Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Slavery is fundamental--far more so than any of the causes of the civil war including economic factors, which a true recognition of the rights of man transcend. Our country simply would not--and did not--have a right to exist while slavery existed. The North's fight against slavery was a battle to complete the vision of our constitution. With slavery, the words, "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" were a joke. Slavery cannot logically be part of the USA and the South, in that sense, were not Americans until they surrendered to the North.

Paul's comments show he understands none of this.

I've always had trouble with what this means, so maybe you could explain it further. It seems that war happens because one group of people is angry at another, so if varying groups of people decide to fight, wouldn't all of the available reasons be the collective causes of the civil war? You might be able to make the claim about the motivations for a single individual with enough evidence. Like say "Lincoln was in favor of the war because he wanted to end slavery," or the other way around, but that would not make slavery the cause of the civil war just one. You could even, theoretically at least, have a poll where 58% of residents were in favor of the war to end slavery, in which case it would be the most common reason for the war, but still not the reason. So I'm trying to understand what exactly people mean when they make a claim, one way or the other. (I don't know enough about this subject to have a strong opinion one way or the other)

Second, but in the same vane, I don't see how Paul's positions are predominantly incompatible with the war being about slavery. Assuming that slavery is the cause, it doesn't change the fact the Lincoln drafted men, or had more than a thousand draft protesters shot for wanting to preserve their own freedom. There's no reason, in other words, that a tyrant could not be on the right side of a war against slavery. Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always had trouble with what this means, so maybe you could explain it further. It seems that war happens because one group of people is angry at another, so if varying groups of people decide to fight, wouldn't all of the available reasons be the collective causes of the civil war?
This applies not just to war, but to all sorts of historical events. For instance, what was the reason England became the ascendant world power at one point in history. Or, what was the reason we have a financial crisis? And so on.

There are often a host of reasons, but I think one can often identify the more important ones.

(Analogously, while analyzing historical figures, there are so many facts about them that one will often find a counter-example to refute any summary. So, if someone says Washington was a great general, there will be examples to show that he was not. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, what was the reason we have a financial crisis?

The financial crisis is a great recent example that helps provide a context we're familiar with. I've read and kept up with it pretty closely and, as an objectivist, would say in the loosest terms that it was government caused, but there are so many aspects of that, that I would never claim, for instance that fannie mae caused it. They certainly had a hand, but quite a few things would qualify as necessary but insufficient in the same sense.

Same with the civil war. Slavery, obviously a major issue but so were slanted tarriffs favoring the purchase of goods from the north rather than cheaper better goods from Europe. It seems that anytime you impose economic hardship on a group they'll be pretty inclined to separate. I wasn't alive then, but I imagine if I was and read the news consistently there would be half a dozen major causes and 42 minor causes. It's always stricken me as a strange thing to debate in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would say that slavery was the justification for the war from the North's standpoint. If the South was not engaging in the practice of slavery, then all of the other factors would not have allowed the US to go to war with itself. The South, arguably, was not a part of the USA insofar as they supported slavery. Without slavery all of the other factors would be mere disagreements between the states and not worthy of full-scale war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would say that slavery was the justification for the war from the North's standpoint. If the South was not engaging in the practice of slavery, then all of the other factors would not have allowed the US to go to war with itself. The South, arguably, was not a part of the USA insofar as they supported slavery. Without slavery all of the other factors would be mere disagreements between the states and not worthy of full-scale war.

The justification, from the "North's" (the federal government's, in fact) standpoint, was the secession by the Confederate States, which was considered a rebellion.

I agree that the main cause of that rebellion was Lincoln's stance on slavery. But Lincoln did, at least in theory, have the option to just accept the secession of the cotton states, and just outlaw slavery in the states which didn't secede.

I am having trouble accepting that the motivation for the decision to refuse to recognize the Confederacy as a new nation, and withdraw the Army from its territory, was motivated by the concern for slaves, rather than the desire to preserve the United States as one nation. I believe that, had there not been such a desire, and anger over the rebellion itself rather than the cause, Lincoln would not have had the political support for a war, and the North would not have opted to go to war.

P.S. I am not arguing that the North's choice to go to war was wrong, only that saying that it was because of slavery is wrong. It is even possible that Lincoln, personally, was motivated by his moral repulsion of slavery (though that's unclear). But that's not why the population of the Northern states went to war. They went to war against rebels, not slave-masters.

I don't think allowing the rebellion would've been the right decision, because the Confederacy was a deeply immoral entity, and such evil must be confronted. But I can understand how someone who is basically a pacifist (which Ron Paul is), would disagree with Lincoln's decision and call him a warmonger.

If the South was not engaging in the practice of slavery, then all of the other factors would not have allowed the US to go to war with itself.

I agree that the South was motivated by trying to hold on to the slaves. Without it, they would not have tried to secede.

But let's say there was some other, far less reprehensible reason for a secession. Do you think this time, the North would've just peacefully withdrawn from the seceding states, and recognized them as a new nation?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...