And makes you wonder about his version of libertarianism: [An excerpt from Paul's appearance on "Meet the Press"]:
Russert: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
Paul: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist--
Russert: We'd still have slavery.
Paul: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
As James Taranto comments: "It's an intriguing counterfactual, but what is most telling is that Paul blames Lincoln for the Civil War rather than blaming the South for starting a war to preserve slavery. Does he love liberty? Or does he merely loathe the federal government?"
Exactly. The Confederacy fired upon a federal fort, thus starting the war. There can be no doubt that slavery was central to the war--everything leads back to it. A slavery system enforced by a STATE government is still slavery enforced by government power; a true libertarian would be against such. It's too bad that Ron Paul isn't.
