What is Digg?348 Comments
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -36/+243And for some reason Ron Paul was ridiculed for saying that the Civil War was unnecessary. Here are letters from Abraham Lincoln backing up that viewpoint.
- bsegovia, on 03/04/2008, -36/+148Ron Paul was right #7,342
- apc3161, on 03/04/2008, -6/+68What's even funnier is that he was ridiculed on MSNBC during an interview with Schuster for saying such things.
Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-424062448 ...
I realize Ron Paul has an annoying voice at times, and often times does a bad job of explaining his view points (I feel you have to have considerable background knowledge in the subject matters to know what he's even talking about), but to me all that signifies is that this country has really hit a new low.
He was ridiculed far too much in this campaign when some of his views on the subjects at hand were spot on. Even if some views weren't that great, that shouldn't be a reason to discredit every single thing about the man and what he stands for. - Sogui, on 03/04/2008, -11/+72I understand what this article is saying, but at the very basic level it's a contradiction
"Lincoln letters proposed avoiding Civil War... one year into the Civil War" - inactive, on 03/04/2008, -5/+48I bet the folks lending money to Lincoln's government weren't too excited about Lincoln's idea to shorten the war. I bet they didn't mind spreading a few bribes out here to ignore Lincolns plan.
"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. "- Abe Lincoln
Meanwhile in Britain a truly incredible editorial in the London Times explained the Bank of England's attitude towards Lincoln's Greenbacks.
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurate down to a fixture, then the Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
Keep in mind, by this time the European monarchs were already chained to their private central banks, hence the bankers' concern to preserve their captive monarchs. Within four days of the passage of the law that allowed Greenbacks to be issued, bankers met in convention in Washington to discuss the situation. It was agreed that Greenbacks would surely be their ruin. Something had to be done. They devised a scheme gradually to undermine the value of the Greenbacks.
Seemingly unimportant limitations on the use of Greenbacks (printed on the green back), insisted on by the bankers, forbidding their use to pay import duties and interest on the public debt, were utilized by the banks to slap a surcharge on Greenbacks of up to 185%. This undermined the confidence of the people in Greenbacks and necessitated further concessions to the bankers to obtain more, discounted as the Greenbacks now were.
This scheme was effective - so effective that the next year, 1863, with Federal and Confederate troops beginning to mass for the decisive battle of the Civil War, and the Treasury in need of further Congressional authority at that time to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln gave in to the pressure, which he described:
"They persist, they have argued me almost blind - I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers." - inactive, on 03/04/2008, -8/+47It's almost as though the war wasn't fought over slavery.
- Krippy, on 03/04/2008, -11/+35Ay. Even as a Paul and researching the topic a bit, something was still missing. This, I believe, closes the case.
- lastnymleft, on 03/04/2008, -3/+25And they weren't pretty deaths or injuries, either. No morphine back then to dope you to your eyeballs while the surgeons put you back together. Bite the leather and brace for the hand saw!
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -35/+56First off, slavery was just ONE of the issues that led to the civil war, and this "plan" doesn't even take into account the other economic issues (tariffs, etc) or constitutional issues that played an even bigger part than slavery. Most southerners didn't even have a single slave.
As someone who had ancestors on both sides fight, and die in the war, I am glad that Lincoln did NOT compromise on the rights of the slaves (human beings). Not only would this plan have left thousands still under bondage ($400 per slave would not be enough for a plantation owner to sell ALL of his slaves, as his livelihood depended on it), but it would have let the states continue to have slavery for at least another twenty years. Ironic, that Paul, the supposed "savior of freedom" would have advocated a plan that would have left many under the opposite of freedom.
I for one am glad that Lincoln left this earth the legacy of an emancipator, instead of a compromiser. - kronso23, on 03/05/2008, -0/+20Yes, his viewpoints are dead on. Bring us back to the gold standard not so we can bath in gold like scrooge mcduck, but so we prevent the federal reserve from printing off money when we're broke. He has the most intelligent answer to gay marriage, that marriage in itself is a religious ceremony, it's not up to the government to define marriage. Yet, Ron Paul would abolish income tax therefor there would be no tax incentive to get married. Ron Paul would pull out of Iraq immediately and restore our civil liberties.
The sad truth is that Americans do not vote based on the candidate's stance on the issues. If Americans did vote in a logical manner, Ron Paul would have been president a long time - DokGonzo, on 03/04/2008, -10/+28Whoa... So Ron Paul is not an old kook after all. Imagine that.
- RandyAndy1, on 03/04/2008, -3/+20This sounds like it is out of National Treasure: Book of Secrets
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -6/+22Basically he was admitting that a mistake had been made before grave damage had been done. The truly bloody parts of the war didn't happen until after the second year. (Gettysburg, Antietam, etc.) Too bad he didn't follow through with the brilliant and pacific idea (great cost analysis too!).
If you think about it, now would be the chance for the current administration to do the same with the Middle East. - mal1964, on 03/04/2008, -4/+19A good plan = A good or better backup plan.
- buckrogers1965, on 03/04/2008, -7/+21Being right all the time is only annoying to those who are always wrong.
- Bilabrin, on 03/04/2008, -1/+15When your right, your right.
Now this is the first story all day where Ron is even mentioned and it is Apt in this instance so quit exaggerating. - inactive, on 03/04/2008, -6/+18The backup plan sounded a hell of a lot better. The death toll from the Civil War makes the American death toll from the Iraq War look like peanuts. If you count the money we have spent and the dead Iraqis from the chaos, it might be just as bad.
- nigh7dagger, on 03/04/2008, -2/+14But in history in 3rd grade I learned that it was!
- netherneedle74, on 03/04/2008, -3/+15The objective of the Civil War wasn't to free slaves, until later on, it was to keep the Union together. It was added in as a morale booster.
- israelanderson, on 03/04/2008, -10/+21Yeah, I'd probably be considered one of those annoying followers... And DAMN proud of it!
- Buddhist, on 03/04/2008, -3/+13Yes, it's Ron Paul spam from 126 years ago, written by Abe Lincoln.
cool stuff - mal1964, on 03/04/2008, -0/+10They had morphine
http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/activity/manswar/pages ... - h0v3rb1k3s, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9Neither is the right to own slaves.
- logosx1, on 03/05/2008, -0/+9The federal government has no damn business doing what it considers "right." Instead, its only charge is to fulfill the duties prescribed by the Constitution -- and Lincoln himself admitted in his first inaugural that the federal government had no power to forcibly end slavery where it already existed.
As soon as you concede to the federal government the power to do right, you have conceded to it the power to do wrong. I submit the current presidency as Exhibit A. - Civilizationist, on 03/04/2008, -2/+11Put yourself self in the shoes of those times.
You have no idea how the Civil War would end. Would America be split in two for years and years after? Forever?
Would the south have won, and slavery continuing at least for 20 more years?
It is easy now to make the decision now that you know the outcome. Back in the day I probably would have sided with Paul and Lincoln with phasing out slavery rather than war. I could be wrong but I think Ron Paul was arguing more for what Lincoln should have done given the situation, now what would have been the better outcome.
However, because I know the outcome, I do agree with you. - Siegfriedson, on 03/05/2008, -2/+11The "Civil War" (not actually a civil war) was fought because the Southern states wanted to secede from the voluntary union of states (you know, at one time the term "The United States" was actually plural). The North fought against the South to preserve this Union, not to end slavery. No white man would have died to ensure that blacks would be citizens. The Civil War was actually the Second American Revolution, only this time the "bad guys" won.
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -4/+12Adding to the first paragraph in the previous comment: The first two years of the war were pretty much a stalemate given that neither side was able to make any significant incursions. There was still time to avoid the grave damage that ended up happening, and at the same time slavery would have been abolished.
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -6/+14slavery for a "few more years" 20 is a "few" to you? I wonder what a slave would pick? As for the $400 per slave: What about the slaves that they added over those 20 years? 400 bucks a pop for 20 years to "buy them out"?
Dude, you fail, and fail miserably. You don't even know the death toll of the war you comment on... - nigh7dagger, on 03/04/2008, -0/+8And the ages of combatants in the Civil war range from 13-year olds to, if I'm not mistaken, a Confederate general who was 88.
- outcast24817, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7You people need to learn your Civil War history.
- j0keR, on 03/04/2008, -6/+13Thank god the federal government decided to kill several hundreds of thousands of its own citizens for trying to leave the union. Yeah, sure, the civil war was about slavery. Riiight. And Iraq was about the WMD's? Keep believing what they taught you in government school. Good little citizens know they wouldn't have strong incentives to teach biased pro-state viewpoints. Don't forget to do the pledge of allegiance either, even if it was created by a Nazi. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1a.html
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -2/+9 Lincoln wanted to send America's blacks to Brazil.
- inactive, on 03/04/2008, -14/+20Millions of people? What war were YOU learning about in history. The TOTAL amount of deaths as a result of the civil war was approximately 620,000. I imagine the amount of deaths of 18 year old boys was far less. Oh and, nice False-Dichotomy fallacious "what is worse" statement there.
Please educate yourself about the issue before further embarrassing yourself by tripping over your own ignorance in an attempt to make a coherent reply. - jeffiek, on 03/04/2008, -5/+11620 THOUSAND is OK with you? What? You have a magic number? What's is it? Would you say the Civil War was bad at 800k? 900k? 1 Million? Don't forget that at the time the population was only about one tenth of what it is today. That 620k would translate to just over 6 MILLION as a percentage of today's population.
It's OK that they were over 18? What's good by you? Dead at 21?
(and as for the reading history bit - quite a few were young, they weren't too hot on birth certificates back then)
You are right though, byates5637 really should get the numbers right, or a least close. Damn you byates, why did you have to make me agree with something from onetimer? - diggdiggerid, on 03/04/2008, -4/+10He didn't start the war, the South seceded and formed their own country and then attacked a Union fort. That was an act of war.
- inactive, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6Thanks for the assist. The common perception of Lincoln as a champion for black rights has been pretty heavily distorted. I think this prety much sums up his real feelings.
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor intermarry with white people.” - gsadler82, on 03/04/2008, -3/+9wasn't ron paul ridiculed for this idea?
- rozzlapeed, on 03/04/2008, -0/+6I don't imagine anyone will read this far into the comments, but after reading the article, I don't see how this would be a proposal to avoid the war.
"Calculating costs
Paying slave-holders $400 for each of the 1,798 slaves in Delaware listed in the 1860 Census, he wrote, would come to $719,200 at a time when the war was soaking up $2 million a day.
Buying the freedom of an estimated 432,622 slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Washington, D.C., would cost $173,048,800 — nearly equal to the estimated $174 million needed to wage war for 87 days, he added."
The states mentioned were not in the Confederacy, but were the few states in the Union that still permitted slavery. Since we know that the Emancipation Proclamation only emancipated slaves in Confederate states, this would appear, at least from the portions that are quoted in the article, to be Lincoln's proposal for emancipating Union slaves. - richporter, on 03/05/2008, -1/+7You're all wrong. The Civil War was fought over many things, the most prominent of those "things" was of course "States rights." Those "rights" which were being "violated" was not the "right" to own slaves, but the "right" to move them into the Western territories. When the Feds shook their fingers at the southern states for human trafficking into the territories, the South threw a ***** fit and rightfully so. Lincoln is quoted as saying something similar to "If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, I would." This war was ultimately NOT about the freedom of an individual slave, more over, it was about the encroachment of the federal government into the business (economy) of the individual states, which was of course slave power. Among other things, the South feared Lincoln in office from the get go. They feared becoming insignificant with the booming industry and economies of the Northern states. What your history teacher taught you in grade school are all half truths. Do your own research. Don't take my word for it either. Enlighten yourselves, pick up a ***** book. You're all being mislead.
- Nubaulz, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8It's not correct to assume that selling a slave to the government for $400 would bring economic ruin to the plantation owner. To make that assumption is to assume that the freed slave ceases to exist after emancipation. In reality, the former slave still exists, and still needs to provide for him or herself (and his or her family, if one exists). Also, the former slave's job still exists, which the former slave can still perform, only with fair compensation for his/her work.
The plantation owner actually comes out ahead with the government buy-out of slaves because he is no longer obligated to provide food and board for his slave work force. He is also not responsible to nurse a sick slave back to health, and a laborer that is fairly compensated for is much more efficient than a slave that is forced into his or her labor. Slave labor is actually a very inefficient work force, both from a productivity and investment stand point. This is one of the reasons slave labor is very rare in the modern world. Once the efficiency of a free and open market was revealed to the world, slavery lost favor. That, and it's extremely cruel to treat fellow humans in such a way. - therealkdog, on 03/04/2008, -3/+9I thought that the slavery issue was not a factor in the Civil War until the Emancipation Proclamation.
Its been years since history, I will have to look it up. - DeepFriedFetus, on 03/04/2008, -9/+15"*****, he was right again..."
- David Rockefeller - bubba9999, on 03/05/2008, -1/+6Lincoln suspected that the South had cotton of mass destruction.
- Bilabrin, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Ron Paul did not specifically say he supported 20 more years of slavery, only that he believed Lincoln could've tried harder to end slavery the way every other nation on earth did, by buying them. I think your insinuation is a little unfair.
- jawagas, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8I once got an A for an essay relating The Clone War to The Civil War, which went into much detail as to why slavery wasn't the biggest issue at hand. Wonder if posting it will get on the front page
- FeargusMcDuff, on 03/04/2008, -18/+23PON RAUL!!1
- Chubs879, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8That is ridiculously interesting.
- Siegfriedson, on 03/05/2008, -0/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/Yup_Honest_Abe_W ...
- gypsi, on 03/04/2008, -6/+11of course he did - he was no warmongering moron
-
Show 51 - 100 of 344 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is