In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

jimmylynn Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 3:04 AM
The blood spilled during the Civil War, and it was a war of Lincoln's making, was not because of secession. It was intended to be a peaceful sucession, but Lincoln violated our constitution and garnered powers not given to the President. He slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Americans and steered this country toward government ruled by government and not by the people.
jimmylynn Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 3:06 AM
The abolishment of slavery was the only good thing to come from that war, but at an extremely high cost that we are still paying for today.
Nam65-66 Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 4:55 AM
Thier would be no United States of America if it was not for Lincoln.
jimmylynn Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:10 AM
Yes there would just be short 11 states.
Pistol Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:57 AM
Oh, i don't know about that, Nam65-66. East and West Germany re-united. Why not the Confederate and United America's?
Nam65-66 Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:39 PM
I not only think it would be possible Pistol,I think it would have happend.But slavery would have to go.

Congressman Ron Paul has just delivered his valedictory address in the House of Representatives. And he has told TV interviewers that the American Revolution was a wonderful example of secession. He's a much better OB/GYN, I'm sure, than he is a student of America's history. He could be cited for political malpractice.

If the Founding Fathers and the Patriots who fought and won the Revolution were seceding, why is it that none of them ever called it secession? They certainly had the word back then. They invoked the well-known right of revolution. They had read their John Locke and their Montesquieu,...