That’s why your Blogger-in-Chief feels duty-bound to remind New Jersey primary voters how CRAZY Ron Paul is in advance of tomorrow’s vote.
Understand upfront that this is mostly a “mission of mercy.”
I don’t expect Ron Paul to fare well in the Garden State. Not at all; no serious person does. Moreover, a considerable percentage of Paulbots will never wake up despite my best efforts, simply because they’re either (1) professed career “anti-establishment” contrarians or (2) straight-up crazy (see the comments to this Save Jersey post, particularly pro-Paul commenters’ nonsensical references to the NWO and Kennedy assassination).
No, even I can’t save them. Professional help may be their only recourse!
This post is aimed at sane, well-meaning but misguided voters who are disgusted by Barack Obama, skeptical of Mitt Romney, yet operating under the ill-founded assumption that Ron Paul is the U.S. Constitution’s last best hope. I assure you he’s not, and I refuse to give up on these Paul backers just yet! They need to hear the truth – see the “real” Ron Paul.
For starters, I bet many of them don’t know Ron Paul (who once quit the GOP but now seeks its nomination?) is on record condemning the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
For what? Fighting the American Civil War…
Here’s Paul in his own profoundly disturbing words during an exclusive interview with RightWingNews.com; the blogger had asked Rep. Paul whether he agreed with the popular assessment of Abe Lincoln as one of our nation’s greatest presidents:
No, I don’t think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I don’t see that is a good part of our history. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
The people who disagree want to turn around and say, “Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery.” But that’s just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.
Rep. Paul’s grasp of American history is frustratingly sloppy, Save Jerseyans.
Lincoln did not “provoke” the South, nor was he determined/resigned to fight a bloody civil war as Paul claims. Lincoln emerged as a dark horse compromise candidate and won the GOP’s 1860 convention precisely because he was an articulate moderate with a national reputation. The opposite of a saber rattler! Yes, the party’s platform that year explicitly called for an end to the expansion of slavery, a point of contention which had already plunged Kansas into bloodshed and divided North and South for decades. Lincoln nevertheless held firm to his belief, first articulated in the 1830s, that the “[i]nstitution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy, but the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils.”
In his first inaugural speech, delivered in the wake of the secession of seven American states, Lincoln again tried to avoid civil war and peaceably reunite the Union by reassuring Southerners of his determination to maintain the institution of slavery:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Does THOSE sound like the words of a bloodthirsty warmonger to any of you?
Of course, it was only after newly-formed Confederate batteries forced Fort Sumter’s surrender in April 1861 that President Lincoln called for 75,000 years to put down the “rebellion.” The rest is history. But even as late as August 1862, Save Jerseyans, Lincoln penned a responsive editorial letter to the pro-abolition New York Tribune in which he attempted to strike a conciliatory tone:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
For Paul to suggest Lincoln could’ve avoided war by “buying up all the slaves” is absurd to the point of being juvenile. It also (ironically) sounds an awful lot like a federal slavery subsidy to me, Save Jerseyans! A device that Mr. Paul typically abhors.
Paul’s Jefferson/Hamilton comments are profoundly and equally ignorant. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never intended to be a “death pact;” Jefferson may’ve disagreed but thankfully, the glorious Framers often invoked by Paulbots were mostly of the federalist persuasion. Few contemporary Americans truly believe that the federal government can do anything it wants under, for example, the long-abused Commerce Clause; hopefully that principle will be reaffirmed when the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare’s individual mandate. We wouldn’t have a Republican Congress if they did!
But for Paul to suggest that states should be able to pick and choose which laws they follow is hugely dangerous; it’s also something the Framers were determined to avoid. See Federalist No. 10 and Madison’s highly-persuasive discussion of factions! After all, these 18th Century sages didn’t establish a New World in order to repeat the perpetual warfare and martial balkanization of Old Man Europe. Later, in the wake of the Nullification Crisis of the 1830’s, the staunchly pro-union Southerner President Andrew Jackson wrote, “the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.” Spot on! What would be the sense of drafting and ratifying an elaborate contract among the states, and their people, if said document was to be revokable at will by any party?
Also consider the source. Jefferson, who was abroad during the Constitutional Convention, enthusiastically backed the disastrous French Revolution. The soaring, aspirational spirit of his Declaration certainly provided a foundation for the constitutional freedoms. Thank God the Framers didn’t stop there and allow every individual state and citizen to craft their own definition over, over, and over again! The American people would’ve never survived their first fifty years.
Finally, Paul hints at other common kooky objects to Lincoln, e.g. how he suspended habeas corpus, disregarded SCOTUS directives and indulged in other extraordinary war powers that, in the context of peace times, seem entirely contradictory to the republican (little “r”) spirit. And they still are today! But those weren’t peace times; Lincoln had to put down a full-scale insurrection. If the Chinese invaded Maryland tomorrow, I’d certainly hope President Obama wouldn’t let John Roberts actively sabotage his prosecution of the conflict! The U.S. Constitution’s individual liberties and governmental restraints, frankly, mean quite little with a red flag raised on Capitol Hill.
The moment when federal power began to spiral out of control in the United States remains a topic of some debate. Most place the point-of-no-return later in time, during the FDR/Truman/LBJ years. Many Tea Partiers go back further to the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. Allow me to submit that those who think Lincoln was a tyrant responsible for destroying limited government in America — instead of rescuing our democratic republic for future generations — are both factually bankrupt and, as a result, electorally impotent.
That kind of thinking has no place in the GOP which Lincoln firmly established as an enduring national party. Neither does Ron Paul who as far as I’m concerned, Save Jerseyans, is welcome to quit (again) any time he likes! He’s not a conservative. He’s a historically illiterate egomaniac.