Correcting Gateway Pundit on correcting Ron Paul

Gateway Pundit’s response to Ron Paul saying the “War of Northern Aggression” could have been prevented by the North buying the slaves from the South.

Of course, this is ridiculous on many levels. For one, hindsight is 20/20. No one knew going into the war what it would mean to this country– that 600,000 Americans would lose their lives, that the South would be devastated.

Let me start by saying it’s reasons like this that make it hard for me to get behind Ron Paul. GP obviously lacks any experience in war-fighting. The damage to the South was inflicted with purpose, conviction, and malice by the North. The war was as much of a clash of cultures as it was a war about economics or liberty. In fact, I could make the case that it was inevitable given the North’s attitude towards Southerners and the rebellious nature of Southern culture. In many ways, this was rematch of the war for Independence from the crown.

Some background first. As the North industrialized, they came to view the South as backwards, uneducated, and dirty. The South was populated by Scottish Highlanders. The North populated mostly by British. Scottish Highlanders had made a name for themselves as having all of those characteristics and in many ways they continued those traditions when they immigrated to the South. Slavery was dying in the South. The cotton gin and competition from Africa had driven the price of “King Cotton” down to the point that slavery was no longer supportable. The Northern anti-slavery movement was driven by evangelicals flush with self-righteousness and fresh from an anti-slavery victory in Britain.

This background is important. Herein lies the seeds of tyranny. Our founding fathers wanted to prevent special interest from using the government for purposes of intimidation. The war destroyed our voluntary union and set in motion the creeping tyranny we see in America today. The South fought for our freedoms and liberties. The victory by the North ensured that our freedoms would constantly be assaulted by these petty tyrants that know what’s good for us.


9 Responses to Correcting Gateway Pundit on correcting Ron Paul

  1. Mark says:

    Sorry I have to disagree, under no circumstances is slavery ok.

    This was the founding of the Republican party in 1854 and Lincoln being elected President 6 years later.

    A party founded on two causes, a no to slavery and a no to polgamy.

    The Democrats where the party that want to expand slavery, and the Republican stood up for all men (free men) and said no.

    Today they are called the party of No by Democrats but I will always stand with them they are always against the tranny of man.

  2. majorscarlet says:

    I never said slavery is ok. pay attention. this was about exactly what our founding fathers warned us about. a government used by special interest to bully the people.

    the republicans passed the patriot act. is that not tyranny? they passed the bailout for the banks.. is that not tyranny? when andrew jackson was faced with a similar banking crisis he let the banks fail instead of reaching in to the pockets of the people. so go ahead and support the republicans… they aren’t on your side.

  3. Murray says:

    Lincoln and the Republican party didn’t end slavery, if you read the emanicpation proclimation it only ended slavery in the southern states and even then you might wet yourself to find out what the situation of blacks was when the union army “liberated” them.

    Lincoln was under huge presure to withdaw the emancipation BY the Republican party in order to win the 1864 election.

    If the Republican party was standing up for freedom so much why did they invade another nation to impose their will on them? Why did their president crap all over the rights and freedoms of people in the north in order to wage this war? And don’t trot out the line that it was to end slavery because entire union regiments deserted rather than fight for blacks.

    The empancipation proclimation was the single most upopular act of the Lincoln administration. Not really seeing your dedication to freedom to be honest.

    I’m afraid your Walt Disney version of history doesn’t really withstand the light of some cold hard examination.

    (See how that impartial observer thing works there Wes.)

  4. Major Scarlet says:

    never bring dogma to a logic fight

  5. Larceny writ large, the industrial north wanted to impose tariffs on the south to move northern products to the south vs. English manufactured goods. When people argue ideals look to the checkbook. All else is window dressing.

  6. This was obviously posted from an alternate universe in which the South united behind Douglas instead of insisting on the most pro-slavery candidate.

    Besides, I thought the most Scottish state (West Virginia) joined the North voluntarily.

  7. majorscarlet says:

    i don’t see what your point about west virginia proves except that you want to somehow dismiss my point by using a single fact while ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence to the contrary. i have difficulty taking arguments like that seriously. perhaps there was a different reason other than scot ancestry that west virginia turned to the dark side.

    there were many “pro-slavery candidates” running for many offices. since i can’t read your mind perhaps you can tell us all which one you are talking about.

  8. The West Virginia issue had more to do with the dislike the mountain west had for the tidewater/Richmond crowd, and the Scots/Irish Billies were part of that.

  9. Murray says:

    Joseph that was the lamest nonresponse you could possibly have made.

    Here’s your poblem, all the others who have commented here are actually both ex-military and academicically qualified to make historical evaluations not just knee jerk porocial tainted ideological responses.One is actually one of those highland descended Wester Virgianians so that crackling sound you hear is the ice you’re standing on.

    I’m not even an American so I have no dog in this hunt. My evaluation is that of an historian who is not an interested party.

    You’re swimming with the larger fish here so play a better level of game.

    Pro-slavery was essential to maintain the parity of the sounth in government by the way. Anything elss would have resulted in immediate domination of the south by the north. So we’re back to agressive domination.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: