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]

Since I wasn't claiming that slavery had nothing to do with it, those paragraphs don't prove my statement wrong. The paragraph I quoted was all that's needed to prove my statement right.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Perhaps in your world. What your snippet does not note is *why* those states seceded, and the Confederacy seceded over slavery and dragged in those four northern border states by firing on Fort Sumter. That they dragged them in is how West Virginia came to be and why those states all had mini-civil wars in the bigger war. But what's a matter of detail or simple fact for a good one-liner? A fact would require more than one sentence, after all.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Apparently this sequence of events:

1) South secedes over slavery.
2) Lincoln declares war on South

Means that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's not the assertion. If you're going to insert yourself into a discussion, do try to be accurate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So the assertion ISN'T that slavery was not the reason for the war? Or are you sticking with "The North declared war because The South seceded and nothing that happened before that matters."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The assertion was that slavery was only one of the reasons.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

But not the main reason. Your own link and the declarations of the various states claim that they seceded because of slavery. That's good enough for me.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, as one of the may reasons. Any one of which is necessary but not sufficient cause.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So it's one of the main recessions for secession, ergo one of the main reasons for the war. You can say "The Civil War was over slavery" and that would be a correct statement.

For god's sake, just look at the Confederate Constitution. It's basically the US Constitution with some states rights and A WHOLE MESS OF SLAVERY ADDED IN.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You can say "The Civil War was over slavery" and that would be a correct statement.

No, that would be an incomplete, and thus inaccurate statement.

For god's sake, just look at the Confederate Constitution. It's basically the US Constitution WITH SOME STATES RIGHTS and some slavery added in.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Where my assertion is that it was the reason of all reasons, and none of the others would have started a war without the lazy rapists wanting cheap labor and an easy supply of victims to grow their work force.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, an assertion you can't actually prove, as usual for you.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Well done armchair warrior. You win Teh Internetz once again.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Says the pot calling the kettle black.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I've never denied that slavery was involved in the issue, so you're arguing against something that isn't at issue.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Where I'm saying it was the only issue that touched off a war and ensured the Confederacy was going to self-destruct if it did not win the war in a bleeding hurry. And if it did win such a war the Confiscation Act and Contraband Policy had already thrown spanners in the works.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If it was the only issue, there would not have been a break. It was only because there were other factors that it got to that point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If it was the only issue it damn well would have been a break due to the Missouri Compromise and subsequent Southern control of the executive and legislative branches. But again, why bother with facts when a good story of government evil preventing slaveowners from profiting off the labor of others is to be made?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If it was the only issue it damn well would have been a break due to the Missouri Compromise and subsequent Southern control of the executive and legislative branches.

That's your opinion, but not one that I see shared by serious historians.

a good story of government evil preventing slaveowners from profiting off the labor of others is to be made?

That's not the story being made, but whatever.