I rarely disagree with Taranto but his sensitivity to "racism" (He is Jewish) sometimes loosens his contact with reality. And he is too slippery with the facts by far in his comments on Ron Paul. He faults Ron Paul for pointing out what I and many others have pointed out: That America was the only country that needed a civil war to free the slaves -- leading to the view that the real motive was not to free the slaves but rather as Lincoln himself often said: To "preserve the union" -- in other words to centralize power in the Federal government and allow no dissent from it. The slaves were merely a pretext.
Taranto puts forward a very stretched interpretation of Ron Paul's words by saying that Paul favours official desegregation only at "a federal lunch counter" and not in the armed forces etc. He realizes however that such an interpretation is not sustainable and endeavours to bolster his position by saying that "Paul blames Lincoln for the Civil War rather than blaming the South for starting a war to preserve slavery".
But the accusation that the South started the war, although technically correct, is disingenuous. The South attacked Fort Sumpter only because it was already under heavy threat and needed to consolidate its position against the more numerous Northerners if it was to have any chance of defending itself. On Taranto's argument, Israel's six-day war was also wrong because it was Israel that fired first when it was heavily threatened by Egypt.
Posted by John Ray
Reliapundit: I rarely disagree with John Ray, I have a very serious disagreement with the substance of this post regarding its reading of the US Civil War. I think it is way off. I could NOT care less what Paul thinks of anything or what Taranto thinks of Paul, but when it comes to the US Civil War I care very VERY much. I put my views in the comments section if you're interested....
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
i donlt give a hoot abiut tarabto or paul.
ReplyDeletebut your characterization of the US Civil War is WAY off base.
Why does a civil war or any other war be about just one thing?
It's a preposterous requirement.
The central issue was slavery: it's WHY the south ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and IMMORALLY seceded.
What other cpuntries had to go through to stop slavery is really immaterial and irrelevant.
None were constitutional democracies.
Paul is not a learned or thoughtful man, politically he merely an reactionary who harps on one point over and over again: the federal government is way too big.
Okay: sure.
But that doesn't mean you roll it back to pre-constitutional dimensions - as under the Articles.
PLEASE!
He's an idiot.
you wrote:
ReplyDelete"But the accusation that the South started the war, although technically correct, is disingenuous. The South attacked Fort Sumpter only because it was already under heavy threat and needed to consolidate its position against the more numerous Northerners if it was to have any chance of defending itself."
This is absurd.
The south was an insurrection. They violated all civil law, and the constitution.
Had they succeeded in seceding the world would NOT have had the USA to bail iot out of its 20thC horrors.
THANK GOD LINCOLN AND THE NORTH WON.
The southern rebels were scum.
Racist.
Disloytal scum.
And the confederate flag is a symbol of disloyalty and treachery - NOT HONOR AS MANY SOUTHERNERS WOULD WANT US TO BELIEVE.
And I LOVE the south.
Ending slavery and Jim Crow is what SAVED the south, too.
You can look it up: the South's economic boom occurred AFTER the US Civil Rights movement WON.
You cannot keep down half your OWN PEOPLE and expect to thrive.
No matter their individual or collective IQ.
REMEMBER JOHN RAY: IQ ISN'T EVERYTHING.
If it was then there'd be NO SMART LEFTISTS. And there are many.
luvya baby...
but TINKABBOUDDIT!
I think you need to expand your reading and understanding of the US CIVIL WAR.
ReplyDeletethis is HOGWASH:
ReplyDeleteTo "preserve the union" -- in other words to centralize power in the Federal government and allow no dissent from it. The slaves were merely a pretext.
BS.
Slavery was HE central issue had been for twenty years - and it was a contentious issue during the constitutional congress.
Lincoln and many others knew a war was nearly inevitable for a decade.
Copperhead were SCUM as were the rebels.
Immoral scum.
And when YOU wrote (above) that preserving the Union was somehow a trojan horse for rampant federalism you are Abso-effin-lutley WRONG.
Please read Lincoln's speech at Cooper Union.
Sheesh.
I excuse you because you are an aussie.
I am an American - one who was an honors History student in HS - when I first STUDIED this stuff - and also in college and I was a member of the National History Honors Society.
I have continued to read on this in the last thirty years, too.
I keep these two book ON MY DESK:
LINCOLN AT COOPER UNION; Holzer& Simon & Shuster - IT'S GREAT!Q GET IT READ IT!
and Lincoln's Greatest Speech by Ronald C White - about the 2nd Inaugural.
I also recommend THE LAST BEST HOPE ON EARTH by Neely, Mark E.
Anf that LIB Garry Wills wrote a good one on the Gettysburg Address - which I canlt find on my bookcase this second; (hope I didn't loan it out!)
Please JJR: you can do better than this.
READ UP!
Don't fall for the "Libertarian"/southern PROPAGANDA.