Ron Paul Brings Da Cwazy On Civil War

Yeah, yeah, I know, business as usual for Ron. A little snippet from John Hawkins’ interview with him

John: Getting down to the last two questions here…. 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?

Ron Paul: 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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Ron Paul Brings Da Cwazy On Civil War”

  1. David says:

    Before you critize Dr. Paul, read something on Lincoln. Not the fiction that is the American History. Lincoln was a first class monster. Name anything associated with the war and he left his mark. Are you aware that the Confederates did not take the first offensive action in Charlston Harbor? No, Lincoln arranged for several warships of force a passage and invade the area. Are you aware of this treatment of the Indians? Don’t here much about that. But the Japs certainly took interest and used the same techniques on us in WWII, look up the Navajo and his movement of them to Colorado. Just like the Batan except women and children were involved. Ever wonder what happened to Southern innocents that were at Vicksburg and other towns, he bombed them and killed them without any blink of the eye. What happened to all the freed slaves, generally left to die behind the invading armies. Why did he authorize Sherman’s march and Sheraton’s rape of the valley when Lee’s army was penned and could not get meaninful supplies and the war was only months from being over?

    The guy could give a good speech. But look at his actions. Hitler did (really). Marx thought he was great, Google Lincoln/Marx. O, and Lincoln hated Blacks and wanted to move them out of the US. His wife inherrited several and he sold them, so much for the great liberator. You can go on and on about this jerk, he changed our country to something we really don’t like and stopped the freedom experiment.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Are you aware that the Confederates did not take the first offensive action in Charlston Harbor?

    BZZZZZT! Sorry Dave. Would you like to play “true history for $100?” The South had actually seized forts in the Charleston Harbor while Buchanan was president. Seizing a federal fort is an offensive action by any definition.

    Are you aware of this treatment of the Indians?

    BZZZZT! Oh, sorry. Wrong again Dave. Certainly Lincoln authorized the military efforts against the Indians, but that does not mean that he instituted or perpetuated the problem as you would have people believe.

    Ever wonder what happened to Southern innocents that were at Vicksburg and other towns, he bombed them and killed them without any blink of the eye

    BZZZZZZZT! Not looking good here Dave. Oh for three. Lincoln never fired a shot at Vicksburg. Like all great presidents during a war, Lincoln approved general strategy (seizing Vicksburg) and then let the Generals do the work.

    I am not sure how Vicksburg contained “Southern innocents” when the people of Vicksburg actively supported succession, and actively supported supplying the CSA armies and “navy.”

    Do you have any evidence that Pemberton, the CSA commander, made an offer to let these “innocents” to be removed from the area? After all, wasn’t it his responsibility to look out for the people of the area?

    Why did he authorize Sherman’s march and Sheraton’s rape of the valley when Lee’s army was penned and could not get meaninful supplies and the war was only months from being over?

    Because it was an effective war strategy, Dave. Sherman’s march had nothing to do with Lee’s army other than to keep troops in his area from transferring to Lee’s region. (you do realize that, right?).

    If you are going to criticize someone and try to use historical examples, at least get the players right. It is not “Sheraton,” but “Sheridan.” “Sheraton” is a hotel chain. “Philip Sheridan” was the head of the Union’s “Army of the Shenandoah.”

    Sheridan’s Valley Campaign was necessary for two reasons: 1) the Shenandoah Valley was still a major source of food and material for the South. Eliminating that food source would actually shorten the war and 2) CSA General Early was active in the Shenandoah, and the North feared a thrust toward Washington from that direction. In other words, Sheridan’s actions in the Shenandoah protected Grant’s flank as he battled Lee.

    You can go on and on about this jerk, he changed our country to something we really don’t like and stopped the freedom experiment.

    Are you sure that you want to stick with the idea that keeping the United States together as a country while trying to ensure that the idea that “all men are created equal” is a bad thing?

  3. Otter says:

    Dave must be a recent graduate of one of the liberal-corrupted colleges.

  4. David says:

    gitarcarver,
    To sum up things, you are wrong. Sorry. Using your logic, then Hitler, Stalin were saints. As to generals directing their troops, Lincoln had ultimate responsibility for this activity and did micromanaging from Washingto via the telegraph, where he virtually slept.

    I note the superiority you have as to a single word in haste. Truly more of a liberal, superiority tack. I would comment on the Early reference, but you are very much into the Lincoln religion and it would be a waste of time. Read somemore, you may learn a little about why we have lost our freedoms.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    To sum up things, you are wrong
    Okay. Then I look forward to a refutation of the points I made.

    Using your logic, then Hitler, Stalin were saints.
    Not sure how Lincoln compares with Hitler and Stalin. Stalin and Hitler were both active in the planning of actual battles. Lincoln never did that. He was only there for broad strategy and never made direct tactical decisions.

    micromanaging from Washingto via the telegraph, where he virtually slept.
    Lincoln slept in the telegraph office waiting for reports on how battles went. He also reviewed the daily casualty reports. That is quite different from micromanaging a war or a particular battle.

    I note the superiority you have as to a single word in haste.
    It is not a case of superiority, it is a relevant observation that casts doubt on your historical knowledge and thinks people should read history. You (not me) cited a totally different person as a basis for his criticism of Lincoln.

    Anyone who had actually studied the Vally Campaign of Sheridan would have noticed that you had misspelled the name. The only logical conclusion is that you haven’t studied the battles, the strategy and the tactics.

    I would comment on the Early reference
    Please do. It will be the first comment of relevance that you have made. However, given your past history of distortion and misrepresentations, please understand that it will be viewed with some skepticism and compared to actual events for historical accuracy.

    but you are very much into the Lincoln religion
    Not at all. I am also not in the “Lincoln was terrible” psychosis as you appear to be.

    And now, at the end of this post, I am still waiting for anything of substance from you.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    I want to return for a moment, Dave, to this comment of yours as I have a few additional thoughts on the matter:
    I note the superiority you have as to a single word in haste. Truly more of a liberal, superiority tack

    As previously stated, when one wants to claim a certain knowledge of events as you are, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate some sort of mastery of those events.

    Clearly not recognizing “Sheraton” being “Sheridan” casts doubts on your credibility.

    So you blamed “haste” on your mistake. Given the surrounding factual errors in your post, it is highly suspect that the error was made in haste and instead was made out of ignorance.

    You see Dave, if I had wanted to attack you on some sort of superiority level as a liberal might do, (and as you claim I did) there had plenty of targets in your run-on sentences and your lack of punctuation. I didn’t do that because I understand typos and how things can happen. Heck, I didn’t even note to you that is it “Bataan,” not “Batan” as that is most likely a typo.

    You were schooled on the facts and when your perceptions were challenged, you resorted to attacking the person.

    Calling me a “liberal” is laughable on the face of it. However, if you want to make that assumption, that is fine as it doesn’t take away anything from the core argument that you are wrong on the facts.

    In reality, one of the traits that we see from leftists and far right wing nutcases is the inability to admit mistakes. There is always a justification or rationalization they have to try and cover their ignorance.

    One could make the observation that your lack of ownership to the mistake concerning Sheridan would fit that bill quite nicely. After all, you never really owned up to the mistake and the implications other than to rationalize it as something “done in haste.”

    You also never really addressed the issues that were raised.

    Your attack on me personally, Dave, has been exposed for what it is – a desperate attempt to obfuscate the overwhelming evidence that you are simply wrong on the points you tried to make.

  7. Matt says:

    I’m a big Ron Paul supporter but here he misses the point that if the US government had bought all the slaves, it might of been a good business to be in. Many slaves inherited the properties and land after their “owners” died, and that’s why the last names were given to them as they were legal family members. These “employees” were the help around the farm and though many of the horror stories were true, it wasn’t as bad for some as history makes it out to be. Think of the starving tribal people in Africa and a promise to them there was plenty to eat in the new frontier as workers on a farm. That was there perspective, that the government was taking their helpers away from them. Tribal people have always been treated this way since the time of the jewish tribes in Egypt. Education is the great equalizer.

  8. Marsh says:

    I hate Ron Paul but there’s nothing crazy about that statement. It’s pretty much true.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqL8y27fgkA

Bad Behavior has blocked 9926 access attempts in the last 7 days.