Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 85779

Ron Paul has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.

Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate, and proud member of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which has been labeled as a neo-Confederate organization. In the video he claims that the North should have paid to buy slaves from southern slave owners to avoid the war, rather than the South renouncing slavery. Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861.

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.

Ron Paul, NewsOne 83 Comments [1/27/2012 4:23:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 35
Submitted By: Kevin Klawitter
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
grippicam

Here we go again. Ron Paul is not Pro slavery, but he was against the civil rights act. Not for the reasons the author would have you believe though. The only reason he was against that act, is because it strips away property rights from the establishments owners. As much as it stinks that someone could discriminate against someone for any reason, and not let them into their establishment, if it is private property, it is protected under the constitution that the owner of that property can refuse anyone on that property they choose. He was not against the Civil Rights Act because of Race, He was against it because it is unconstitutional. Of course when you take the comments out of context, you can make it sound any way you want. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics not a "Neo-Confederate organization" as the author would have you believe. And so what if the south started the war? Dr. Paul has only stated that the war could have been avoided, but does again, NOT side with slavery, but rights under the constitution. You can search for yourself, Politico even recently did a story on the fact that Ron Paul was against Jim Crow laws. “The principle of private property has been undermined, and it was started back then,” Paul said. “But they can’t twist that and say I favored Jim Crow laws.” This entire article is propaganda, and you should be ashamed. Even your lies are bad.

1/27/2012 6:37:41 PM

Skyknight

I know I was surprised about that element. The von Mises Institute, neo-Confederate? When was this, again? Although, what DO we know about NewsOne?

1/27/2012 6:47:51 PM

Agahnim

Fuck you, Wrong Paul.

1/27/2012 6:56:38 PM

= POPE =

The government makes a distinction between private and commercial properties. Ron Paul doesn't seem to get this. If you have a thing to sell, you cannot refuse to sell it to someone on the basis of gender, old age, or race. Some things are defined as needing parental consent. You work for the government about 1/3 of the time anyway, so refusing goods or service would cut into their piece of the pie.

1/27/2012 7:59:14 PM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

"The only reason he was against that act, is because it strips away property rights from the establishments owners. As much as it stinks that someone could discriminate against someone for any reason, and not let them into their establishment, if it is private property, it is protected under the constitution that the owner of that property can refuse anyone on that property they choose. He was not against the Civil Rights Act because of Race, He was against it because it is unconstitutional."
Really? Unconstitutional? On what grounds is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

"The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics not a "Neo-Confederate organization" as the author would have you believe."
I direct you to the Southern Poverty Law Center which demonstrates that it is a bit more than a libertarian think tank.

1/27/2012 8:20:05 PM

Tempus

@Rabbit of Caerbannog: From your link:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises. It publishes seven journals, has printed more than 100 books, and offers scholarships, prizes, conferences and a major library at its Auburn, Ala., offices.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.

Institute scholars also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation.


Wow. Just...wow.

1/27/2012 8:53:44 PM

Fpqxz

LOL @ all the butthurt Paultards in this thread.

Just give up, guys. Ron Paul is a crazy old man who will never be president of anything.

1/27/2012 11:38:52 PM

Stormwarden

Didn't know Ron Paul did the vertical lombada with Ayn Rand. Seriously and honestly, the Confederates lost that war more than a century ago. Get over it.

1/28/2012 12:28:44 AM

ScrappyB

@Tempus

Holy crap. If that doesn't sound like the views of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, I don't know what does. Next thing you know, they'll want to start their own nation under the ocean.

1/28/2012 1:00:27 AM

aaa

Why are people still wanting to bring that failed slave state back? It's neither relevant nor intelligent. All you would end up with is severely weakened USA and a new banana republic within it's previously held territory.

1/28/2012 3:44:41 AM

michael3ov

@Agrf

Yes, yes the civil war was fought over states rights. This is the typical pro confederate line. The obvious question to this would be, states rights to do what?

1/28/2012 5:39:26 AM

michael3ov

@Arath

Okay the war was about states rights.

What exactly were those states rights that the south was fighting for?

You can weasel your way out of what the true issue was but the fact is the states rights line came about as a way to help the south save face after their defeat and the shame of slavery. This is thoroughly discussed in U.S. history. We needed the south to recover quickly after the war and the perception that the south fought to keep blacks enslaved was a hindrance to reconstruction and the re-uniting of the Union.

1/28/2012 5:44:52 AM

michael3ov

@Arath

"Wait, never mind, forgot. Liberals are always right. The rest of us are simply not "enlightened".

Finally you say something completely true.

1/28/2012 5:47:13 AM

cdcdrr

Oh boy...

The Confederacy was wrong on almost everything, including slavery. First, they claimed that the US constitution does provide for states the right to secede, but with the same breath they deny it to their own states in their own constitution. Second, they insist it is a matter of states rights, but despite how slavery was a hot button topic then, they deny their own states the freedom to abolish it should they so choose by enshrining it in their constitution under a property right. They also conveniently ignore their own history of using the Union federal government to enforce such things as the Fugitive Slave Act, the Gag Rule, the attempted annexation of Cuba, and Bleeding Kansas. Third, they make Lincoln out to be a tyrant, even though Lincoln was willing to compromise for the sake of national unity, the South was not and immediately declared independence because the opposing candidate won fair and square despite having been prevented from being on Southern ballots. When Confederate president Davis ordered Fort Sumter attacked, he initiated the following war and justified a military response from Lincoln, which he got.

Mr. Paul, I don't hate you any more than I do other republican candidates. But you seem to have a nasty tendency to push the envelope on matters of racial justice and history. I don't know if you secretly hold racist views, but you're really not doing yourself any favours with this.

1/28/2012 6:04:13 AM

Reynardine

In fact, I looked up the Ludwig von Mises institute. Their racism, which I daresay is noteworthy, pales in comparison to their Randian social Darwinism and their extremes of misogyny. Nor are they wanting in anti-Semitism. I'm sure Dr. Paul is a proud member.

P.S. After posting, I noticed one of you put up a whole tasty excerpt, q.v. You see how Rand was brought up (Acqua Buddha, Acqua Buddha, let's curb-stomp us some little women). And why *was* he named Rand?

1/28/2012 6:21:33 AM

cdcdrr

-Double post-

1/28/2012 7:57:23 AM

Pacal

I assume Ron Paul believes that to some extent the Civil War was fought over "states rights".

The pre-Civil War "states rights" views of many Southerners were one sided and self serving to an large extent. What is amounted to was that Federal interference of any kind against slavery was a violation of "states rights" but Federal interference for slavery was required and demanded and part of the "states rights" they defended.

Thus the Fugitive Slave Laws which mandated Federal interfernce in states was a good thing. This included giving Blacks accused of being slaves fewer rights than other defendants. Northern personal Liberty Laws, passed by Northern States to give more legal protection to those accussed of being Slaves in the North were deemed unacceptable interference and the demand was by many Southerners for Federal interference to quash those laws. The same was true of the demand for a Federal slave code and for the belief that territorial legislatures could not do anything against slavery. And if they did the Federal government was mandated to put a stop to it. Further most Northern states had abolished slavery to such an extent that in most Northern States there was no right of transit of slaves. A slave who entered was automatically freed. This was viewed as terrible by many Southerners and it was thought that the Federal government was mandated to impose the right of transit of slave property on the Northern states.

So much for "states rights". This was an obvious onesided view.

I have serious doubts about the view that the election of Abraham Lincoln provided an excusable justification for sucession, after all 7 Southern states succeded and formed the Confederacy even before Lincoln was sworn in as President!

1/28/2012 8:29:29 AM



@ Rob aka Mediancat

Sorry, but your version is the current poplular revisionist history. Do you really think the average white Northerner of that time was willing to go to war and die to end slavery? You might want to read a bit about how many Union soldiers treated the slaves as they moved through the South.

There were major economic/trade issues at the heart of the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln
himself stated that if he could resolve those problems without freeing the slaves, he would do it.

Hard lobbying by abolitionsts who convinced him that their support would help him gain overall support from the public to go to war was the catalyst for his move to free the slaves.

1/28/2012 8:37:33 AM



However, the poor thing won't realise how much he will have to backpedal to get the black vote(or Hispanic, for that matter)

1/28/2012 9:09:28 AM

J. James

@1369658

Yes, I understand that it's not just racism that motivates imbeciles to fly the Confederate flag. It's also those other things which are also rooted in racism. So it's all basically the same thing. These people obviously didn't fight in the civil war, so why feel "butthurt" that it lost? Because it was THEIR SIDE. The WHITE side. They identify with the Confederacy based on race and political alignment. End of story.

Look at Germany. A modern German would be beaten and JAILED for flying the Nazi swastika in the manner of southern conservative retards. People recognize that neo-Nazism and neo-confederacy are the same goddamn thing, but one is stigmatized and one isn't.

Don't believe that the two are one in the same?

Look at your average skinhead for .5 seconds. Then get back to me on that.

1/28/2012 10:24:34 AM

Skyknight

And then there's what the institute's namesake once wrote to Ayn Rand herself (http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf):

I am not a professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I enjoyed very much reading "Atlas Shrugged" and that I am full of admiration for your masterful construction of the plot.

But “Atlas Shrugged” is not merely a novel. It is also—or may I say: first of all—a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled “intellectuals” and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devastating exposure of the “moral cannibals,” the “gigolos of science” and of the “academic prattle” of the makers of the “anti-industrial revolution.” You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.

If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, it still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State.

I warmly congratulate you and I am looking forward with great expectations to your future work.


{sigh] VERY much a social Darwinist. If only he could have been more like his younger brother Richard...


1/28/2012 11:40:00 AM

cdcdrr

There were major economic/trade issues at the heart of the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln
himself stated that if he could resolve those problems without freeing the slaves, he would do it.


Preventing the Civil War does not have to weaken Abe's abolitionist credit. He was not radical about it, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have freed all the slaves if he could. Many believed at the time slavery would live or die on the question of its expansion, and containing it to just the existing slave states would have demoralized its proponents while abolitionism would continue to surge. Lincoln could afford to maintain the Union through compromise as the practice of slavery was dying out. Ergo he could be assured of victory in the long run, and freedom would come for the slaves. Unless the South changed the entire dynamic...

When the South seceded anyway, there was not much reason to pander to the southern states and solve those economic issues. The border states that remained loyal weren't pushed around to keep their support, as they were isolated and abolitionists were stronger for it. But the rebel states had lost their vote and their slaves could be freed with impunity, which Lincoln did not hesitate to do. Keeping the United States whole would have been an overriding priority in the face of multiple great powers in Europe contesting influence over the Americas. But that does not mean his opposition to slavery was insincere.


1/28/2012 12:21:46 PM

cdcdrr

Sorry, but your version is the current poplular revisionist history. Do you really think the average white Northerner of that time was willing to go to war and die to end slavery? You might want to read a bit about how many Union soldiers treated the slaves as they moved through the South.
...
Hard lobbying by abolitionsts who convinced him that their support would help him gain overall support from the public to go to war was the catalyst for his move to free the slaves.


You make it sound as if the abolitionist movement wasn't widespread in the North in one sentence, but assert they were influential and could rally a nation to war in another. That sounds inconsistent to me.

Also, the legal ramifications of the Civil War helped push the effort to emancipate slaves. Freeing the slaves was not used as the casus belli that galvanized the North. The Union had been attacked at Fort Sumter by the rebel Confederates and was in danger of becoming a second-rank power in an imperialistic world in which "a house divided cannot stand". Southern aggression, national honour and the indevisability of the nation were the words under which the Union moved on a war footing. That this spurred on the emancipation of slaves was a welcome benefit and a useful arguement to placate the popular opinion at home and in Europe.

Lincoln may have had a shrewd, even devious side to him. But it was for a good cause, with justified means.

1/28/2012 12:24:44 PM

TheReasonator

Not important.
Ultimately, Ron Paul is the best candidate to be nominated by the Republican Party.

It would force Obama to more deeply discuss the overexpansion of the US military and to make concessions more on the side of peace, whereas running against any other Republican he would have to make concessions to the imperialists.

I support Obama, but I also support that Obama run against Ron Paul.

1/28/2012 2:16:04 PM

Canama

And once again, a libertarian shows why I hate them so much. You would not believe how common this argument is among them.

1/28/2012 8:13:46 PM
1 2 3 4