Picking sides...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I actually started writing a post on the Ron Paul's recent racist newsletter scandal and the conservative reaction to the same but jonathankorman beat me to the punch. As such I'm shifting the topic slightly to something that came up in the comments.

Now I like Ron Paul, As jonathankorman said;

He vigorously opposes American military adventurism and the military-industrial complex. He has pointed out how the financial industry has perversely benefitted from the financial crisis they created. He speaks in defense of civil liberties and has fought against attacks on them like the PATRIOT Act. He calls the War On Some Drugs the madness that it is. And often he says this stuff well.

But his response to the scandal namely, "I didn't know what was in the letters but I put my name on them anyway" has dramatically lowered my respect for him. You see, if he's telling the truth, such a decision demonstrates a high level political incompetance. What kind of fool would out-source his reputation in such a way? and what kind of fool would run for president without taking care of the skeletons in his closet first? If he did write those letters (even if he were simply playing to the crowd) he's simply dishonest and unwilling or unable to take the heat.

Niether of these qualities speak well of him, and to be frank I expect higher quality bullshit from my elected officials.

That said, I flinch internally anytime I hear someone frame an argument about politicians or policy in terms of good and evil. In my opinion you can either pick a team, or pursue the truth. When you frame an argument in such a way you've basically declared your preference for the former.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it wasn't a reason at all. But if you read that honestly you'll see that the problem was with the federal government trying to exert a power over the states that it didn't have a right to, on the topic of slavery. Besides, that is just the reason for seceding. The reasons for fighting was to preserve their right to be independent from tyranny (as they saw it).

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. People don't fight wars over disputes over what a government is legally empowered to do; they fight wars over what a government is doing or might do. And Abraham Lincoln tells us (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm) it was that last which led to the war.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://www.historynet.com/true-causes-of-the-civil-war.htm

The proximate cause of the war, however, was Lincoln's determination not to allow the South to go peacefully out of the Union, which would have severely weakened, if not destroyed, the United States.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

The proximate cause of the First World War was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

If you're going to insist on me taking arguments this absurd seriously, I have no more stomach for it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually historically that's the immediate cause. The proximate cause was the combination of the unilateral annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the two Balkan Wars. The immediate cause is the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand. I might note that you're arguing with someone whose idea of logic is "You're illiterate" and "It's not my problem you're stupid." Why waste your time except for personal amusement?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

That's a nice distinction between immediate and proximate causes.

And: I got a bit carried away. It's not good to leave assertions that The Civil War Was Not About Slavery just lying around.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That wasn't the assertion.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I might note that you insist on personal attacks that aren't germane to the issue and I challenge you to find one such statement from me here, as opposed to the many you have given. So who is the person arguing that way again?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You are, I'm just enjoying the chance to puncture neo-Confederate idiocy and blatant lies about history of the sort that pop up whenever the Civil War comes up, such as claiming that slavery was one cause among many when it was the guiding force of the Confederacy and the greatest contributor to its utter and complete failure.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That power being to limit abuses of slaveholders who were conspicuous advocates of disregarding Northern liberty laws with the full coercive power of the government. Of course it's fruitless to argue actual details or facts with someone whose idea of facts is to claim someone else is illiterate or wrong on nothing but his say-so, that's the kind of argument seen in schoolyards among elementary school students who have nothing better to do like playing kickball or picking their noses and playing Pokemon card games.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, that's not the power I'm referring to.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It is the power that they (meaning the leaders and generals of the Confederacy) referred to and whatever you think you refer to in those one liners that say nothing at all has nothing to do with what they did.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Citation needed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Cornerstone Speech, the policy to slaughter USCT that produced massacres at Olustee, Fort Pillow, the Crater, in Arkansas, at Miliken's Bend, the quashing of the Cleburne Memorial, the, in contemporary speech "20 Nigger Law" that exempted slaveowners from fighting for the state they so badly wanted to make sure others did the bleeding and dying for it......need I go on, or will you simply reject these without ever specifying why as per the usual pattern?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't have time now to read all of them, but from the first one, you provide proof of my point.

The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. [...] The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. [...] The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. [...] In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.

(cuts for comment length)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Where the entirety of the period leading up to war following the Northwest Ordinance and Missouri Compromise, as well as the hypocrisy on the part of Southern politicians that demanded Northern states' rights be pulverized via the Fugitive Slave Law proves my point. But again, why let facts intrude on a good story of the evil government depriving white men of the ability to be idle off the labor of black men and women and to have a free supply of mistresses from slave women? Such a tragedy for people who never worked a day in their lives, and such a triumph for industry and modernity.