will claim us. I am called southern when in NY or NJ but am a yankee when I'm down in N.C. or FL. But thats a whole different storu!

Not to hurt your feelings Bro but most people across the country don't have any opinion about Maryland, it's kinda one of those little states with no trademark to distinguish it's self.

But rest assured, North Easterners know you have Baltimore.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Historically speaking I think the south got the short end of the stick and the south seperating was over some of the same principles the USA seperated from England during the American Revolution.

There's really no logical basis for that claim. For one, the United States was and still is a representational democracy. Hardly anything remotely close to tyranny.

Sen. Daniel Webster's famous debate with South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne over whether states have the right to secede should be taught in every redneck Confederate loving state:

Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclusion, said: -- A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct.

His argument consists of two propositions and an inference. His propositions are, --

• 1. That the Constitution is a compact between the States.
  2. That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power whatever.
  3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) the general government does not possess the authority to construe its own powers.

Now, Sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elaborate and systematic argument.

The Constitution, it is said, is a compact between States; the States, then, and the States only, are parties to the compact. How comes the general government itself a party? Upon the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet the argument, as the gentleman has now stated it, makes the government itself one of its own creators. It makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own existence.

For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the States as parties to that compact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to consider the general government, which is the offspring of that compact, not its offspring, but one of its parties; and so, being a party, without the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, Sir, in what school is such reasoning as this taught?

If the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were conceded to him,-- that is to say, if I admit, for the sake of the argument, that the Constitution is a compact between States, -- the inferences which he draws from that proposition are warranted by no just reasoning. If the Constitution be a compact between States, still that Constitution, or that compact, has established a government, with certain powers; and whether it be one of those powers, that it shall construe and interpret for itself the terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can only be decided by looking to the compact, and inquiring what provisions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistency with natural reason, the government even thus created might be trusted with this power of construction. The extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrument itself.

If the old Confederation had contained a clause, declaring that resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme law of the land, any State law or constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and that a committee of Congress, or any other body created by it, should possess judicial powers, extending to all cases arising under resolutions of Congress, then the power of ultimate decision would have been vested in Congress under the Confederation, although that Confederation was a compact between States; and for this plain reason,-- that it would have been competent to the States, who alone were parties to the compact, to agree who should decide in cases of dispute arising on the construction of the compact.

For the same reason, Sir, if I were now to concede to the gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the Constitution is a compact between States, the question would still be, What provision is made, in this compact to settle points of disputed construction, or contested power, that shall come into controversy? And this question would still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the Constitution itself.

While the gentleman is contending against construction, he himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construction. The Constitution declares, that the laws of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. No construction is necessary here. It declares, also with equal plainness and precision, that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to every case arising under the laws of Congress. This needs no construction. Here is a law, then, which is declared to be supreme; and here is a power established, which is to interpret that law. Now, Sir, how has the gentleman met this? Suppose the Constitution to be a compact, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman get rid of them? He cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the words out of the instrument. Here they are; what answer does he give to them? None in the world, Sir, except, that the effect of this would be to place the States in a condition of inferiority; and that it results from the very nature of things, there being no superior, that the parties must be their own judges! Thus closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on the words of the Constitution. The gentleman says, if there be such a power of final decision in the general government, he asks for the grant of that power. Well, Sir, I show him the grant. I turn him to the very words. I show him that the laws of Congress are made supreme; and that the judicial power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into the general reflection, that it must result from the nature of things, that the States, being parties, must judge for themselves.

I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be considered as the creature of the State governments, it might be modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure. But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should agree. One alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone could not construe it; one alone could not modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine is, that Carolina alone may construe and interpret that compact which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all.

So, then, Sir, even supposing the Constitntion to be a compact between the States, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not maintainable; because, first, the general government is not a party to that compact, but a government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and secondly, because, if the Constitution be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all the States, are parties to that compact, and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction.

So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. The gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the people of the United States, that they establish the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used.

When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a Constitution, therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the States.

The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy where I see none. He likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good faith. But this is not a treaty, but a constitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties.

I admit, Sir, that this government is a government of checks and balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the President a check on both. But I cannot comprehend him, or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the notion of checks and balances to the interference of different governments. He argues, that, if we transgress our constitutional limits, each State, as a State, has a right to check us. Does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to check the States ? The gentleman's doctrines would give us a strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of governments of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and the State government each in its proper sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible every kind of interference.

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. They will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Ah! Sir, this is but the old story. All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference. It is the common pretence. But I take leave of the subject.

link

[William33 110]

Always shifting identities Steven....What up wit dat?

Anyway, the notion that slavery would have ended if the USG "bought up every slave and freed them" is ridiculous. Slavery was a lifestyle and mindset back then. Only time would shift that mentality and rightly so.

[wayno 9]

No ofence taken Danno! maybe I should change it to the states immideatly to the north or south of MD, as most of the rest of the country doesn't even know this tiny state even exists. I did, however, try to clearly state that everything I wrote was just my opinion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Always shifting identities Steven....What up wit dat?

I'm on the lamb. Please don't blow my cover.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Now having said that I will say that I love my country---the USA. Historically speaking I think the south got the short end of the stick and the south seperating was over some of the same principles the USA seperated from England during the American Revolution. I have no problem showing my feelings of the side I would have been on over 150 years ago had I been around then. My beliefs sided with the southern side of the Mason Dixon line! Many others here in MD had the same beliefs as this was trully a brother against brother state.

However, in a modern sence, Lincoln did keep MD from succeeding by basically putting away the ones who would be making the vote on whether MD would sepperate. It was the belief at the time that the state would succeed and join the Confederacy ( and history points that it probably would have) but Lincoln could not posibly allow that to happen as because of the location of the capital.

I feel if MD was permited to join the confederacy the outcome of the war would have been totally different. Perhaps I am wrong but there is only speculation as to how it would have ended up. For the record of the present time, I love my country (the USA.

Probably why we (MD) still arent really accepted by the other states. Neither the north or the south will claim us. I am called southern when in NY or NJ but am a yankee when I'm down in N.C. or FL. But thats a whole different storu!

Maryland didn't have even near enough people or resources to make a play or be anything significant. In the east it was Virginia that was the key and the only serious state to have a hope to effect the the whole war. Maryland succeeding would have just made everyone laugh, the south included.

[wayno 9]

As I stated, it is just my thoughts. Of course a slight little thing we had in MD was the capital sitting between MD and VA. Anyone is free to speculate as to what would have happened if MD had joined the confederacy. The Us government seat being completely in rebel territory. Lincoln did not want to take any chances and basically anybody with any power in MD was put away.

I am done with this as I have entered the area of the big dogs politically and am not good at stating my point. I admit I am from some lowely little nobody state that most have never heard of. I don't debate well so am only stating my opinion----as are all of us.

Sorry for doing that!

[scandal 951]

Lincoln did not want to take any chances and basically anybody with any power in MD was put away.

Not sure what "put away" means. Monty Blair was put in an influential role in his Cabinet, of all places. The Blair family (Frank Sr., Frank Jr, Monty) had ties to Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri - 3 border states, with all 3 Blairs closely identified to Lincoln's administration. Missouri also had Edward Bates representing it in Lincoln's cabinet.

Lincoln knew the politics of his day, and worked the regional issues masterfully.

[Pooky 3,788]

Just because it's Sunday.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Many border states stayed Union. From what I recall there were many put away but that was due to Lincoln suspending the constitution pretty much and jailing anyone that was critical of his policies, like newspapers editors and such. I don't remember any politicians though as he tried to court them a lot. The power of the Feds at that time were unimaginable back then but common day now.