The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: "This is not a valid argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Point by point (see in situ)

"This is not a valid argument

"This is not a valid argument in favor of Lincoln. A majority of the work out there are Lincoln apologists, cultists, and mythologists."

Only according to you.

"They cannot stand the latest evidence showing Lincoln in a bad light."

I've specifically attacked this supposed evidence.

"Evidence supporting your claim that "most historians agree" is a falsehood, there is none, and whatever historians that do agree are apologists or cultists."

Brilliant. If someone disagrees with you, they must be an apologist or a cultist.

The ironic thing is, they would call you a slavery apologist; a Confederate apologist. They would argue that you belong to the cult of Southern revisionism.

"Lerone Bennett, Jr"

Ironically, a historian who would laugh at the idea that the South was any better.

"David H. Donald"

FYI, there is no "one foremost historian". Secondly, Donald speaks very highly of Lincoln; it is Sumner he criticizes. Have you read his works? To Civil War revionists who make claims that the war was not about slavery, Randall absolutely destroyed with mountains of evidence. Yes, while it is true the war was not *exclusively* about slavery, Randall shows that slavery was indeed the crucible through which radicals of both sides eventually wound up taking arms against each other. He similarly criticizes abolitionists like John Brown and cynical Yankees as Stephen Douglas (more concerned with building a transcontinental railroad through the industrial north, partly at the expense of Southern taxation) in equal disdain.

His point, is not that the civil war could have been avoided and slavery also been abolished. His point, is that the Civil War could have been avoided because many Northerners really didn't care about slavery, but had other reasons for attacking/hating the South. By conceding those concerns, the war could have been avoided, with the South in exchange getting to keep the slave trade.

"Really? You mean that by the fact that Lincoln had to conscript people to fight in that war? If the war was so just' why were people FORCED to fight in the war of Northern aggression?"

FYI, the South practiced conscription as well. Prior to the civil war, many states practiced forced conscription in local militias.

"And slaves were already on their way out the door to begin with, as most newly discovered evidence has shown and is still being uncovered today."

Where? This sounds like nonsense. The number of American slaves was increasing, not decreasing until the end of the civil war.

"And, as for the economic factors of the time I'm not entirely convinced of your claims."

For the claims of revenue/GDP, here:

You have a spike during the Civil war, then relative flatness until the great depression. To be fair, the numbers are a little underestimated; the real % is probably twice that amount, but it holds across multiple years (meaning that 1840 and 1860 and 1880 are all underestimated by the same relative amount)

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:


Specific cuts; defense spending: