Ron Paul

[southsider2k5]

I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century.

 

The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico.

 

The US didn't become a world power until the economics caught up with the capital products we had. The Industrial Revolution and the Robber Baron's really are the things that kicked the US into World Power status. Until then, they weren't any different from anyone else in this hemisphere.

[NorthSideSox72]

First of all, there is absolutely no way one could argue that Mexico and "some of the other Spanish-backed countries" gave the US a run for their money in anything. Mexico and nearly all of the economies of other nations in Latin and Central America were in absolute shambles because of the enormous amounts of gold, silver, and copper taken from them by the Spaniards over a period of three centuries. Bankrupt with no credit, these countries were often forced to sell their most valuable industries for next to nothing to US/English/German interests in exchange for cash to pay the operating expenses of their governments. There were some extremely short-lived success stories, such as Chile (rebuilt its economy through the exportation of copper- one of the few sources of wealth NOT stolen from the region yet), Peru (exporting "guapo"- bird s*** high in nitrogen), but for the vast majority of the 19th and 20th centuries Mexico and other Latin American nations have been in a depressing cycle of absolute poverty, followed by brief periods of what I suppose one could call "wealth" through the monetization of their natural resources, followed quickly by corruption, then political upheaval, revolution, and on and on and on.

 

Secondly, never did I claim that all land expansion was the result of American might (the Louisiana Purchase was offered because Napolean found himself in a real spot, financially), but the fact that the US was able to expand so quickly is absolutely a testament to its influence in the region. The Mexican-American war is just one example of another of the region's "major" players attempting to resist the will of the US at the time and getting absolutely slaughtered for it.

 

I think you are trying to argue that because the US was not the world power it was to become at the turn of the 20th Century that it somehow was not the "only" real power in the region in the mid-19th Century. I don't believe there is any possible way in which to accurately advocate such a position. The evidence is stacked and stacked against the notion that Mexico or some "other," yet undetermined, power could seriously challenge the US militarily or economically at the time.

I can and do advocate it because its what I've learned. I've studied these subjects, in college and after, just as it appears you have. The US was the scrappy young kid on the block in the early 19th Century, and just started to really become a major player in the region (and was starting to flex its muscles in a big way in the 1840's and 50's) when the Civil War came along and wrecked much of its economy. The nation recovered nicely of course, but not instantly. Terms like 'superpower' or 'monster', even regionally, really did not apply to the U.S. until the end of the 19th Century, in my view.

 

[iamshack]

I can and do advocate it because its what I've learned. I've studied these subjects, in college and after, just as it appears you have. The US was the scrappy young kid on the block in the early 19th Century, and just started to really become a major player in the region (and was starting to flex its muscles in a big way in the 1840's and 50's) when the Civil War came along and wrecked much of its economy. The nation recovered nicely of course, but not instantly. Terms like 'superpower' or 'monster', even regionally, really did not apply to the U.S. until the end of the 19th Century, in my view.

 

Fair enough, if you want to keep arguing a conclusion that is in no way buttressed by the facts at the time, or what we now know occurred for obvious reasons, than so be it. I can't convince you otherwise.

 

Back to the topic, the point is that Paul's "what I would have done to avoid the Civil War" is a bunch of nonsense.

[NorthSideSox72]

Fair enough, if you want to keep arguing a conclusion that is in no way buttressed by the facts at the time, or what we now know occurred for obvious reasons, than so be it. I can't convince you otherwise.

 

Back to the topic, the point is that Paul's "what I would have done to avoid the Civil War" is a bunch of nonsense.

Dude, that's hilarious. You are basically saying because you don't agree, that my conclusions are unfounded and obviously not what "we now know occurred". Its kind of difficult to have a discussion with you if that's how you will approach it.

 

I find your conclusions inaccurate to my understanding of what was going on back then. My education and knowledge tell me differently than what yours apparently does. Those are the kinds of phrases that work well when trying to have an intelligent discussion.

 

But I do agree, Paul's idea of avoidance of the Civil War is mostly (but not entirely) nonsense.

 

[iamshack]

Dude, that's hilarious. You are basically saying because you don't agree, that my conclusions are unfounded and obviously not what "we now know occurred". Its kind of difficult to have a discussion with you if that's how you will approach it.

 

I find your conclusions inaccurate to my understanding of what was going on back then. My education and knowledge tell me differently than what yours apparently does. Those are the kinds of phrases that work well when trying to have an intelligent discussion.

 

But I do agree, Paul's idea of avoidance of the Civil War is mostly (but not entirely) nonsense.

 

No, not at all. I'm not trying to say that you are, "by default," wrong, because I am right. I'm trying to coax some more specific information or examples out of you as I feel I have proven my point to a far greater degree than you have.

 

I have a BA in History, with a concentration in US History and Mexico and Latin American History. I studied the region for the better part of two and a half years, and at no point in my studies or education did I ever get the impression (or was I given the impression) that ANY nation in Latin America, including Mexico, could hold a candle to the US either militarily or economically.

 

I've listed for you a general description of the economic, political, and military plights of nearly all of Latin America, including specific examples. I've also listed for you the great expansion that took place during the period by the US, as part of its' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, basically in the face of Mexico and any other regional "power." I've explained to you that I am not arguing that the US was a "world" superpower by any means in the mid-19th century, but that indeed it was a regional power- the only regional power- and yet you've continued to allude to the US's power on a world level as opposed to what this argument was originally about, the New World region.

 

If you're claiming that it's difficult to have a discussion with me, I think, likewise, it is difficult to have a discussion on this topic with you. You're countering my points with vagaries about "Spanish-backed nations" that could challenge the US both militarily and economically at the time, and point the the fact that the Mexican- American War was a "bloody mess," that that somehow shows equality between the US and Mexico militarily or economically. I simply don't think there is ample (or any, for that matter) proof that such an assertion is accurate. And you continuing to repeat it, but offering little in the way of actual examples doesn't make it any more accurate.

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[Pants Rowland]

No, not at all. I'm not trying to say that you are, "by default," wrong, because I am right. I'm trying to coax some more specific information or examples out of you as I feel I have proven my point to a far greater degree than you have.

 

I have a BA in History, with a concentration in US History and Mexico and Latin American History. I studied the region for the better part of two and a half years, and at no point in my studies or education did I ever get the impression (or was I given the impression) that ANY nation in Latin America, including Mexico, could hold a candle to the US either militarily or economically.

 

I've listed for you a general description of the economic, political, and military plights of nearly all of Latin America, including specific examples. I've also listed for you the great expansion that took place during the period by the US, as part of its' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, basically in the face of Mexico and any other regional "power." I've explained to you that I am not arguing that the US was a "world" superpower by any means in the mid-19th century, but that indeed it was a regional power- the only regional power- and yet you've continued to allude to the US's power on a world level as opposed to what this argument was originally about, the New World region.

 

If you're claiming that it's difficult to have a discussion with me, I think, likewise, it is difficult to have a discussion on this topic with you. You're countering my points with vagaries about "Spanish-backed nations" that could challenge the US both militarily and economically at the time, and point the the fact that the Spanish American War was a "bloody mess," that that somehow shows equality between the US and Mexico militarily or economically. I simply don't think there is ample (or any, for that matter) proof that such an assertion is accurate. And you continuing to repeat it, but offering little in the way of actual examples doesn't make it any more accurate.

 

Sorry to have started a war of words.

 

Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north?

[Balta1701]

Sorry to have started a war of words.

 

Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north?

Or, the opening and availability of the vast natural resources of the west combined with the industrialization of the north.

[iamshack]

Sorry to have started a war of words.

 

Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north?

 

Not a war of words at all...more an intelligent debate.

 

Personally, I'm done lecturing and don't want to write another thesis paper, but I'm sure others will feel free to engage you in answering your question...

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

I've listed for you a general description of the economic, political, and military plights of nearly all of Latin America, including specific examples. I've also listed for you the great expansion that took place during the period by the US, as part of its' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, basically in the face of Mexico and any other regional "power." I've explained to you that I am not arguing that the US was a "world" superpower by any means in the mid-19th century, but that indeed it was a regional power- the only regional power- and yet you've continued to allude to the US's power on a world level as opposed to what this argument was originally about, the New World region.

 

If you're claiming that it's difficult to have a discussion with me, I think, likewise, it is difficult to have a discussion on this topic with you. You're countering my points with vagaries about "Spanish-backed nations" that could challenge the US both militarily and economically at the time, and point the the fact that the Spanish American War was a "bloody mess," that that somehow shows equality between the US and Mexico militarily or economically. I simply don't think there is ample (or any, for that matter) proof that such an assertion is accurate. And you continuing to repeat it, but offering little in the way of actual examples doesn't make it any more accurate.

I have not seen you be any more specific than I have been about this. Less so, really, from my point of view. You refer to various land grabs like Oregon, Louisiana, etc., as example of American power in the region. I countered that they were more often than no exit strategies by the parties involved, usually because the nation holding the land didn't have the finances or desire to hold it. How are you being more detailed than I?

 

But if you want to really get down to details I suppose I could do that. I am not 100% sure what you are looking for. Here are a few examples in the latter half of the 19th Century that, to me, show a nation that was still struggling to attain dominant power in the region...

 

--The Oregon Territory you cited earlier was, for a period during the middle of the 19th Century, hotly disputed and even dually occupied by British and US forces. Neither felt they had the stuff to knock each other out, nor the desire to do so over such territory. The Brits were still, at this point, controlling more land than the US, and at the very least were still capable of holding their own against the US and France and Spain and even Russia all at once - just as the US was doing in the region. The Brits eventually slid back in those conflicts, but they were by no means token players.

--The Civil War was, itself, very clearly a sign that the nation was not yet ready to be more than a regional player. I mean, they couldn't even come to common stance on some very major issues by themselves. How was this not a clear statement that the US was not yet ready to be the biggest, baddest kid on the North American block?

--In the 1880's and 1890's, the US was still unable militarily or otherwise to finish off their job of subjugating the American Indians - numerous bands of Apache and other tribes were still raiding with impugnity in parts of the southwest until the 1890's. There were a lot of factors involved here of course, but it goes to show that the US still had only marginal control of its own territory and borders at the time.

--In my view, the international event that truly gave the US regional superpower status was the Spanish American War - just before the turn of the century. That decisive victory over a declining Spanish armada was tantamount to a death nail for any European or Latin American powers bringing serious trouble to the doorstep of the US.

 

Is that specific enough for you?

 

By the way, have you read Hampton Sides' Blood and Thunder?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Sorry to have started a war of words.

 

Here is a question for you. What were the primary reasons for the United States' status as a developing (if not established) power in the mid-19th century? Was it the agrarian system of the south or the industrialization of the north?

 

Or, the opening and availability of the vast natural resources of the west combined with the industrialization of the north.

 

What Balta said, plus the balanced economic system the US was managing to build (to include that agrarian system you mentioned). Also, cheesy as it sounds, the American desire to push and expand into lands that other powers in the region had only a tenuous hold on - and that often, they didn't want badly enough to stake a lot in contesting.

 

[StrangeSox]

Personally, I think everyone might be missing the point of Paul's argument. I think when he brings up the fact he would have never gone to war with the Confederates, people bring up the slavery issue & he responds by saying slavery would have phased out just as it had in every other country. What he is saying - is that the Union did not have the "right" to go to war with the Confederacy. He says (and is generally cut off before finishing due to the question of slavery), that it is not in the Constitution that the USA should "war" with a state that feels a general and logical reason to secede - and the Confederacy (especially at that point in time), had one. Paul is simply saying, that this time is when the beginning of civil liberties began to be taken away by the Federal government. It "should not" have been a Federal issue about slavery. It was a state issue & that is what Paul is saying when he says that the Civil War should not have happened - because it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And, I for one, agree with that statement. The states should have the power to do as they choose & the citizens can choose to move to a state that they 'agree' with more. That is Paul's point.

 

Except the slaves, of course...

 

Besides, the Confederacy attacked Union forts first.

Edited January 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

I have not seen you be any more specific than I have been about this. Less so, really, from my point of view. You refer to various land grabs like Oregon, Louisiana, etc., as example of American power in the region. I countered that they were more often than no exit strategies by the parties involved, usually because the nation holding the land didn't have the finances or desire to hold it. How are you being more detailed than I?

 

But if you want to really get down to details I suppose I could do that. I am not 100% sure what you are looking for. Here are a few examples in the latter half of the 19th Century that, to me, show a nation that was still struggling to attain dominant power in the region...

 

--The Oregon Territory you cited earlier was, for a period during the middle of the 19th Century, hotly disputed and even dually occupied by British and US forces. Neither felt they had the stuff to knock each other out, nor the desire to do so over such territory. The Brits were still, at this point, controlling more land than the US, and at the very least were still capable of holding their own against the US and France and Spain and even Russia all at once - just as the US was doing in the region. The Brits eventually slid back in those conflicts, but they were by no means token players.

--The Civil War was, itself, very clearly a sign that the nation was not yet ready to be more than a regional player. I mean, they couldn't even come to common stance on some very major issues by themselves. How was this not a clear statement that the US was not yet ready to be the biggest, baddest kid on the North American block?

--In the 1880's and 1890's, the US was still unable militarily or otherwise to finish off their job of subjugating the American Indians - numerous bands of Apache and other tribes were still raiding with impugnity in parts of the southwest until the 1890's. There were a lot of factors involved here of course, but it goes to show that the US still had only marginal control of its own territory and borders at the time.

--In my view, the international event that truly gave the US regional superpower status was the Spanish American War - just before the turn of the century. That decisive victory over a declining Spanish armada was tantamount to a death nail for any European or Latin American powers bringing serious trouble to the doorstep of the US.

 

Is that specific enough for you?

 

By the way, have you read Hampton Sides' Blood and Thunder?

 

No, I have not read that. I will try to take a look at it.

 

I still think you are misinterpreting what I am arguing.

 

Now you've shifted gears to comparing the US position in the region to that of other European powers, as opposed to the other nations residing in the actual region. First off, my original statement was that the US was a "monster" in the New World region. And by the mid 19th century, the European powers still holding on were doing so as mere formalities, while Mexico and Latin American nations were basically so busy with their own domestic affairs that any notion of heavy foreign involvement in anything would have been overwhelming.

 

By the mid-19th century, the the notion that European nations could have any real hold in the region is pretty difficult to argue. The US had won its Independence from the British in 1783. Argentina and Chile won their Independence from Spain in 1816 and 1818, respectively. The Mexicans won their Independence from Spain in 1821. The Peruvians in 1824. It's simply inaccurate to suggest that European countries had any real staying military power in the region after the beginning of the 19th century. Certainly they had economic influence in the region (this was largely money from private hands, not government money), and still do in Latin America, but they were no force to be reckoned with.

 

The fact that the Civil War occurred, for a period of 5 years, without any other regional, or European power making any attempt to grab land in the region says volumes to me. I think it actually makes the opposite point that you make. In fact, nearly every other nation in the region outside of Canada was experiencing civil wars throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The fact that the US Civil War happened on a far more grand scale only proves that it's might both economically and militarily far exceeded that of the Latin American nations.

 

As for the Indian skirmishes you refer to, the level of expansion by the US in such a short period of time is the reason for that. That point really doesn't tell me anything about the position of the US at the time.

 

And if you are looking for a nation that was in the same stratosphere as the US in the Americas, it might have been Argentina, which was a far more European-influenced nation than the other Latin American nations. However, Argentina didn't meddle in the affairs of North America in any fashion during this period.

 

One can compare the US to the position it would eventually reach, or to the position of some European powers at the time, and be correct in stating the US was still "developing" into what it would become- a global Superpower. But that isn't the argument. The argument was that the US was the overwhelming power in the region in the mid-19th century, and I have still not seen an example given of another nation in the region flexing it's muscles, economically or militarily. Or some accurate assertion that US policy in the region didn't reign supreme during the mid-19th century.

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen.

 

Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause.

[StrangeSox]

You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen.

 

Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause.

 

I was thinking the same thing while reading his post, but I couldn't verbalize nearly as well as you did.

[iamshack]

No, but such was the time of the era. I'm not defending slavery - I'm defending a state to have the RIGHT to do as they choose - and the citizens of that state to do as they choose (while obiding by the state's laws). For the Federal government to rule over a state, and therefore the citizens of that state, is taking away civil liberties. As long as a citizen is living by the state's laws, he should not be prosecuted by the Federal government - which is Paul's view - and a view I agree with. You should trust in your "state" to make fair, logical, and sound decisions that aid and protect your life. And if you don't feel they are doing so, then you need to go to a state that you feel does. The Federal government does not need to tell each state "this is the law, and this is why" in most - if not all - cases. At the time (1850s-1860s), slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy. And as a state, they wanted to keep slavery to maintain any state economy at all. Eventually slavery would have been phased out due to technological reasons and costs (and not the death of 600,000 Americans), but at the time, slavery to the south was needed. For the north to tell the southern states, "No, this is not happening anymore", was not any business of the Federal government - it was a state matter solely. Especially when the North was not exactly 'interested in freeing the slaves' - they still wanted to impose horrific laws upon them and basically did thru the 1950s. Ron Paul is simply saying - it was a state matter - not a Federal government matter, and based upon that, he is both right and I agree. States should be able to rule as they please - because a citizen can MUCH more easily move to a different state than they can move to a different nation, and because of this - all states would "compete" with each other to give the best life possible to attract more citizens and therefore, more production, income, etc.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor often referred to the states as a "laboratory for novel social and economic experiments."

 

But answer this for me, Bureau: The individual states avail themselves of all kinds of benefits and protections of the Federal Gov't. Be it the laws of the US, the protections of the US (both federal law enforcement as well as national military branches), advantages and benefits via interstate commerce, etc.

 

Why should the Federal Gov't provide all those benefits and protections to the states' but receive nothing in return from them?

 

[southsideirish71]

You do have a valid point. But the fact is, that is your opinion. Nothing makes your opinion greater than mine - and that is what the Constitution is about, therefore, if the Southern states had the opinion they did - that is their right. I'm not defending slavery, but I'm defending a state's voting rights to vote as they want to. That is what the Constitution is about, right or wrong in YOUR view - but also right or wrong in MY view as well.

 

So in your view, each State is a separate country/state that only has to answer to their laws. No matter what it is, the state should have the right to make the law.

 

So say the state of Indiana wants to entice some jobs out of a large petroleum company in Whiting, it would be okay for them to lower the standards and allow them to dump large amounts of cancer causing toxic waste into Lake Michigan because their elected officials and their citizens are okay with that. What does Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin do if they disagree, mobilize the national guard and declare interstate war?

[iamshack]

You know the interesting thing here? I think that while Bureau may have an interpretation of the constitution and the commerce clause that is as valid as mine, but I think his interpretation shows the flaw in it through the example he's trying to defend. Specifically, in that last clause, Bureau says "slavery was NEEDED in the south to maintain their economy". Whether or not that may have been correct, if the South judged that to be the case, then that institution was going to continue until either the south judged that it needed to change or until something was changed to force it to happen.

 

Considering that I judge slavery to have been a crime against humanity, I consider the fact that the federal government was able to stop that crime through whatever means necessary to be a solid argument as to why the federal government should have that level of power over commerce. I can take that example farther, to things like simple workplace protections, environmental protections, and so forth, but the key element I find here is that if defending that particular interpretation of the commerce clause requires one to defend the institution of slavery and find it to be a problem that the federal government could act to get rid of slavery, then I have a clear problem with that interpretation of the commerce clause.

 

I'm not sure I understand the connection here. If there is one thing that Bureau has been correct about here, it's that the Union did not originally seek to abolish slavery in fighting the Civil War. I think one can fairly reasonably argue that had the South come to Lincoln in 1862 and said, "we'll come back to the Union, but we're keeping slavery in all the states where it currently resides, however, we will not seek to expand it", Lincoln would have accepted that proposition.

 

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in so many different lights since it's creation that it has really failed to mean much of anything other than that it can be twisted to mean whatever whomever wants it to mean at the time...

[iamshack]

The states should expect to have the Federal government in place to protect the National security interests of the country. This is an entirely different topic, in my view, because I believe the Federal government is overextending their right by trying to police the world and in my opinion (please don't argue, because you may or not have have a different one - but it does not matter here), they should not be across the seas as much as they are as I feel it brings more problems than it does protection. So, the Constition DOES say that the Federal government is in place to make sure national security is secure. They also defend the states, state by state, in that Arkansas doesn't "pillage" goods that are being driven from Louisiana to Kansas. And I believe that the Federal government does receive the benefits for this - and they would need much LESS funding if they were not policing the world (again, my opinion on what they SHOULD be doing). But they do receive funding & I agree they need to receive some funding - just not as much as they're getting because I personally think they're doing way too much.

 

So are you saying that the income taxes they are receiving from the residents of the states is their return? Even though, under your theory, the states can secede at any time, for whatever reason?

 

Don't you think that makes for a pretty unstable form of government?

[YASNY]

I'm not sure I understand the connection here. If there is one thing that Bureau has been correct about here, it's that the Union did not originally seek to abolish slavery in fighting the Civil War. I think one can fairly reasonably argue that had the South come to Lincoln in 1862 and said, "we'll come back to the Union, but we're keeping slavery in all the states where it currently resides, however, we will not seek to expand it", Lincoln would have accepted that proposition.

 

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in so many different lights since it's creation that it has really failed to mean much of anything other than that it can be twisted to mean whatever whomever wants it to mean at the time...

 

The only problem with that is that South would then be faced with a situation, where new states coming into the union could not be 'slave states' by virtue of that hypotheitcal agreement. That would have left them with two scenarios, neither of which was beneficial to the South. First, the congress would expand due to the addition of non-slave states, therefore tipping the balance against them at a later date. Also, in the event the first situation came to fruition, then the North would have a much larger area to draw resourses from in the event of a war.

[iamshack]

The only problem with that is that South would then be faced with a situation, where new states coming into the union could not be 'slave states' by virtue of that hypotheitcal agreement. That would have left them with two scenarios, neither of which was beneficial to the South. First, the congress would expand due to the addition of non-slave states, therefore tipping the balance against them at a later date. Also, in the event the first situation came to fruition, then the North would have a much larger area to draw resourses from in the event of a war.

 

No, I agree, such an agreement would have been disastrous for the South in the long run (arguably in the short run, how short, who knows?).

 

I was pointing out that Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union, not immediately abolish slavery. The evidence is pretty strong that he would have accepted a result which would have achieved that primary goal, had it been available to him.

[StrangeSox]

The state of Indiana has every right to lower their standards as low as they please. At this point, the states of Michigan, IL, etc. must sue Indiana on the basis it is harming the lives of their citizens and it must then be taken to a Federal court to be decided upon. But each case should be decided in a case-by-case manner - not as a national case that applies to all states. Because what if there are neighboring states that do the same thing elsewhere in the country and neither of the state's citizens have any problem with it? Should they be made to adhere to a law that they don't agree with simply because Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin's citizens didn't like it? No, states have the right to do as they please - and if a neighboring state has a problem with it - you sue them and take them to the Federal government for a decision.

 

Doesn't each state suing each other over every single issue create another gigantic beuracracy and log jam in the court system? And, ultimately, isn't the Federal government still deciding and setting a de facto standard for every state to follow?

 

And why should Indiana have the right to harm residents of other states, indirectly or not? Why should they be allowed to trash the enviroment even if no other state was affected?

Edited January 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

Doesn't each state suing each other over every single issue create another gigantic beuracracy and log jam in the court system? And, ultimately, isn't the Federal government still deciding and setting a de facto standard for every state to follow?

 

And why should Indiana have the right to harm residents of other states, indirectly or not? Why should they be allowed to trash the enviroment even if no other state was affected?

 

Exactly. There were/are lawsuits like this arising from this sort of conflict all the time, why create more?

 

Secondly, this is the same thing. Whether you have federal guidelines prohibiting the behavior, or states subjecting themselves to federal jurisdiction on the issue, what is the difference?

[southsider2k5]

Personally, I think everyone might be missing the point of Paul's argument. I think when he brings up the fact he would have never gone to war with the Confederates, people bring up the slavery issue & he responds by saying slavery would have phased out just as it had in every other country. What he is saying - is that the Union did not have the "right" to go to war with the Confederacy. He says (and is generally cut off before finishing due to the question of slavery), that it is not in the Constitution that the USA should "war" with a state that feels a general and logical reason to secede - and the Confederacy (especially at that point in time), had one. Paul is simply saying, that this time is when the beginning of civil liberties began to be taken away by the Federal government. It "should not" have been a Federal issue about slavery. It was a state issue & that is what Paul is saying when he says that the Civil War should not have happened - because it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And, I for one, agree with that statement. The states should have the power to do as they choose & the citizens can choose to move to a state that they 'agree' with more. That is Paul's point.

 

I am going to argue with you hear as well. Constitutionally the slavery issue was settled by the Congress, not the states.

 

Section. 9. The Migration of Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

This pretty clearly was a federal, not a state, issue, according to the constitution.

[southsider2k5]

So in your view, each State is a separate country/state that only has to answer to their laws. No matter what it is, the state should have the right to make the law.

 

Which of course is unconstiutional. One of the many failings of the Articles of Confederation was that there was pretty much zero federal government to settle disputes between states, and protect commerce between them. The Constiution expressly charged the federal goverment to provide protections for commerce and quality of life versus each other. These laws have been upheld and upheld over the last 230 years. Its pretty clear to me that some of these things are necesary and provided for by our forefathers.

[NorthSideSox72]

One can compare the US to the position it would eventually reach, or to the position of some European powers at the time, and be correct in stating the US was still "developing" into what it would become- a global Superpower. But that isn't the argument. The argument was that the US was the overwhelming power in the region in the mid-19th century, and I have still not seen an example given of another nation in the region flexing it's muscles, economically or militarily. Or some accurate assertion that US policy in the region didn't reign supreme during the mid-19th century.

If the examples I gave don't tell you that US policy was not supreme at that point, then there is nothing else I can do. You've decided.