Nice post! As far as I can tell, Ron Paul holds onto a very warped version of history, along with the rest of reality. While I'm not a fan of Lincoln myself when it comes to his views on federalism, his take on the war was woefully off. Heck, the freeing of slaves was a military tactic, and a brilliant one, that occurred during the war. You'll note that the slaves were only freed in the rebelling states, which was quite the important detail.

I also have to laugh at his suggestion of the country itself buying and emancipating the slaves. That is a *completely* non-libertarian idea.

As far as I can tell with Ron Paul, his ideas weren't as readily out in the open, hence my initial support, but the more I dig into what he says, and the company he keeps, he's a freaking nut-job. It doesn't take much to scrape of the veneer he has. I think his current supporters are people who make the habit of confusing having 'alternative theories' (a.k.a being full of crap) as intelligence.*

On a tangential note, I was rather terrified by the 10% number he managed to rake in in the Republican Caucus last night.

I also have to laugh at his suggestion of the country itself buying and emancipating the slaves. That is a *completely* non-libertarian idea.

Heh, maybe we can also end the "drug war" by buying out the drug lords and "emancipating" the existing drugs and addicts. Static analysis works keenly well for leftists, why not also for libertarians?

As far as I can tell with Ron Paul, his ideas weren't as readily out in the open, hence my initial support, but the more I dig into what he says, and the company he keeps, he's a freaking nut-job.

Oh, my, he sure is! And he'd be merely amusing, if it weren't for his fanatical followers.

If the devil himself came to me in disguise and offered me every political program I hoped for, I'd hope I'd have the discernment to vote against him. Character counts, and it's not found simply by looking to see how closely someone's stated views match up with ours.

I think his current supporters are people who make the habit of confusing having 'alternative theories' (a.k.a being full of crap) as intelligence.

Hardcore libertarians and leftists have a lot in common, one trait being the tendency to imagine that alternate realities are brimming with peaches, cream, and warm snuggly feelings.

It was my impression that Lincoln strongly favored compensated emancipation as an alternative to slavery, and that, with the exception of Washington D.C. itself and possibly some of the slave states that held with the Union, the plan failed utterly.

A few comments. First, 600,000 killed was 2% of the entire population of the US at the time. For comparison, 2% of the current population would be 6 million, or more than 2,000 times the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks. If, as Paul pointed out, most other countries eliminated slavery without such a disastrous war, the idea that it could have been done in the US is not nuts. It's debatable, sure, like almost anything.

On the South firing the first shot. That would have been at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina, which had seceded, and Lincoln sent a fleet to re-supply it. Do you think he just wanted to use it for vacations at the beach? There was never any question of the South taking over the North and imposing its rule on New York and Boston. Lincoln had the option of just letting them go, but he chose to fight a war to the tune of 600,000 killed.

Along the way, Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution and civil rights of the NORTHERNERS, suspending habeas corpus, jailing the opposition, etc. and in so doing paved the way for the federal government to completely trample its Constitutional bounds later on. That's the part of Lincoln's legacy that is most relevant for today-although it apparently was Tim Russert and not Ron Paul who brought the whole thing up.

The fact that Lincoln wasn't a fervent abolitionist, that the war didn't start over slavery, that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until two years into the war, that it did not even free the slaves in the border states that were under Lincoln's control--you may be absolutely certain that Ron Paul is well aware of all this, and that it speaks to his point about the war, not yours. It would be one thing to say that the war was fought over slavery, that there was no other way to eliminate it, that it was worth 600,000 killed. It's quite another thing to say that the war started over the North's economic domination of the South through high tariffs (which it did), that the North simply had to be allowed to keep imposing high tariffs on the South, and that it was worth 600,000 dead to do it.

Doc W: A few responses!

First, I *welcome* principled disagreement. I hope you're willing to come back and have a dialog, and aren't just another drive-by "PaulBot". After all, if we can't learn (meaning, hear and consider contrary evidence and opinions), how can we be sure our positions make sense?

First, 600,000 killed was 2% of the entire population of the US at the time. For comparison, 2% of the current population would be 6 million, or more than 2,000 times the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks...

I couldn't agree more: it was a huge toll. One of the best illustrations of this an animated display of the war in the Lincoln Library in Springfield Illinois, showing a time-elapsed map of the US with battles appearing, and constant death toll being racked up. The numbers are completely staggering, especially in context for the time.

This had a toll on Lincoln himself: you can see how drastically he aged, looking decades older over just the space of a few years. He himself felt that the Civil War was a terrible divine judgment on us for having enslaved people.

If, as Paul pointed out, most other countries eliminated slavery without such a disastrous war, the idea that it could have been done in the US is not nuts.

You don't seem to have read the article above: I don't criticize Paul for suggesting we could have eliminated slavery without a war. (For example, we could have let the South go on their own way, and some argue that slavery would have eventually died out.)

The objections raised are that (a) Paul's solution is hardly "libertarian", and (b) Paul doesn't seem interested in addressing any of the pesky details, such as where we would have gotten the money, adverse economic incentives to create more slaves to earn more payoffs, and the morality of continued slavery, and (c) Paul presents a false historical account of the South's reason for succession.

If you'd like to answer these points, you're more than welcomed to, but it's not enough to simply mis-characterize my objection as saying it's "crazy" to want to avoid a war.

On the South firing the first shot. That would have been at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina, which had seceded, and Lincoln sent a fleet to re-supply it. Do you think he just wanted to use it for vacations at the beach?

Of course Lincoln was gearing up for a fight (as was the south, I might add). And so? What does that prove?

There's tension in a small western town between two feuding families. Sam Smith is putting some ammo and guns into his horse pack when Josiah Jones rides up and kills him, shedding the first blood between the two families.

Who's at fault?

"B-but-but you don't think those guns were going to be used for skeet shooting?" objects Jones. Well, perhaps not, but there are DEFENSIVE uses of weapons. And it still matters who started it. You don't get to start a war and remain blameless because you THINK the other guy might be thinking of it, sometime. (Especially when he's promised he won't.)

But hey, if we're supporting Ron Paul, even that kind of logic suddenly becomes acceptable. We get to kill people merely because we suspect they might also plan to do so, someday. Maybe.

Also, I'm confused: Paul has said that war should have been avoided at all costs. You seem to be saying it's justified if someone is storing too many weapons or collecting too many tariffs. Your argument seems to undermine his. After all, firing the first shot and starting a war can't even be justified by freeing 4 million people, I'm not all sure sure how it could be justified by the more minor actions you cite.

Lincoln had the option of just letting them go, but he chose to fight a war to the tune of 600,000 killed.

On this point, you're right, but, as I pointed out, that isn't what Paul suggested.

And since he doesn't seem interested in the pesky details of his political pronouncements I'll ask you: There were 4 MILLION slaves in bondage, and we probably similar numbers for generations before, and would have had similar numbers for generations after.

(1) If Lincoln would have let the South go, then explain how and when slavery would have been eliminated. (Especially in view of the South's desire to expand it into West.)

(2) Otherwise, how do you then justify allowing those kind of numbers of people to continue to be treated like animals or worse?

(3) So if 600,000 lives weren't an acceptable cost to pay to free 4 million slaves, and establish, worldwide, the principle that slavery was wrong, then what price would you have considered as morally acceptable?

Along the way, Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution and civil rights of the NORTHERNERS, suspending habeas corpus, jailing the opposition, etc.

Yes, just like during the American Revolution. Also, presses were controlled and censored, people were hung as spies, etc. -- again, just like during the American revolution. So if you consider these actions immoral during the Civil War, you should certainly also consider them immoral during the American Revolution. If you consider Lincoln a thug, then, by all means, please remember to tar George Washington and crew in the same manner.

The fact that Lincoln wasn't a fervent abolitionist [etc].... you may be absolutely certain that Ron Paul is well aware of all this...

If so, that purported knowledge certainly doesn't make any showing in his argument, which seems to preclude such possibilities. If he knows all that, then what sense does it make to say that Lincoln could have paid off the South, when, in fact, the South wasn't even willing to accept his promises not to eliminate slavery?

It's Paul's job to make sense of that apparent contradiction -- not our job to read his mind. If he's not forthcoming with more explanation, then either he's a woefully bad communicator, or simply intellectually out of his league. Given his previous copious historical mistakes, I'm inclined towards the second option. But if you have information to the contrary, feel free to provide it.

By analogue, imagine Roberta Hollywood exclaims that Communism helped people. A person objects that Communism killed hundreds of millions. Roberta's defenders say she knows that. Well, okay, maybe she does, but her argument says otherwise, and some explanation need to be provided BY HER why we should believe she's well-informed, given the apparent disconnect. Because at face value, her argument implies deep ignorance.

It would be one thing to say that the war was fought over slavery, that there was no other way to eliminate it, that it was worth 600,000 killed. It's quite another thing to say that the war started over the North's economic domination of the South through high tariffs (which it did), that the North simply had to be allowed to keep imposing high tariffs on the South, and that it was worth 600,000 dead to do it.

Had Ron Paul even MENTIONED tariffs, I wouldn't be WRITING THIS. It was PAUL who said that the war could have been avoided by simply paying off slaveholders -- implying that the South's only objection was that Lincoln was about to eliminate slavery. If you think that's a stupid or shortsighted view, then PLEASE, take it up with Ron Paul -- who appears to be advocating it.

But no, you're too busy to defending him to notice that your argument undermines his, not mine.

For my part, yes I agree, tariffs were part of the picture. But it wasn't just that "the North" collected tariffs from "the South", it was that tariffs were one of the only Constitutionally-allowable means of funding the Federal government.

The Federal government (which you call "the North") collected these tariffs BOTH from the "the North" and "the South." It just so happened that the South produced more exportable crops -- that wasn't some evil plot, it was an artifact of the Constitutional means by which the Founders funded the Federal government.

So the hilarious part of your & Paul's argument is this:

(a) Paul argues that Lincoln wanted to destroy our Constitutional government -- but here you are, saying the main thing you object to was, in fact, the most Constitutional part of that situation -- Federal funding collected through tariffs! He can imagine that Lincoln wanted to ultimately (not just temporarily) subvert the Constitution, but he doesn't seem to be able to notice the South's much larger and stronger objections to the same thing!

(b) In light of this, Paul's suggestion is hilariously ignorant: He wants the Federal government to pay off slaveholders -- using funds which, Constitutionally, had to be collected tariffs, fees, and other levies on trade -- one of the main things to which the South was objecting!

It's the kind of magic money-from-heaven thinking you expect from a liberal, not a serious conservative, much less a "libertarian"!

Lastly, I think tariffs were an objection, but I think they were the more minor objection, and are raised simply to give moral cover to the BIGGER economic impact, which is the desire to expand slavery and thus profits. It's hilarious that people can see economic justifications behind objecting to tariffs, but apparently can't also notice the much larger economic allure of supporting slavery.

Well, as I said, you're more than welcomed to respond. Are you a man or a PaulBot?

Last I checked, South Carolina actually started the fighting, not Lincoln.

I do agree with Doc W on this point at least, the fact that South Carolina "started the fighting" was the result of deliberate political maneuvering by the Union, and not a matter of agression per-se on the part of the South against the Union, and not particularly relevant to this historical sequence of events outside of immediate propaganda value. As you acknowledge; "we could have let the South go on their own way." Lincoln had a choice between using force to preserve the Union or allowing the South to succeed based on the votes of their republic states (minus blacks and women, of course.) He chose force. There are plenty of good arguments for why that was a good choice, taken after other alternatives failed. But once the South decided to succeed, the choice to bring them back through force was entirely Lincoln's.

The "Civil War" would more correctly be called a "War of Southern Succession" or similar. Inevitably, it required the Union invading the South, and not the other way around.

I do agree with Doc W on this point at least, the fact that South Carolina "started the fighting" was the result of deliberate political maneuvering by the Union...

... to pass laws revoking Free Will among Confederate leaders? Look, let's not be silly here, just as the North could have let the South go, so also the South could have chosen a different course.

One of the worst characteristics in modern politics is the tendency to quickly regard certain groups as if they had no free will or moral responsibility, and were "made" to do unpleasant things by other people.

I had trouble finding my way back here. Seems that sometimes I can get back to my posts on various blogs by googling something like ron paul doc w, but other times it doesn't work.
.
Tim, I think you are trying to glean more than is possible from Ron Paul's interview with Time Russert. Russert keeps bringing up different things that Paul wrote or said or was reputed to have said anytime in the past 20+ years, particularly anything that might startle people or seem to contradict his positions now. Then he keeps interrupting when Paul tries to answer, and Paul is not a well-honed soundbite politician. This is a "gotcha" situation in which there is very little opportunity to formulate a thorough response. But you seem to want to pick apart every phrase, fault him for anything he didn't say (for example, that he didn't launch into an economics lecture on the evils of tariffs), and engage freely in mind reading. I'm afraid straw men can be built much faster than they can be dissected, especially when larded with ridicule.
.
"Ron Paul and other conspiracy theorists"--I don't know where you get that from, sounds like mind reading and empty ridicule.
.
Your Roberta Hollywood analogy sounds backwards to me. Tim Russert exclaims that Lincoln freed the slaves. Ron Paul points out that the Civil War killed 600,000 people. Let's hear from either Tim or Tim some argument that 600,000 people just had to die, in light of the fact that other countries eliminated slavery without that carnage.
.
How convenient of Lincoln to blame divine judgment for the Civil War. God did not sent hundreds of thousands or troops south to kill and be killed. Lincoln did.
.
On Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions--yes, these things do tend to happen in wars. As Randolph Bourne said (quoted by Paul on MTP but botched in the transcript), "war is the health of the state." That is, government powers, infringements of liberty, taxes, etc always tend to expand in wars. That's the (strangely) hidden cost of war, and another reason to try to avoid it, even when you just "know" that you're right.

Doc W! First an unalloyed and completely non-cynical welcome back and sincere APOLOGY for implying you might be a drive-by "PaulBot". Thanks for being willing to dialog. (I say this for entirely selfish reasons: how can *I* learn if those who see things different won't also answer follow up questions?)

Tim, I think you are trying to glean more than is possible from Ron Paul's interview with Time Russert. Russert keeps bringing up different things that Paul wrote or said or was reputed to have said anytime in the past 20+ years, particularly anything that might startle people or seem to contradict his positions now...

If you'll notice, I didn't respond to a thing Russert said. My only interest was Ron Paul's words, not Russert's (except as an adjunct to understanding what Ron Paul said in context). Motives don't matter to me: I wouldn't care if Satan himself paid Russert several million dollars to ask Paul certain questions -- my concern is Paul's own statements, not Russert's imagined motives.

And if Russert had asked unfair "do you still beat your wife" questions, I'd be criticizing Russert instead. Other than that, I think it's entirely fair to bring up past public statements candidates have offered. If they've changed their minds, they can always say so.

This is a "gotcha" situation in which there is very little opportunity to formulate a thorough response...

I listened to it and transcribed it myself, and it didn't seem Ron Paul was being interrupted or truncated in any way which would have altered his meaning. And, as I pointed out, Russert's questions weren't the kind of loaded "gotcha" questions Bush typically gets. ("Are you willing to admit you've made a mistake with Iraq?")

Look, Ron Paul said stuff like the following:

"[Lincoln] shouldn't have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the Republic..."

"Oh come on! ... you buy the slaves and release them..."

How was his meaning changed there? Is he NOT advocating buying the slaves and releasing them, as my response assumes? Is he NOT implying that Lincoln was motivated by "getting rid" of the "original intent" of the Constitution?

(Or are you simply NOT willing to deal with his actual views?)

Can you imagine some greater context in which the meaning of these seemingly-plain statements are somehow actually completely inverted? Feel free to explain, in specific, if so.

Otherwise, if Paul was thus maligned as you insist (but his own demeanor certainly did not), why doesn't he bother writing a longer essay which clarifies his position and putting in on the net? Good heavens, even Hillary does that! Is he less capable than even SHE of going past the media to supporters?

Look, you're not talking to someone who's only heard 18 syllables out-of-context from Ron Paul. I've read his essays and complaints. And what he's saying here is not much different than what he says in other areas: war and other conflict is always caused by one of OUR guys having bad intentions, and not doing enough of what our enemies want.

But you seem to want to pick apart every phrase...

If "pick apart" means "listen closely to, and think about", then yes -- guilty as charged. I do that with all politicians, not simply Ron Paul. You should too, rather than insisting others shouldn't. (Particularly with regard to the people we're most likely to support.)

... fault him for anything he didn't say (for example, that he didn't launch into an economics lecture on the evils of tariffs)

And listen to me closely, as well: I didn't fault him for not mentioning tariffs (much less demand an entire "lecture", as you falsely imply). If I may remind you of the context: you had implied that was what he had (or should have) meant to say. I pointed out he said no such thing, and implied exactly the opposite by saying it would have sufficient to merely pay off slaveholders. I also pointed out it would have been rather easy for him to at least mention tariffs, if that had been his meaning, as you implied. (That's a disagreement with your assessment of his "real" meaning, not a direct criticism of Paul.)

Look, if you're claiming that was what he really meant (even though he seemed to imply the opposite), then either you know he's written or implied that elsewhere (in which case you're welcomed to produce the writings in question, as I suggested), or it's you who are engaged in the mind-reading you suggest is unacceptable.

... and engage freely in mind reading... "Ron Paul and other conspiracy theorists"--I don't know where you get that from, sounds like mind reading and empty ridicule.

Tim, I did check a couple of your links, like Ledeen and Malkin, and I guess I can see where you are picking up some of your writing style and your distortions about Ron Paul. Paul points out that there are people with ideologies that go against limited government, the Constitution, and non-interventionism, people who are working to implement their views. That's not a conspiracy theory, any more than there is some conspiracy in the fact that Paul and others are working to bring us back to limited government and non-interventionism. Then you try to sweep the Bourne quote in with conspiracy theories. What the quote refers to, and the Civil War is an example, is the observed fact that governments tend to acquire more power in wars and other crises, power which is never fully relinquished when the crisis has past. Robert Higgs wrote a whole book about that phenomenon, entitled Crisis and Leviathan. Lincoln favored big, powerful central government, whereas the Constitution provided for a quite limited federal government. The Civil War gave him an opportunity to pursue his goal, and he certainly took advantage of that opportunity. Violations of civil liberties in the South during the war simply reinforce the point about war and government power and abuses thereof. Bush's warrantless spying and abuse of habeas corpus serve as current examples. As for government cover-ups, I think we've seen enough over the years to warrant the assumption that it still goes on.
.
I think I can safely rest on the statement that it was Lincoln, not God, who sent the troops south to kill and be killed to the tune of 600,000. If God has told you personally that he was pulling Lincoln's strings as Lincoln gave the orders, let me know. As for Fort Sumter, I have to wonder, if the British maintained a fort on American soil and refused to recognize independence, if the Americans were supposed to just sit there and let them reinforce it. (That's an analogy.) You made an analogy with "Roberta Hollywood" as protagonist. I made a competing analogy using real names, one which I think better captures the issue, but not intended as a word-for-word quote of Russert.
.
On tariffs, I was just trying to supply some background information about what informs the views of Paul and others, and I tried to point out that it would be difficult for anyone to discuss the issue at hand fully, or even cursorily, in the MTP interview environment.
.
Then there's that sleazy aside about "neocons" being code for "Jews." So if I refer to our neocon-in-chief Bush I'm calling him a Jew? Or Romney, or Huckabee, or McCain? (What religon's Giuliani? I don't even know.) Lew Rockwell founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises was a Jew, as are some of the economists and historians associated with the Institute, such as Walter Block, whom I've met personally. David Gordon, too, I think--they are on the board of advisors of Jews4RonPaul.org.
.
Yeah, I see some degree of argument on your part that slavery would have persisted without the Civil War. I just don't think you appreciate the magnitude of the burden of argument that is needed to balance the 600,000 dead as a result of that war.
.
As to why we were attacked on 9/11, the stunningly simple view is that the attackers hate our freedom and wealth. Paul is pointing out that it makes no sense to close our eyes to the attackers' stated motivations which had to do with the presence of American forces in the Middle East, particularly on the Arabian peninsula. What a characteristic cheap shot for neocons to portray him as simply blaming the attacks on America. If our foreign policy makes us enemies, that is something to consider. It's not the only consideration, but only fools would close their eyes to it and ridicule those who point out the obvious.
.
I've gotten something very useful out of my recent visits to a number of blogs, a lesson which has nothing to do with the specifics of the issue at hand. It has to do with avoiding a particular style of "argument" as a sort of rhetorical combat. There are various versions, but it always involves picking little pieces of people's statements, spinning out a whole fictitious interpretation, larding on smug insults and insinuations.... At least you don't have the foul language. But I must move on to plant seeds in what I take to be more fertile ground. Cheers.

Tim, I did check a couple of your links, like Ledeen and Malkin, and I guess I can see where you are picking up some of your writing style and your distortions about Ron Paul.

First, I'd formed my concerns about Ron Paul long before linking to those articles. Check on the "Ron Paul" topic to see a chronology. My concerns are Ron Paul's own statements, not false statements others have attributed to him.

(And if, by the way, you know of something false, some "distortion", as you accuse me and others of offering, then please be specific and name it. Again, vague accusations of bad behavior are useless.)

Paul points out that there are people with ideologies that go against limited government, the Constitution, and non-interventionism, people who are working to implement their views. That's not a conspiracy theory...

Sigh. I agree with that statement too. For example, the left exists, and is generally opposed to limited government. I've never claimed, as you are attributing to me now, that to say some people are opposed to limited government is tantamount to believing in conspiracy theories. Instead, please read and respond to my actual charges.

What is, it Doc, that makes you repeatedly attribute plainly false arguments like these to me? (I claimed it was a "conspiracy theory" that many people liked a large state? Oh please.)

Then you try to sweep the Bourne quote in with conspiracy theories...

Rather than reflexively criticizing some statement you made, I took the time to research that position, find out what it meant, and reflect on that for a while before commenting. What I found was a man who argued wars were foisted upon an "unsuspecting country" though foreign policy, which was "the secret private possession of the executive branch of the Government". I believe I clearly expressed my disagreement.

I can see how a reader might think that's somehow linked to "conspiracy theory" thinking (indeed, it seems to slide nicely into the whole "military-industrial complex" narrative the left uses) but I don't see where I made any explicit link between the two. (And if, if you'll actually read my statements, you'll discover my main objection was Bourne's hatred of our republican form of government, not something about conspiracy theories.)

Once again, in this case also, you don't seem to be responding to what I've actually said. This will go so much better when you don't force me to spend most my response simply pointing out you're attributing false statements to me, and repeating myself.

What the quote refers to, and the Civil War is an example, is the observed fact that governments tend to acquire more power in wars and other crises...

I agree entirely with that much!

But the whole point of saying "war is the HEALTH of the state" seems to be to imply that the state has a vested interest in creating a war to increase it's power. Likewise, Ron Paul asserts that the Civil War was encouraged solely by the executive, "just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the Republic" -- the same narrative.

In reality, I think wars are fought for the more obvious reasons, and accumulation of state power is more an unfortunate side effect. The Civil War was fought over economics and slavery, not in order to destroy limited government, as Paul implies. Vietnam was fought to oppose Communist expansion -- not mainly to feed the CIA, "military-industrial complex", etc.

And you offer a similar analysis:

Lincoln favored big, powerful central government, whereas the Constitution provided for a quite limited federal government. The Civil War gave him an opportunity to pursue his goal, and he certainly took advantage of that opportunity.

Of course, you're differing with Paul: Paul says it was the whole reason, you now only imply that Lincoln was using the war (which he may not have precipitated) as cover for his alleged fervent wishes to vastly expand the Federal government. And you have produced ZERO supporting documentation showing Lincoln manifested a love of large government before he was elected to office.

(To me, it just looks like he did the same thing most nations did, at that time, when at war.)

I think of such things as "conspiracy theory"-minded for the obvious reasons: They posit a small group of people (or a single individual) changing world events for secret, unadmitted reasons. That's the plain definition of "conspiracy theory."

And I tend to reject such thinking, and I believe the evidence does too. Big things, especially wars, usually tend to happen for the most obvious reasons. And this IS an approach to history shared by both Paul and the radical left.

I'm sorry if it offends you that I don't share your view, or don't see it as particularly credible, but that's how I see it. You'll do better if you say I'm factually wrong (and give supporting evidence so I can change my views), or simply agree to disagree, rather than fuming about it and implying I'm being unfair or evil in some way for holding such convictions.

I think I can safely rest on the statement that it was Lincoln, not God, who sent the troops south to kill and be killed to the tune of 600,000. If God has told you personally that he was pulling Lincoln's strings as Lincoln gave the orders, let me know.

But I've already stated that I *don't* claim to know. To the contrary, it was you who stated, categorically, that God did or does no such thing. Since you've made such a claim, it is you who must also justify or explain it, not someone else.

What is that so difficult for you to understand?

As for Fort Sumter, I have to wonder, if the British maintained a fort on American soil and refused to recognize independence, if the Americans were supposed to just sit there and let them reinforce it. (That's an analogy.)

It's not an analogy: that did happen: it was a huge expanse of land called "Canada", which touched and adjutted into US territory at many points. And yes, the US allowed it to exist for many years and didn't take any aggressive moves against it.

And Lincoln didn't "reinforce it" in any military sense, as you seem to imply: "Lincoln [sent] a special messenger to Gov. Pickens of South Carolina, informing him of the mission of the relief expedition, and promising him that if no resistance is offered, no troops, arms or ammunition would be moved into the fort."

So if your point is that a sovereign nation is justified in trying to violently claim all land at or near it's coasts, then fine, we just disagree. But your argument (a) implies the South had a legitimate claim to sovereignty, and (b) says their aggression is justified to attain that.

I'm trying to provide documentation on various buyout schemes. There seems to be some good backing for an offer made at Hampton Roads, though it is based on the report of people there, as actual record keeping was forbidden by mutual agreement. Hampton Roads was rather late in the war, however, and after the emancipation proclamation. But it's refusal still speaks to the point. I'll hunt for docu

On questions of punishing rebel leaders and confiscating their property Lincoln promised generous treatment based on his power of pardon. On slavery he even suggested the possibility of compensating owners to the amount of $400 million (about 15 percent of the slaves' 1860 value).

Ryan!

If I can digress a bit first...

After my parting rant above, I decided that if Doc W couldn't adequately support his own case by providing at least one shred of documentation or a supporting hyperlink thereto, I'd try to do it myself.

What I found (Thomas DiLorenzo, mostly, who strikes me as a bit unhinged and angry) was some fairly good documentation that Lincoln shut down opposition newspapers, etc. But sadly, I'd already known that -- and DiLorenzo makes no admission that the South actually did the same and worse.

(DiLorenzo demands to know why Lincoln's defenders won't answer: Why wasn't that done the War of 1812? The answer seems obvious to me: In 1812, the enemy (the British) were located mostly in Canada or in other areas not controlled by the US -- in the Civil War, a large chunk of the people living in the North or South tended to be working for or at least sympathetic to the other side. Rodney Stark notes that organizations become intolerant even of non-threatening minorities when locked in ideological and physical conflict with an external enemy. That explains why both the North and South tolerated little to no dissent. It wasn't something specific to Lincoln alone, as their half-the-truth presentation would lead the naive to believe.)

On the legal questions, I haven't read Mr. Lincoln's speeches yet in their entirety (indeed, not much) but I agree with his opponents that the Framers DID believe that peoples had the right to "dissolve the political bonds" (cf the American Rebellion!) that the Compromise of 1850 DID legally give new states the right to decide on slavery or not (though usually this led to people moving into those states and fighting each other to influence the outcome -- again, supporting my contention that slavers wanted EXPANSION, not mere continuity), that Dred Scott was indeed the law of the land, that slaves were indeed legal property and needed to be returned and that Northern states were thus failing to uphold the law.

(I've been reading Stephen Douglas's arguments, and find I agree with them legally.)

Thus it's fair to say in these matters that Lincoln certainly didn't support the previous and most widespread understanding of the US Constitution. And, frankly, neither would I.

I loved the US Constitution and much of what it stood for (limited government, checks & balances, freedoms), but I believe there are higher laws. If the law, or our current interpretation of it anyway, says a man is a slave and that new states should be free to spread slavery, I'd favor the higher law and wish to see that new understanding eclipse the old one. You could truthfully accuse me of undermining the Constitution, but that would only be true in part.

I don't know how close Lincoln was in this regard, but his detractors don't seem to spend too much time on these questions. They simply call him a thug and say he shut down the loyal opposition. Which he did, but which doesn't tell us much about how he would have proceeded in absence of war.

BUT, the problem is that none of this gets us to the core thesis people like DiLorenzo and RP are busy spreading: That the war was started IN ORDER to subvert the Constitution. This seems utterly unsupported, unless one means the South started the war because they wanted a different Constitution. (And indeed, they got one.)

Also, they spend a great many bytes quoting Lincoln's statements that he didn't consider blacks the equal of whites. Yes, and? I guess it's supposed to show he was insincere in his hatred of slavery. Of course, that's stupid: you can think something is inferior in some way and still have compassion. Lots of people who don't buy into the PETA equation "animals = humans" also get quite riled up about pointless animal cruelty.

Re: slave buyout offers

From the far left leaning 'alternet'

Wow! Great research, Ryan!

Well, if you're right, that underscores and drives home two major contentions:

(a) Lincoln WAS more than willing to consider other options than war. (Like we didn't know this already from his speeches and offers.)

(b) The major obstacle to a slave buyout was Southern disinterest or perhaps even antipathy.

The Southerner's objection is fair, but moot to discussions of causes of the civil war, and whether a slave buyout would have been considered.

Isn't finding this stuff out fun? You end up learning things that aren't generally known.

A few times, I've written an entry and thought: Wow, as best as I can tell, this is the ONLY article tying this all together anywhere on the 'net.

I wanted to confirm with a source a little more solid than Alternet, so hopefully this works towards that.

The most sensitive problem Lincoln confronted in dealing with the border states was slavery. As has already been noted, he revoked Frémont's emancipation edict in 1861 with an eye to public opinion in the border states. In 1862, he negated another order freeing the slaves by one of his generals, David Hunter, in South Carolina. During this period, as the president carefully considered the problem [End Page 32] of slavery and the Union war effort, he prodded the border states to abolish the institution by state action. 48 The first step he took in this direction was his message to Congress in December 1861, in which he recommended compensated emancipation in the border states.48 He drafted a bill providing for compensated emancipation in Delaware, which had fewer than two thousand slaves, to serve as a pilot project for ending slavery in all the other border states. Lincoln's proposed bill was very conservative: it provided federal compensation to slave owners, authorized an apprenticeship system for minors, and ended slavery gradually over a thirty-year period. Nevertheless, hostility in the Delaware legislature was so strong the bill's supporters declined to even introduce it.49 Delaware's response did not auger well for Lincoln's hopes that the border states would adopt emancipation. 49 When Congress took no notice of the proposal in his annual message, the president sent a special message on March 6, 1862 proposing federal funding for a program of compensated emancipation in the loyal slave states. He calculated that at the rate of $400 per slave, the expense to free all the slaves in the border states was less than the cost of the war for eighty-seven days.50 50 Four days later, he summoned the representatives of the border states in Congress to the White House, where he urged them to adopt a program of gradual compensated emancipation, noting that the controversies among the Union's supporters over slavery and its associated problems were "numerous, loud and deep." He repeated his argument that such a program would shorten the war.51 The border state leaders present were generally skeptical, and when Congress subsequently approved a joint resolution agreeing to fund such a program, they remained opposed.52 51 Undaunted, Lincoln held a second meeting with border state leaders on July 12, 1862. Earlier, in annulling Hunter's proclamation, he [End Page 33] had told the border state men, "You cannot ... be blind to the signs of the times." Returning to this theme, he was earnest and forthright. He emphasized the great dissatisfaction his action had produced. "The incidents of the war cannot be avoided," he warned. "If the war continue long, as it must, if the object be not sooner attained, the institution in your states will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion—by the mere incidents of war. It will be gone, and you will have nothing valuable in lieu of it."53link

With his plan for compensated emancipation in mind, it was quite natural that Lincoln should look for a field of experimentation in a small State, such as Delaware, especially since there was in Congress from that State, Representative George E. Fisher, who was a staunch Unionist and a friend of the President. Fisher gladly cooperated with Lincoln in carrying out this plan. The Congressman tried to have the Legislature of Delaware pass an act for the gradual compensated emancipation of the 1,798 slaves which that State claimed according to the census of 1861, on the condition that the United States would pay the Delaware slaveholders $400 for each slave. During November of 1861, Lincoln wrote drafts of two separate bills to effect such an agreement...details omitted

The bill, however, was never introduced, because it was feared that it would be voted down by the hostile proslavery majority. The proslavery element, moreover, prepared resolutions to the effect that the bill would encourage the abolition element in Congress... But these resolutions did not fare much better than Lincoln’s bill, for in spite of the fact that they passed the House they were lost in the Senate.23

... Lincoln... took his next step through Congress to the States.24 Accordingly, on March 6, 1862, he sent to that body a special message, recommending the adoption of the joint resolution that the United States would cooperate with any State which might adopt gradual emancipation, giving such State compensation for all inconveniences produced by the change of any system within its confines

Isn't finding this stuff out fun? You end up learning things that aren't generally known.

Its quite interesting. But I'm a bit torn since it doesn't deliver the same immediate, tangible return that learning a new technical skill would. At least it sheds some valuable light on human psychology, which so many of the psychology books I waded through as a kid depressingly failed to do. And I can apply that.

I suspect this is often the problem with the way history is taught: You hear a jumble of facts which don't seem to tie together. Or that tie together in untrue ways. I thought that I had a narrative going into this whole discussion. It almost seems a no-win situation; we get a jumble or a misleading narrative. Or, at best, several conflicting narratives. At least then I know I'm missing something.