Ron Paul: pro-Confederate crank

NewsOne now brings to light a YouTube video in which Ron Paul gives a "South was Right" speech to an evident gathering of Confederacy nostalgists. No date or place is offered, but this supposed "libertarian" is speaking against the backdrop of a giant Confederate battle flag! The video was apparently first placed on YouTube by a neo-Confederate channel with the slightly ironic name "Patriot Review." In it, Paul regurgitates several of the usual revisionist tropes—he dismisses slavery as an "excuse" and "rabble-rousing issue" that "really wasn't the issue of why the war was fought"; he suggests differences over "protectionism" and the "banking system" were really behind the war; he points out that other countries "got rid of slavery without war" through "legislation" (as if the abolitionists hadn't fought generations for that!) or (of course, the free-market solution) "literally buying slaves' freedom." Et cetera. NewsOne adds:

Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861. [Actually, attacking the federal Fort Sumter off Charleston, SC]

Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn't have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.

Several Ron Paul supporters have asked that the video be taken down from the pro-Confederate channel, Patriot Review, but Patriot Review believes that the video could help Paul win South Carolina.

We have already noted Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act, as well as birthright citizenship, which was instated by the post-Civil War 14th Amendment. Further elucidation is provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, which noted some of the unseemly types Paul invited to testify last year before the House subcommittee he chaired that oversees the Federal Reserve bank:

One of the witnesses invited to testify was Thomas DiLorenzo, a longtime activist in the neo-Confederate hate group, League of the South (LOS). The LOS advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by "Anglo-Celts"—that is, white people. LOS leaders have called slavery "God-ordained" and described segregation as necessary to the racial "integrity" of black and white alike. DiLorenzo also is an economics professor at Baltimore's Loyola College.

According to the Washington Post, "when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South," pointing to the designation of the LOS as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Clay also cited DiLorenzo’s many revisionist works about the Civil War and Lincoln, including "More Lies about the Civil War," "In Defense of Sedition," and "The First Dictator-President," which examines "how Lincoln's myth has corrupted America."

"After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you," Clay concluded.

Would that everyone would be so short with these cranks. One of the more maddening things about Paul's YouTube spiel is his invoking of the New England individualist-anarchist Lysander Spooner, who he said despite being an abolitionist, "when it came down to the war, he identified with the South and said 'the South is on the right side...'" This is an utter distortion of Spooner's actual position. Let's see what the official Lysander Spooner website, maintained by Georgetown University legal scholar Randy E. Barnett, has to say. Here's what. Spooner devoted years to anti-slavery agitation, and sent copies of his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery to every congressman, convinced that if he could reach the masses, they "would march up to the cannon's mouth in defense of the principles of my argument..." Nonetheless:

The Civil War, however, never aroused Spooner's enthusiasm as John Brown's adventure had. He felt the war was fought on the false issue of union; it should have been fought squarely on the issue of slavery. In 1864, he published an analysis of the [war] in [a] Letter to [Massachusetts Sen.] Charles Sumner. Spooner argued that: "the slaveholders would never had dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing in its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free."

...In agreeing that the Constitution protected slavery, and by proposing compromises in 1861 to prevent [secession], Sumner and others only weakened the moral position of the North. Against the Northern politicians, generally, Spooner charged that "upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war."

So Spooner certainly did not take the side of the South, but argued that the North should have been more forthright in its opposition to slavery—which he certainly did recognize as the root cause of the war!

As, by the way, all the Confederates did at the time. It is only their contemporary apologists who try to obfuscate this point. A corrective perspective to the revisionists is provided by Yale constitutional law expert Jack M. Balkin on his Balkinization blog. Balkin quotes from Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone speech" of March 21, 1861, boasting of the new Confederate constitution:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

Balkin also notes that the Confederate constitution specifically codified the "right" to hold slaves:

Article I, section 9, clause 4:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

But even for those gullible (and unread) enough to fall for Paul's revisionism, his whole conciliatory attitude towards human bondage should gross you out. He's never grasped the message of Martin Luther King's "Why We Can't Wait." If preaching patience to the oppressed is ugly, it is infinitely more so to do so the enslaved! Which is what Paul implicitly does when he looks to "legislation," or compensating the slave-owners for their illegitimate human "property"! This mental midget and moral monster has no business invoking the great Lysander Spooner!

"Libertarian"? Friend of freedom? Fascistic wackjob is more like it.

Wake up, Paul-suckers!

See our last posts on the Ron Paul pathology and the politics of secession.

Nice smear article.

Nice smear article. It's not working. Freedom and the Constitution are taking back this country in 2012. r3VOLution 2012!

Ron Paul: enemy of constitutional rights

If you fall for that "constitutional" hokum, you are a fool. Your hero wants to abolish birthright citizenship, which the last time we checked was guaranteed by the Constitution.

Must you people always be suckers?

Pfffft

That's not THE constitution, that's just one of the amendments! pfft!!

Paul-suckers don't support constitutional rights

The 14th Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as your beloved Second Amendment. So you want to start picking and choosing which constitutional rights you support? Fine, but spare us this "constitutionalist" jive.

Birthright citizenship was added for slavery.

It was added as a way of making slaves and Indians citizens.

It has served it's purpose, and it is today used as a method of bypassing the countries immigration laws. Those laws should be more relaxed, but it doesn't matter as long as people are going around the laws.

Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to decide naturalization(citizenship) without the 14th amendment. A way of doing it without the loophole in otherwords. Today we can easily apply the rule that you need a parent as a citizen etc. That wasn't possible back when the 14th amendment was added and that is why it was needed then. The only rule in Article 1 Section in regards to this is that it must be a uniform law.

This is also where congress gets the authority to allow people to become citizens and all those other things, again in a uniform manner.

Immigration was much more open then, so it just didn't really dawn on those who wrote the amendment that it would be used as a loophole one day.

It's pretty screwed up when people are so busy thrown around the race card that they are blinded to actual problems that need to be fixed and changed.

Another Paul-sucker against constitutional rights

Everything in the Constitution is there for an historical reason. If you're going to pick and choose which constitutional rights you support and which you'd throw overboard—don't give us all this "constitutionalist" jive.

Racism is one of the "problems that need to be fixed and changed."

Are you double-dipping, Anonymous? If so, you owe me $7.

14th amendment

WRONG! The first ten amendments are known as the "bill of rights". The ones that come after that are just amendments. Obama has already done a great job of dismantling the bill of rights (W also), so why cant we PROPERLY amend the constitution through due process? This is one area where I disagree with Paul. I think birthright citizenship is a good thing. In my opinion, if Paul had the option, he would repeal the 16th amendment long before he addressed the 14th.

Paul-sucker flunked civics class

"Just amendments"? Legally, there is absolutely no distinction between the first 10 amendments and the remaining 17. Either you support constitutional rights, or you don't. I can't believe I'm arguing with an army of jackasses who don't support the Reconstruction Amendments. You people are scary!

It will cost you to respond. Our price just went up to $10.

Errr, The constitution

Errr, The constitution allows for the passage of "amendments", which Paul is all for. He doesn't claim those born in the US with illegal parents aren't Americans, he wants an CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to change the law. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about proposing a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.

Paul-suckers hate freedom

So you admit your boy would change the constitution to eliminate a basic right?

Charming.

It will cost you to respond. $10 a pop.

"Every person born within

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Senator Jacob Howard, 1866

The key words of the amendment are "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

An alien, legal or otherwise, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as their home country still has a claim upon them. Thus their children, even if born in the US would not be citizens under the 14th.

That Scotus has ruled otherwise is besides the point. Those who drafted the amendment were clear that unfettered birthright citizenship was not intended, but was qualified by being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

An alien, legal ormotherwise

Another Paul-sucker against freedom

That SCOTUS has ruled otherwise is hardly "beside the point." 150 years of case law say you are wrong. Your views on this matter are about as relevant as those of flat-earthers are to the science of geology.

"An alien, legal ormotherwise"? That would be a terrifying phrase even if you had spelled it correctly. Thank goodness you people are usually so orthography-challenged as to alienate a good chunk of the gullible who might otherwise be taken in.

Hey, I think you are double-dipping, Anonymous. You owe me ten bucks. Pay up.

Ron Paul for president 2012

What the 14th amendment says is that is That "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". In order to be a subject of the jurisdiction, both or one of the parents must be a U.S. citizen. So just because someone is born in this country doesn't make them a citizen. so I suggest you go back to school and brush up on your reading comprehension. Just because someone incorrectly interrpets the U.S. Constitution doesn't make it right.

Paul-suckers flunked civics class

Unbelievable. Being upbraided by an ignoramus who doesn't know the first thing about American history or civics.

So if an undocumented immigrant commits murder on US soil, he can't be tried here? That is what you are arguing with your baseless assertion that immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

It will cost you to reply. Our price just went up to $11.

He wants to amend the Constitution

It's not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution.

Understand, jus soli citizenship is very rare in the civilized world. I don't necessarily agree with ending it, but it's not as simple as hating immigrants. There are other complexities that come with birthright citizenship. For example, people in other countries have been fined by the IRS for years of unpaid taxes because they never knew they were a citizen of the United States.

Another Paul-sucker against freedom

So you want to start picking and choosing which constitutional rights you support? Fine, but spare us this "constitutionalist" jive.

So you start with the fact

So you start with the fact that Dr.Paul is against the aspects of the Civil Rights Act that infringe on personal property rights and twist that into support for Jim Crowe laws and support for the Confederate constitution, what a joke. What Ron Paul understands that you quite obviously don't is that you cannot legislate morality and every time it is attempted it makes matters worse. The war on drugs is a perfect example of the disastrous results that occurs when the Government tries. The marketplace of ideas is where real solutions are created not the laws made up by government fiat in the midst of the inevitable changes created by those ideas. People of your ilk have absolutely no faith in mankind and have deemed that you must impose your superior will on those lesser than you using Government coercion and intervention as the shield of a coward vs taking real personal responsibility by inducing real interpersonal change. This view that others cannot be trusted and must be controlled by government is nothing more or less than projection of your own views and has nothing to do with anyone else. The problem with that entire line of reasoning is legislation drives moral problems underground to fester in resentment and marginalization making it worse than before while everyone pretends government solved the problem by fiat. Dream on.

Paul-suckers can't read, or think

Look, if you want to be a free-market utopian, we can't stop you. But please don't distort the facts. Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act. All the rest is commentary. That's the fact. What part of the below don't you understand?

Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn't have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.

If you are OK with this, we have no interest in giving you a forum. Either get your own website and spew to your heart's content, or pay me for the use of mine. Five dollars a post here. (Our price goes up as the comments get more odious.)

I'm Mexican and I'm voing for Ron Paul

Yeah I'm sure you would want to charge people. It is only the next step before banning comments outright. "Odious statements", please. You guys are killing me with the melodrama.

Drop the race card already. All you guys seems to do is find a way to write negatively, like if you were on a mission to destroy. Paul's positive:negative ratio in terms of articles written on him far, far unbalanced compared to all the other candidates.

Just drop it already. Paul fights for the oppressed and has saved and helped many minorities lives. If he were truly racist he wouldn't give a damn.

This Mexican here is voting for Ron Paul. This system is corrupt and out of control. I care about the one who is going to fix it, not make it worse. There are bigger issues here. Why don't you focus on those instead.

Paul 2012!!!

Paul-suckers are cry-babies

You're all supposed to believe in the "free market," but when I exercise my private property rights and entrepreneurial initiative by charging for comments, you whine about censorship. Pathetic.

Paul would abolish birthright citizenship, primo! Wake up!

"Paul would also claim that...

"Paul would also claim that he wouldn't have voted for it at the time,..." Paul "would" also... What the hell does that mean. Either he did or he didn't. Are you just imagining that he "would" under certain circumstances, projecting your own twisted thoughts onto the man?

Paul-suckers don't know their history

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, you genius. Ron Paul was first elected to Congress in 1976.

You and Ron Paul have things in Common

Paul opposes the Civil Rights ACT. Paul does not oppose Civil Rights. MLK is one of his heroes. He just believes the actual act doesn't solve the problem, only creates more problems and it is not the Federal Government's duty or responsibility to deal with it, but it is the responsibility of humans to deal with it.

How it creates more problems is a longer message, one that isn't explained in sound-bites.

Both you and Dr. Paul both believe in Civil Rights, he just is saying that making the Federal Gov't responsible for making that happen gives more and more power to the Central Government, which he believes is dangerous. You, whether you know you are advocating it or not, are all for greater Government control over your life and all of our lives.

But the commonality between you and Dr. Paul is authentic - you both believe in Civil Rights and equality for all. With this premise, perhaps begin to examine Ron Paul's approach. It is different than what we know and understand and implement today, and we argue, along with the Authors of the Constitution, that it is better.

You'd swallow anything, wouldn't you?

Any sleazeball politician today has to say nice things about MLK! In fact, MLK spent his whole life fighting people like Ron Paul! What does it mean to be "for" civil rights in some abstract sense if you are against any effort to defend them?

Wake up!!!

Get your facts straight

If you actually listen to what Ron Paul says you would know that he was just as apposed to Jim Crow laws as he is apposed to the Civil Rights act. One is a form of government forced segregation the other is government forced integration. I own my own business and I am smart enough to know that I won't be in business long if I only service one group of people. I own a business to make money why would I would I discriminate against potential customers of any race? The real answer is I wouldn't and MOST other businesses wouldn't either. Most southern business hated Jim Crow laws for that very reason. Ron Paul would have voted to repeal Jim Crow laws and MOST southern businesses would have supported the repeal of Jim Crow laws.

Get YOUR facts straight, revisionist troll

The notion that "southern businesses would have supported the repeal of Jim Crow laws" is utterly ahistorical and flies in the face of the facts of the entire civil rights struggle. And who are you to tell the oppressed to be patient? Get off my website, cracker.

So Greyhound has the right to put Blacks in the back of the bus? And the Greensboro luncheonette had the right to have a separate counter for Blacks?

You guys are just charming.

You evil, lying, twisted

You evil, lying, twisted f#%*s! You simply LIE about what Dr. Paul said in the video. Some of the PARTIAL quotes that you attribute to him were PARTIAL qoutes that he read from other people. You LIE when you imply that he said that slaves should have bought their freedom. He was referring to ways that other COUNTRIES, not the slaves in them, ended slavery. Indeed, Dr. Paul is correct: the UNcivil war was NOT fought to bring about an end to slavery, but to bring the states that had seceded back into the Union. And you LIE when you refer to the flag behind him as a "Confederate battle flag." It was a flag of the Confederacy. It is no more a "battle flag" than the Stars and Bars of the North was. And there are more instances of your LYING throughout your argument, as well.

Paul-suckers OVERUSE THE UPPER CASE

I don't "LIE" about anything. Paul's words are very clear, and they are up on YouTube for all the world to see.

Paul-suckers are tight-wads

Price just went up to $6. Nobody who has already posted gets to reply without paying. That's how we roll here at World War 4 Report, a wholly owned private enterprise of the World War 4 Report Family of Websites.

Here Comes The War

In the GOP caucuses Ron Paul stood out from his rivals by calling on America to stop interfering in other countries. That's the message I respond to. Maybe Ron Paul is no saint. Maybe he is flawed. Maybe he doesn't like Mexicans as you suggest. I don't care. I just want American troops out of all these foreign countries.

Paul-suckers sell out freedom

So you think its OK to abolish birthright citizenship? Don't call yourself a friend of freedom.

You wanna reply? Six bucks.

What is so wonderful about the Civil War?

Why is the history of the Civil War not open to debate? That is a totalitarian attitude. The Civil War cost at least 600,000 lives. The US government committed war crimes (like Sherman's march). Constitutional rights and the constitutional system were thrown out the window. And in the Civil War certainly didn't solve the country's racial problems as much as it reinforced them for more than century. Meanwhile the rest of world peacefully ended slavery and they don't have the racial problems we still have to this day. Also, a comment about this NewsOne web site. This is a black-only web site. All the columnists for the web site are black. The slogan of the web site explicitly states it is only "for black America". This is racist on its face, but it is socially tolerated whereas a white equivalent would not be.

Paul-suckers don't know their history

Who said the Civil War was great? It sucked. That's why the South shouldn't have started it.

There is nothing intrinsically racist about an African American website. What are you babbling about?

It will cost you six dollars to respond.

Who really started the war?

Was it the south for firing the first shot or was it the north for sending ships with arms and men to supply the fort so they could bombard Charlston? it sounds a lot like the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 and the Iranian crisis of today.

And was it so great to call for troops to invade the south which was the a act that pushed Va.. Nc. And Tenn Into the Confedercy. Think about it. In April of 1861, The slave states were divided. the issue of expanding slavery was settled. The territories were to remain in the U.S. the remaining slave states had less representation in congress. There was an opportunity to free the slaves peacefully in md, nc, va, tenn. Mo. And ky.

Diplomatic pressure could have been applied to the south to free their slaves as was successfully done during the 1980s with South Africa.

I don't think the north did much to avoid that war.

Another Paul-sucker for slavery

So the enslaved should have just been content while the diplomats and politicians worked out some peaceful solution? As if the abolitionists hadn't been struggling for that for generations! Your ignorance is pitiful.

South Africa didn't abolish slavery in the '80s, but apartheid, you genius.

The fact of the South's secession is the clearest evidence that the issue of slavery's expansion wasn't settled! Obviously, the slavocrats did not trust Lincoln to let stand the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

You need to read Lincoln's First Inaugural.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

It will cost you to reply. Our price just went up to $11.

Confederate flag

Only part of the flag appears. Why is that? The state flag of Georgia used to include the confederate colors, so without a full view of the flag, one cannot really know.

Maybe for the same reason the facts are "cropped?"

Paul's point is that 600,000+ did not have to die to end slavery. The Ottoman Empire abolished slavery before the first shot of our civil war was fired. The British Empire also. We are the only country that fought a war over it. Others bought the freedom of their slaves and set them free. What was so radical about that?

Paul had reasons for opposing *parts of* the Civil Rights act.

Paul-suckers can't read, or think

Yes, the Ottoman Empire didn't have a slave-owning class that was ready to fight rather than give up its position. (And that actually isn't quite true, as the Balkan armed revolts that preceded Ottoman abolition had much to do with Constantinople's abduction of youth for military slavery.)

There is no reason to believe the flag in that video is anything other than the Confederate battle flag.

Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act. All the rest is commentary. That's the fact. What part of the below don't you understand?

Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn't have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.

If you are OK with this, we have no interest in giving you a forum. Either get your own website and spew to your heart's content, or pay me for the use of mine.

If you want to reply it will cost you. The price just went up to $7.

Honestly, is this all you

Honestly, is this all you got? I want to hear some SERIOUS dirt on the man! I want to hear him ranting against blacks and advocating killing of mexicans! I want to hear PROOF that the man is crazy. Not him speaking about ways the civil war could have been avoided.

If you can't supply that I don't see any reason to come here any more. UP YOUR GAME!

Paul-suckers can't pay attention

You want to hear him ranting against Blacks? Here you go. Enjoy.

It will cost you seven dollars to reply.

Take off your blinders man.

Take off your blinders man. Paul isn't your typical Republican. There is something bigger going here. Use a little objectivity and you might be able to figure it out......

Far worse than your typical Republican

Even Newt doesn't want to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

Seven dollars to post a reply.

Nice Try....

Nice try but that's not by the good Doctor but instead a man by the name of James B. Powell.

I do want to point out one blatant lie: you kind of lumped the Jim Crow laws in there and said Dr. Paul supports them - he absolutely opposes the Jim Crow laws. In fact he believe these are the only reason the Civil Rights Act was necessary. Furthermore, his opposition to the Civil Rights act is due to it's limiting of private property right. For example, because of the Civil Rights Act a large group of members of the KKK could walk into a restaurant owned and operated by Afican Americans and the owners would be forced to provide service to them even if they were all wearing their white sheets. Do you think that's okay? Maybe your a racist...?

I agree find some real evidence of Dr. Paul being a racist of just give up. Actually, I'll save you the time and just let you in on a little secret; he isn't racist at all. He believes that everyone (no matter the color of their skin) is an important individual to be respected as such in our free society.

Join the Revolution! Restore our Liberty for men, women, and children of all races, religions, and creeds!

Another Paul-sucker for Jim Crow

So, you and Paul don't "support" Jim Crow—you just oppose any move to do anything to get rid of it. Just charming.

Restaurants have the right to impose a dress code (which would presumably include Klan robes!), so spare us that red herring.

Maybe you support the "right" to workplace sexual harassment too.

So the "Good Doctor" didn't write that evil crap that appeared in his newsletter for 15 years, but paid some guy named Powell to do it? So what? It appeared under his name and he must take responsibility for it. Anyway, I thought it was Lew Rockwell.

It will cost you $8 to respond.

The birth right citizenship

The birth right citizenship amendment has been corrupted by the illegals, is time to end birth right citizenship of illegals just like many first world countries have and if you look who gives birth right citizenship only third world countries do .

Paul-suckers show their true colors

OK fine, but spare us this "constitutionalist" jive, freedom-hater.

BTW, ever smoke a joint? Miss a tax return? Jay-walk? You're an "illegal"! Maybe we should take away your citizenship too!

Also, you owe me $11 for that comment. Pay up.

"your game"? denial and capitals aren't a winning tactic

Following Paul followers rants here and elsewhere means witnessing denial at every turn. You can't just start shouting SMEAR when something documented comes out. The guy's a creepy weirdo. None of you, and I mean none, can make a semi-coherent defense of his wacky fringe economics rhetoric. It was like this in 2007 / 2008 and it hasn't changed.

Another creepy thing - besides Paul's overall history - is that obsessed illiterate fan boys teaming up with generic states rights (and, sorry, that always means racist to anyone who's read any US history) and 'solid currency' types (the UFO nuts of amateur capitalist ranting) can actually bring out as many votes as you do.

Paul CLAIMS he'd keep his hands of the domestic security police state. Politicians claim a lot of things while running for office. What he more than likely means is he'd stop the Justice Department from enforcing voter protection. He claims he'd bring the troops home. And then his corporate masters (don't fool yourselves, he's got corporate masters) would say "we make too much money on a big military".

Why don't you clowns get involved with local politics where you live and make fools of yourself in public while the rest of us try to realistically address the problems of running a society.

It's been settled for 150yrs. Get Over it.

The slavery question, is no longer a question it's OVER!!! There are no slaves in the US and NO ONE plans on reversing that. There is however STILL Federal Government intrusions on States rights, and personal freedoms in which the South was right and still is. It has NOTHING to do with race. I don't care who you are, the color of your skin, or the place you worship, You should fear Big Brother and what Washington is doing to this country more than your Bigots real or imagined. Yes they do exist granted but not ALL confederates are bigots, not a majority,not even a LOT. MOST believe in Constitutional Government and what you call revisionist, we call relative, relevant, and unsolved.

Paul-suckers don't know their history

The Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow and hate. All that jive about "state's rights" from the neo-Confederates means their "right" to keep down their Black population. If you don't understand that, either get off my website or pay me to post here.

Seven bucks a pop for Ron-Paul supporters. Yes, I'm discriminating. Hey, it's my private property!

Revisionist History

So if the Civil War was fought to end slavery, why does the Emancipation Proclamation guarantee the southern states their right to own slaves if they would rejoin the union?

Paul-suckers don't know their history

There have been volumes written about it. Read them.

In short:

1. Forgetting about the 13th Amendment, are we?

2. "Why the war was fought" and "the root cause of the war" are two separate notions. Google "political economy."

3. Our price just went up to $8.

Actually...

Actually, the North started the war. By the act of secession, the South became a sovereign nation. The North refused to give up on Fort Sumter, which constituted an act of aggression, and thus an act of war.

Defending one's country isn't an act of war because there has to be a foreign aggression into your land to begin with.

See how that works? Cause and effect?

Yeah.

You are actually an idiot

Even if we are to accept your hideous defense of the Confederacy's illegitimate declaration of "sovereignty" to protect the slave system, you would still be wrong.

Lincoln had for weeks been trying to negotiate a provisioning of the troops under siege at Ft. Sumter. The Confederates would let nothing through, and on April 12, 1861 finally started bombarding the fort.

Get off my website and go read some history. If you want to reply, it will cost you. Our price just went up to $9.

Revisionist History at its Best

Yes, I can see it now. Just before the a ttack on Ft. Sumter, all of the Confederate troops cried, "FOR SLAVERY!!!" as salvos of cannonballs were launched forth toward the Union stockade.

You must be ignorant to believe that the attack on Ft. Sumter's sole purpose was to uphold slavery. The attack was to protect the city of Charleston and all of her citizens who would have surely been killed if Sumter had bombarded them. You say that WE are the ones using a revisionist history? Looks like you are, bud.

Yes, for slavery!

"If we ain't fightin' fer slavery then I'd like to know what we are fightin' fer."

—Nathan B. Forrest, slave-trader and future Confederate general, upon outbreak of war, 1861

"I regard captured negroes as I do other captured property, and not as captured soldiers."

—Gen. Nathan B. Forrest, in wire to Richmond after the Fort Pillow massacre of captured African American Union troops, 1864

See also quotes from Alexander Stephens and Confederate constitution above.

You are an ignoramus. Pay me to post here or go away. Price just went up to $13.

Do Not Comment

The author is trolling for Ron Paul supporters to boost his rankings.

Paul-sucker offers good advice (for a change!)

Yes, please! Go away, all of you! Nothing would make me happier!

Author loves his comment section

I love when authors live on their computer to refute any criticism of their articles. Using derogatory language (suckers) over and over again show that you occupy the intellectual low-ground. Did you bother to watch the hearing with DiLorenzen? The man may have some abhorrent views but he was called to testify on jobs and the economy. On this topic he was impeccable. The Keyensians present at the hearing may not have been racists, but their theories on the economy do not hold water, especially when put up against the logic of DiLorenzen. This world would be a much better place if we could all listen, objectively, to those with whom we may not agree or even like. This happens with Paul: "he doesnt hate muslims enough" so his foreign policy is "kooky". Well look at our own CIA's analysis, Michael Scheurer among others speaks the truth. Our foreign policy should not be dictated by bought congressmen and bought bobbleheads on the TV. We should listen to our military and intelligence who spend lots of money looking into things and should not be dismissed because their conclusions dont make us feel warm and fuzzy.

No, I actually intensely dislike my comments section...

...when it is cluttered up by fools like you. Yes, there is a danger in stooping to debate with you fools and thereby legitimizing your claptrap. But so many people seem to buy your spiel in this dumbed-down age that I feel it is more dangerous to let it go unopposed.

Hey, aren't you double-dipping, Anonymous? I think you owe me ten bucks. Pay up.

Author has many compelling and diverse arguments

Paul is a racist. His supporters are automatically idiots. Look, civil rights wont matter when we have all been stripped of all rights. All but the political elite that is. This is what Paul has spent 40+ years fighting for. Rights for ALL. You may not "lie" in this excerpt, but to lump Paul in with Jim Crow advocates is ignorant at best. He opposed the Civil Rights act for the same reason that he OPPOSED Jim Crow laws. They infringe on property rights. You know what rights are? I guess us free-marketeers are the only ones that care about individual rights but if you would take the time to pull your head out of the sand and trade your insults for reason, I hope that you would realize that the rights Paul espouses are extended to EVERYBODY regardless of race, gender, religion, age, etc. Why say "black people deserve special rights" when you can say "ALL people deserve the SAME rights regardless of race". I know, I know, Im a "sucker". But instead of insulting me, how about defend your position. How can advocating EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL be racist? I will listen to your justification with an open mind, as you should.

Fellow Paulistas! Please dont give this hack any of your money. This seems like a transparent way to inflame Paul supporters (knowing how passionate we are) then bait them into paying him money to derail his circular logic. I doubt he even sincerely believes this tripe, he just wants our "five dollars". Get a real job, oh wait, you probably collect unemployment and/or welfare. "Obamaaaaa, gimme more stuff Obammmmaaaaa. You prooooomised"

"Rights for all"?

Huh? He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act and abolish birthright citizenship!

All WHITE GUYS, you mean!

Pay up or get off my website. $11 per comment for Paul-suckers.

Hey "moderator"/author.

I challenge you to publish even the comments that are difficult for you to rebutt or that make you look bad. There isnt anything inappropriate or inflammatory in my comments, please be man enough to respond. I am looking forward to your rationale.

You can comment all you want...

...if you are willing to pay.

You owe me $11.

The south was right. Anyone

The south was right. Anyone who has studied history in college knows it. Lincoln was an imperialist. The civil war was completely unnecessary. Even though the states had seceded from the nation, they would have eventually rejoined consensually. Wars are really a competition of ideas, and this idea of imperialism came in and slaughtered 625,000 Americans. Now the federal government has so much power, they have literally stolen all of our wealth to the tune of about $50,000 per person. The moment you're born as a citizen, you have this debt.

Aren't you double-dipping, anonymous cracker?

You owe me $11.

What's a Paul-sucker?

You might want to re-think your use of the epithet "Paul-sucker." It appears to be a back-formation from "cocksucker," and the use of it as pejorative reinforces the notion that a cocksucker is a bad thing to be, an idea that is fueled by homophobia and misogyny. I may be misunderstanding the derivation of the term, but "Paul-sucker" isn't particularly clever, either, so maybe it's worth your while to come up with a better insult for the commenters posting pro-Paul messages. Consider this a request from an out-and-proud dicklicker,

I have nothing against cock-suckers

The reference is to gullibility, not fellatio.

That said, if there is anyone who does not deserve to get his dick sucked, it is Ron Paul.

Confederate Flag? Georgia Flag, tard!

The flag is a pre-2001 Georgia flag. The statements made were in regard to the states right to succeed from the Union. Also, Paul states that he agreed with the abolitionist. Since I understand your not keen on American history if you can't differentiate a confederate flag from a Georgia flag then I better define abolitionism for you. Abolitionism was a movement to end slavery.

Paul-suckers can't spell

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that it is a pre-2001 Georgia flag. You are assuming, on no evidence, that the clip was cleverly cropped. And even if it were a Georgia flag, it would make no dif. The stars and bars are still there. File under "grasping at straws."

The word is "secede," not "succeed," you genius.

Justifications for war

I believe the message Paul is trying to deliver in this video is one of unneccessary wars. True, he is preaching to people who are likely racist and have a political opinion totally separate from
Paul's. I think Paul is trying to plant the seed of non-interventionism in these people's minds by invoking subject matter they feel strongly about.

In Iraq, the official reason for invasion was weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the war, the official reason was liberation of the Iraqi people. In either case, alternate rationale was used to justify actions which were tied to business interests instigating warfare.

The Civil War did result in the end of legal slavery. Slavery is a terrible institutiton which no liberty-minded individual could defend. In this video, Paul makes the case that perhaps slavery could have been ended without terrible bloodshed and also that perhaps the driving factor for the war involved alternative interests other than slavery. In any case, the end result is that the political agreement of secession was effectively made void through the Civil War.

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes in or says. I don't look for moral agreement in a federal political candidate. I do agree with the concept that our nation should not be engaging in wars if they are at all avoidable. If Paul has to spin racist ideologies to convince certain segments of the population that war is not the answer, so be it.

Another Paul-sucker for racism

"If Paul has to spin racist ideologies to convince certain segments of the population that war is not the answer, so be it."

Did you really just write that?

Oh my fucking God.

Hmm . . .

His points about the civil war not being just about slavery are true - including competing economic models. Several european powers had abolished slavery prior to the united states and there is a good chance that it may have fallen on it's own volition as the economic system transformed. Yes, while the south may have been trying to hold onto this vestige of an older capitalist model and we can't glorify the south's position, it is equally erroneous to claim the mainstream revisionist perspective and say that slavery was the sole cause of the civil war. Not sure this makes one racist or simple seeing other parts of history that are not really talked about as much in mainstream discourse. As an aside - why wouldn't it be as offensive for someone to be speaking in front of an American flag? One could make the case that the symbolic significance could easily trump that of the confederate one in terms of race and class exploitation.

Another Paul-sucker for slavery

"Its own volition"? There is absolutely nothing to suggest that, and even if a case could be made—what right have you to tell the enslaved to be patient?

Personally, I do find the American flag offensive, but its legacy is mixed, with many folks seeing it as a symbol of equal rights and freedom. The Confederate flag is only a symbol of racism and slavery.

Aren't you double-dipping, Anonymous? Pay me my $11 or get off my website.

Slavery

You're acting as if slavery was abolished and everyone lived happily ever after. There is more slavery today than there ever was.

How can we open our massive consumer market to a country that has to put suicide nets around its factories? It's insane. We have to stop talking about the civil war and start talking about the now.

Politicians are working against the welfare of the people because they are bought by, and beholden to, special interests (mainly multi-nationals). It makes no sense to vote for anyone that has already been bought.

Yes, slavery

No we aren't acting that way. We have aggressively covered the slave-like conditions in the Chinese factories that make our consumer goods. But you are acting like we can trust a man who makes light of chattel slavery to offer solutions to contemporary bondage. And Paul's economic policies (eliminating labor and environmental standards, protective tariffs, etc.) would make everything worse for workers, both at home and around the world.

Wake up!!!

In 1868, the United States

In 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

Paul-suckers are repetitive

150 years of case law say you are wrong. Your views on this matter are about as relevant as those of flat-earthers are to the science of geology. You or one of your foolish friends already made that bogus point. Are you double-dipping? If so, you owe me money. Price just went up to $12.

Quit bitching for money

You come across pathetic! Make an argument and hope others who agree donate. I agreed with you, until you started demanding they pay in order to respond, ridiculous.

Bitching for money

We aren't really "bitching for money," if you haven't figured that out. It is tactic to a.) call out the Paulistas on their bogus free-market horsecrap, and b.) cut down on their relentless clutter, since they are all tight-wads. This item is already way too much of a free-for-all.

Joke?

It's hard to tell if this article is serious. Spooner was an advocate of secession AND an opponent of slavery. In other words, the North had every right to end slavery, but it had no right to force states to remain in the "Union." To say he was on the side of the North is a laughable oversimplification. You have to think beyond what you were taught in 5th grade. Clearly the author is unable to understand this position, or he is parodying those unable to do so.

Spooner said that compensated emancipation would be better than war, which is exactly what Paul argued in his speech. Considering that 2% of the population, 15 million in today's terms, died because of Lincoln's war, were peaceful alternatives really such a bad idea?

It should also be noted that Spooner and other radical abolitionists were considered "cranks" in their time. Those who challenge the status quo are always smeared with mindless cliches. To the establishment attack artists, anyone arguing for states' rights must, by definition, be a slave holding Neoconfederate. Ron Paul gave a speech in front of a Confederate flag -- HE MUST BE A RACIST!!

Idiot or liar?

I provided documentation for my claim, including Spooner's own words! You make flat and empty assertions. You have no right to invoke the legacy of the great abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who was against all that you and Ron Paul stand for.

Pay me to comment or go away. Price just went up to $14.

Ron Paul is Right

Your the Crank . This isn't Soviet Russia .
Just as Every Citizen has the right to relinquish their citizenship , every state has the right to succeed .

Paul-suckers can't spell

Learn the difference between "succeed" and "secede," you reactionary illiterate troll.

State's Rights and Nullification Argument

Its kind of hard to condemn the use of State's rights when the first use happened in the North, prior to the CW. The free states did not want to support the runaway slave laws.
I believe that you simply choose to be obtuse in understanding Paul's lack of support for the CRA. He supported all measures that removed institutionalized racism. He opposes the use of federal power to legislate morality. Its that simple.
I also believe its hard to condemn a man for slavery who has done as much as he has for minorities. He is quite obviously not racist, no matter the attempts to paint him with such a brush.

I won't charge you for this wisdom although any money you invest would certainly be an improvement.

Paul-suckers don't know their history

First, until the Dred Scott decision, it was a matter of free states adhering to the laws of slave states, not federal law. Second, we aren't legalistic didacts, we are on the side of freedom. We're all for state's rights when it comes to medical marijuana. But not Jim Crow.

Third, what does it mean to be "for" civil rights in some abstract sense if you are against any effort to enforce them?

So Greyhound has the right to put Blacks in the back of the bus? And the Greensboro luncheonette had the right to have a separate counter for Blacks?

You guys are just charming.

No candidate is perfect.

No candidate is perfect. Some are crazier than others. However, the president is not a king and cannot do what he pleases. Most of Paul's more radical policies will never come to pass due to a gridlocked congress. At the very least, we will get out of all the senseless wars and bring the troops home. That won't happen with Obama, Gingrich, or Romney.

Neo-Nazis? Hey, it's all good!

"Not perfect"? Repealing the civil rights act, overturning Roe v. Wade, abolishing birthright citizenship, disbanding the EPA and selling the national parks to Exxon is "not perfect"?

Ron Paul would bring the troops home from Afghanistan, alright—to wage a race war in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston.

No thanks.

The revisionist argument

The revisionist argument only works if you disregard the emancipation proclamation and everything that came afterwards. To be sure, had Lincoln not emancipated the slaves he might well be regarded as a monster, not a hero - after all, both north and south recognised slavery when the war began, and before Lincoln emancipated the slaves a number of European powers considered providing aid to the Confederate cause on the basis that so long as the North tolerated slavery it has no right to prevent southern states seceding.

Freeing the slaves, however, fundamentally alters the character of the entire conflict. It ceased to be about an abstract principle of states rights and became about the dignity and freedom of mankind. The Civil War put an end to the notion that slavery was merely a difference of opinion between states.

Thank you!!!

You mean, not everyone who reads my website is a reactionary idiot!?

What a breath of fresh air! I want to send you flowers!

From "A New Economic View of

From "A New Economic View of American History" by Jeremy Atack and Peter Passell.

"Goldin and Lewis's final aggregate estimate of the cost of the war, $6.6 billion, amounts to $206 for every American in 1861--almost twice the average annual per capita consumption before the war. This same amount invested in productive resources at a safe 6 percent annual return could have provided each of the thirty-two million then-living Americans with an annual bonus of about 10 percent of 1860 consumption expenditures forever.

The amount of $6.6 billion would have been enough to buy the freedom of all the slaves (at 1860 market value), to give each slave family a forty-acre farm and a mule, and still have left $3.5 billion for reparations payments to the ex-slaves in lieu of one hundred years of back wages. The South's losses alone ($3.3 billion) would have been sufficient to cover compensated emancipation, land and even the mules. Unfortunately no one was sufficiently prescient in 1860 to understand how expensive the war would really be."

Revisionist garbage

1. The slave-holders showed no disposition to part with their "property."

2. Why should they have been compensated for illegitimate "property"?

3. The abolitionists had been struggling for a generation at least to eradicate slavery by legalistic means, and were barred at every turn by the slavocracy.

You don't know your history. Go away.

This item is now closed for comments

This website is not going to serve as a platform for Confederacy-nostalgist propaganda. Our purpose is to warn progressives away from Ron Paul, not to legitimize reactionary cranks with "debate." All you fools can go get your own websites and diss me there to your hearts' content. Thanks for the hits, I think I made a few bucks off you guys anyway!

Adios.

Popular content