Ron Paul: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

There are definitely times during Ron Paul's Meet The Press interview where you wonder how it is that Paul got to me the protest candidate while Russert is the voices of sober-minded sensibleness:

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?

REP. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, "You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war." But presidents don't have the authority to go to war.

Of course, Iran also lacks a land border with Israel so unless their uranium enrichment program winds up leading to the development of a teleportation device (or, more precisely, the Heisenberg compensator you'd need to make it work) we probably don't need to worry. On the other hand, though, you get this:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.[...]

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

Now Paul is right to say that this is just an area where libertarian ideology and white supremacist ideology just so happens to overlap, but there you have it -- overlap
with white supremacist ideology. And then there's this:

MR. 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."

REP. 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..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. 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.

Obviously, yes, there were better ways to end slavery. That's why Abraham Lincoln didn't run on a platform that said "let's have a bloody civil war!" Rather, his idea was to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and try to nudge the country in the direction of compensated emancipation. The South, though, decided that rather than abide by the results of the election, they would secede from the country and establish a new herrenvolk democracy committed to slavery uber alles. They, not Lincoln, put resolution of the slavery issue through the political process out of reach.

Photo by Flickr user Jayel Aheram used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Right. And, you know, the "War of Northern Aggression" rhetoric aside, it was the South that began hostilities against the North.

Posted by Freddie | December 23, 2007 9:19 PM

Yes, and the civil war obviously didn't have anything to do with tariffs imposed on behalf of northern industrialists to protect their industries which resulted in counter-tariffs against agricultural exports decimating the economy of the south. See? Corporatism (fascism) and federal meddling in trade matters, picking winners and losers, carries no consequences. That is, if you get to write the elementary school history books.

Posted by John from Warren, MI | December 23, 2007 9:28 PM

I'm amazed that the author of this post considers himself a sufficient expert on libertarian philosophy to say it overlaps with white supremacy. It does nothing of the kind.

Why don't you do some more research Matthew?

Posted by Pablo Escobar | December 23, 2007 9:30 PM

Actually, the civil war was fought to stop secession, not to stop slavery. Lincoln himself said that if he could have kept the union together by keeping slavery, he would have done so.

Even that, in my opinion, marks him a tyrant. Secession should be a legal option.

Posted by RickH | December 23, 2007 9:31 PM

Actually, the civil war was fought to stop secession, not to stop slavery. Lincoln himself said that if he could have kept the union together by keeping slavery, he would have done so.

"The Civil War wasn't about slavery" is one of the great lies of our time. People say it often, I guess because it makes them seem iconoclastic. Lookit-- the secession only happened because of a dispute over slavery. The root cause of the rift that lead to civil war was slavery, which makes the war about slavery.

Posted by Freddie | December 23, 2007 9:34 PM

I'd love for you to show me where in the constitution is allows the government to regulate what kinds of people may enter and use someone's "private" establishment.
Race aside, If I don't want people entering my establishment that are perhaps over 6 foot, why should I not be allowed to do that? The Market regulates this, if I restrict anyone from entering my business, someone will open a similar business to capitalize on my restrictiveness.

Civil War - Paul didn't talk about this, but a large part of that war was fought not over slavery, but over the placement of central banks. Slavery was the issue the media focuses on.

Our once great nation will be lost forever if this election is not taken by Ron Paul.

Posted by Michael Cathcart | December 23, 2007 9:36 PM

Absurd article.
If you did any research, the emancipation of slavery occurred during the Civil War, not before it. The civil war was based on the South doing free trade with other countries because the north was using tariffs to destroy the southern economy. As for Ron Paul's assessment, I agree, we should have purchased them and freed them and subsequently banned slavery from ever occurring again. This is what every single other nation did and if we had done it that way, we wouldn't have the prejudice we have even today. It certainly would have cost less than the war, which was the deadliest in our entire history, losing nearly a million men alone.

Posted by Michael 21yo | December 23, 2007 9:44 PM

Michael Cathcart writes: "Our once great nation will be lost forever if this election is not taken by Ron Paul."

When Paul's supporters make statements like that it reinforces the idea that he's running a cult, not a campaign. Similar claims are made by LaRouchies. Ron Paul is a political candidate. He's not a messiah. There are no messiahs.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 9:45 PM

I'd love for you to show me where in the constitution is allows the government to regulate what kinds of people may enter and use someone's "private" establishment.

This was litigated in the 1960s. The Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to promote and regulate interstate commerce, allows the federal government to ban racial discimination in all public accommodations, including small ones such as Ollie's Barbecue (the subject of one of the cases).

If blacks in the north knew that they faced Jim Crow segregation when traveling to the south, they'd stay away and interstate commerce would suffer, at least a little. So the Court held. It's weak, but necessary, I think, if society was to begin to extend full civil rights to black people.

In a technical sense, Paul is right that some business owners lost some small measure of control over their property. But capitalism seems to have survived OK since 1964.

Posted by Hal | December 23, 2007 9:48 PM

Hal:

you have misdecribed the Commerce Clause power.

It has nothing to do with what effect Jim Crow would have on interstate commerce, it has to do with Congress' power to regulate those activities that effect interstate commerce.

Posted by Armando | December 23, 2007 9:53 PM

Here's what I love about the Ron Paul movement: he's sparking interest in discussions far above the fray of the horse race.

The constitutionality of the income tax and the IRS, the validity of the federal reserve, fiat currency, the consequences of foreign policy blowback...

It's an elevated diatribe and welcome development. Imagine what this country would learn (relearn?) about itself in four years of a Ron Paul presidency.

I think it's high time for a little introspection now that we've managed to piss off even our allies in our unbridled pursuit of Pax Americana.

Posted by Eric N. | December 23, 2007 9:58 PM

Ron Paul is weak on Israel, IMO - But as someone with Paulish sympathies , it was refreshing to hear Russert blow the chance of nailing by asking a stupid question. Iran invade Israel? Even Bibi would not try to advance such an absurd speculation.

But did anyone beside me notice Russert expose his own hollow - mind via his faux-tough gotach question aboout the exact number of troops we have overseas?

Paul just batted that dumb little statistic away - stats are for clerks, not leaders. Russert is hopelessly bougeois.

Posted by Comment | December 23, 2007 10:02 PM

Here's something I found very interesting about today's interview on Meet the Press. Paul was asked about his support for amending the constitution to deny citizenship to illegal immigrant children born in the United States. His response was, and I quote, "It's not unconstitutional to amend the constitution." Well, yeah. But it seems really glib in the context of a campaign that has elevated constitutionality to the level of fetish, and I think it demonstrates the strains in any originalist argument. Paul is a strict originalist, except when he favors policies that don't support that reading of the constitution. Which is fine, except that, again, he's made himself, and his supporters have made him, a stalwart defender of the constitution as currently written. It was a weird moment.

Posted by Freddie | December 23, 2007 10:05 PM

Thanks for the post, Matt. I consider myself a centrist voter(right now i'm deciding between McCain and Obama, i know not much overlap but they are candidates I can trust to lead). I found myself drawn to Paul for a second but something about him (and his supporters) makes me think he is batshit insane. like a conservative LaRouche. This post and the comments about slavery, civil rights, as well as Paul's economic ideas (protectionist trade, gold standard) have convinced me to never vote for him in ANY circumstance.

Posted by gunther | December 23, 2007 10:06 PM

Hal, sorry but I disagree. You said, "But capitalism seems to have survived OK since 1964." - I say that CORPORATISM has flourished since the civil war and expanded even faster since 1964. The strength and vitality of the free market has been successful IN SPITE OF corporatism and the warfare/welfare state.

Not only is using the commerce clause 'weak', but it shows one of the few weaknesses in our beloved constitution: we need it clarified and re-ratified once and for all with: very clear and explicit language, and with secession being a legal and lawful endeavor of any state as has to be logically - how could a state ratify the constitution WITHOUT retaining the right of secession? The commerce clause has justified everything from intervention into every farmer's business, to welfare, to... you name it. It has provided the foundation for the undoing of the entire constitution and this country. Gee, my selling lemonade on the corner does have some, minute, effect on commerce elsewhere - we need to regulate it! Logically, even this ridiculous example follows the logic necessary for the commerce clause to be used in the manner it does!

Posted by LPM | December 23, 2007 10:07 PM

There are many ways - none right, none wrong - to say what the Civil War was about.

A plausible case can be made that it was not about slavery and one can quote Lincoln to that affect.

But it was about slavery - indirectly. In European press at the time, this was quite clear - That's why the 'left' - broadly speaking - was for the North, while reactionary elements and mercantile interests favored the south.

A great movie is yet to be made about some of the covert operations that foreign powers conducted on behalf of either side and with various Indian tribes.

Posted by Comment | December 23, 2007 10:08 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus writes "There are no messiahs."

You can read whatever you want into my statement, but the fact remains. Any Democrat that we elect will keep us in perpetual war, and move us towards full Socialism. Any Republican, save for Paul, will keep us in perpetual war, and continue to allow for mass entitlement programs to crash the economy. Besides the greatest threat to our country is the devaluing of our currency, and there is only one candidate talking about that fact.

---------------------------------

Hal writes "But capitalism seems to have survived OK since 1964."

That's completely untrue, our country has never had a true capitalism, at one time were pretty close to being a true capitalist nation, but that was over a century ago. You might say that The American Capitalist brand has survived since 1964, but that would also be false. Our country has been taken over by those who despise free markets. The market place has gone completely by the way-side. We now have a quasi - socialist nation, although that has been brewing since FDR began his rule. I would contend today we are far closer to socialism than capitalism.

The United States Congress just passed a bill to regulate the type of light bulbs we may use. Im sure the founders foresaw a time when the government would decide what equipment we may use for our private lighting concerns.

If this were all a movie, I cant decide if it would be a tragedy or a farce?

Posted by Michael Cathcart | December 23, 2007 10:09 PM

"... you have it -- overlap with white supremacist ideology ..."

Nonsense. Ron Paul and every libertarian believe that every human being has exactly the same rights, no matter their skin color. We all supported full civil rights for everyone, which does not include the right to enter anyone's private property without their consent.
Government can't change minds by force and it should never violate individual rights, including the right of every person to control their own private property.

Posted by Westmiller | December 23, 2007 10:09 PM

These comments make Matt's point clear: it is bizarre for liberals to support Ron Paul. The problem for liberals is that even though you could say that there is a unity between Paul's pre-Lincolnite vision of the United States and his non-imperialist foreign policy - which is sorta like Russell Kirk's, - still, that foreign policy does cut through the current web of complete crap that is woven about the subject. And no liberal candidate seems to have the courage to make Paul's case on liberal terms - and it is not hard to make on liberal terms. McGovern did it quite well - a reference which makes the Dem consultants groan, as they like to pretend it was McGovern's weakness on defense, rather than Johnson's cold war aggressiveness, that ushered in the age of Republicans. So the lesson of Hubert Humphrey's loss is forgotten, and instead of building a constituency and a media discourse against continuing to be a warmaniac nation, you get the infinite compromising that leads, again and again, to Humphrey like defeats.

Posted by roger | December 23, 2007 10:12 PM

The article brings up some very good points, and I think the comments have spawned a conversation worth having. That being said, I'm a little confused as to why Matthew Yglesias isn't coming out to support his points and defend himself from the criticism he has received.

Here are some things I would like to point out:

1) "Now Paul is right to say that this is just an area where libertarian ideology and white supremacist ideology just so happens to overlap, but there you have it -- overlap
with white supremacist ideology."

Unfortunately Mr. Yglesias, freedom overlaps with a lot of things the vast majority wouldn't necessarily agree with or tolerate. That being said, controversial and hateful representations of America are allowed the same freedom as our more noble citizens. It's when members of those groups impose on, or have any affect on, another individuals personal property that the problem becomes a legal matter that requires government intervention.

Signed,

Crazy Ron Paul Supporter John

Posted by Crazy Ron Paul Supporter John | December 23, 2007 10:15 PM

gunther...

care to explain protectionist trade? when did paul say that he wants "protectionist trade"?

Please research before making absurd claims.

And it is totally irrational to think that paper can be money. Just keep printing paper and think that it has value. I think the FED and their associates have sucessfuly brainwashed people into thinking that Gold standards is bad.

Posted by LOLOLO | December 23, 2007 10:16 PM

The Civil War was not fought because of slavery... hooray for revisionist history.

Posted by LD | December 23, 2007 10:16 PM

Ron did ok, but I don't know that he picked up more than his base. He needs to start talking about the high price of gas, high credit card rates, high price of food; how banks are taking back our homes and cars. Go Ron; fourth party please. Hopefully Mike Bloomberg gets in, then Rudy and Hillary are the other candidates; Ron might have then a real hope; as would the country; needs a real Veep. One last thing; with the Constitution hanging by a thread; Ron means there is hope again in America; the message is not really Ron; it is the Constitution.

Posted by Kyle | December 23, 2007 10:16 PM

Michael Cathcart:

"The Market regulates this, if I restrict anyone from entering my business, someone will open a similar business to capitalize on my restrictiveness"

But in fact the Market did not regulate this, which is why the act had to be passed in the first place. I really don't understand libertarians absolute faith in the Market to solve all problems, even in cases where it's so utterly clear that it failed.

Posted by mad6798j | December 23, 2007 10:18 PM

For the sake of argument let's assume that the North did not fight the civil war to free the slaves.

By what justification could the North invade the South upon their secession?

Just curious.

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 10:19 PM

you have misdecribed the Commerce Clause power. It has nothing to do with what effect Jim Crow would have on interstate commerce, it has to do with Congress' power to regulate those activities that effect interstate commerce.

Now THAT is some expert hair-splitting! Admittedly correct.

A few things should be noted:

1. It was also understood that Jim Crow laws would, themselves, affect interstate commerce - black people would be less likely to travel if there wouldn't be as many hotels available, etc.

2. The Civil Rights Act also possibly could have passed muster under the 14th Amendment, bypassing the whole Commerce Clause business. Congress thought the Commerce Clause was a safer bet.

3. Ron Paul is advocating a property rights regime under which one has the right to hold an establishment open to the public except for certain races. In Ron Paul's America, it would be perfectly legal for Denny's to hang a big "Whites Only" sign outside their restaurant. That alone should preclude Paul from being taken seriously. He is an advocate for an idiosyncratic and retrograde conception of property which there is no good reason to adopt. Property rights are what we decide they are, and there's no reason in hell why we ought to decide that they include the right to discriminate.

Posted by Jason C. | December 23, 2007 10:24 PM

"By what justification could the North invade the South upon their secession?"

Well, if you ignore the power of the government to battle an insurrection, which is referenced in the constitution, you could always go with the fact that the South attacked the a United States military base.

Posted by mad6798j | December 23, 2007 10:26 PM

Secession wasn't about slavery? Really? Someone forgot to tell South Carolina. In its Declaration of Secession, South Carolina mentioned slavery or slaves 18 times. The document is replete with hte issue of slavery. Tariffs, taxes, and other economic issues were not mentioned once.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Posted by Kent from Waco | December 23, 2007 10:28 PM

The revisionists would tell you that it has to do with tariffs, and corporatism, and something something LINCOLN WAS A TYRANT.

But even if we put slavery aside, the Confederates did seize Fort Sumter, U.S. property. And the federal government was probably justified in getting it back. So let's just call it the War of Fort Sumter and it'll be even.

As for Ron Paul- has anyone seen him and Ross Perot in the same room at once? Are you so sure this isn't a Batman/Bruce Wayne sort of thing?

Posted by Quietus | December 23, 2007 10:31 PM

Lest we forget, the South also methodically restricted the power of blacks to open businesses. (Sen. Eastland publicly regretted not going further than that: "Our big mistake was letting 'em get driver's licenses so they could get out of the state.")

"Separate but equal" might conceivably (if very awkwardly) worked, as the Court apparently hoped it would in "Plessy vs. Ferguson" -- except that the reason white Southerners wanted the blacks to be Separate was precisely because they hated them, which of course meant that they were also determined not to let them be Equal.

(By the way, the Wikipedia article on the case repeats an absolutely priceless comment that Rehnquist made in defense of the decision when he was a law clerk during the deliberations on the "Brown" case: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed....To the argument... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are." No wonder National Review and the Reaganites loved him.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 23, 2007 10:32 PM

By what justification could the North invade the South upon their secession?

The Southern states had no right to secede. The system we have is one of dual sovereignty; from the time the United States was formed, it was the acknowledged legitimate government over all the land that fell within its boundaries. The states were allowed to remain sovereign over their territory to some extent as well - but they remained fundamentally subordinate to the federal government - supremacy clause and all. In their sphere of authority, their sovereignty is complete and unassailable - but outside it, they have none. The secession was an attempt to go beyond the limits of their sovereignty and authority.

The United States is not the United Nations. The authority of the federal government isn't just wielded over the states - it's wielded over all the people in all the states. The authority and legitimacy that the U.S. has vis-a-vis its citizens isn't carried through the states like some kind of intermediary - it's direct and immediate, and totally goes around the states, in its proper sphere. Every citizen is a "subject" of two sovereigns - the U.S., and whatever state he happens to live in.

States can't just decide to withdraw the way, e.g., France could withdraw from the U.N. For the Southern states to have "seceded" was just as much a direct assault on the sovereignty of the federal government as it would have been if they had seized Washington, D.C.

Posted by Jason C. | December 23, 2007 10:35 PM

One thing Ron Paul did a bit that I wish other candidates would do more - He pushed back on some dumb horserace question.

Horserace questions have their place - but sometimes it's absurd and insulting.

Stephanopolous a while back spent an entire show asking Edwards horserace questions that were really all about George trying to sound clever.

Fred Thompson was correct to tell that woman (who was followng Chris Matthews example) to go to hell re Hand Raising -- An infantiling excercise.

The other day Chris Matthews was on speading lies about Barack Obama's mom (saying she was Muslim, when she was not) - Yet no one told him to shut the f@@@ up and show some respect for the facts and an important woman's life history!

This kind of nonsense goes on and on - It's important to note that Russert is one of the best tv journalists, so that fact - along with the fact that he is bad - should force people to wake up and candidates should challange the questioner more often.

Posted by Comment | December 23, 2007 10:35 PM

I'd love for you to show me where in the constitution is allows the government to regulate what kinds of people may enter and use someone's "private" establishment.

The argument that convinced me on this one was that, practically speaking, the choices were not between a world where any businessman might set his own entrance criteria and one in which the federal government set one for the nation. Rather, they were between the federalized standard and a situation in which the states and their constituent counties and cities enforced apartheid through means such as selective provision and revocation of licenses or declining to offer police protection to noncompliant businesses and exposing them to supremacist vigilantes. Seen in that light, the action seems justified by the language of Amendment 14: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation... ...[that no state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Posted by Senescent | December 23, 2007 10:35 PM

"Michael Cathcart writes: "Our once great nation will be lost forever if this election is not taken by Ron Paul."

When Paul's supporters make statements like that it reinforces the idea that he's running a cult, not a campaign. Similar claims are made by LaRouchies. Ron Paul is a political candidate. He's not a messiah. There are no messiahs."

The true significance of a Paul victory would not be the manifestation of his messianic power, but rather a bellwether for a population ready to throw off the yoke of corporate dominance.

Posted by Mike M | December 23, 2007 10:37 PM

Some dudes in South Carolina attacked a fort. Does that justify invading Virginia?

I don't follow how that would be the remedy. Sounds like a respond to Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq type reasoning.

Also there is a distinction between a band of rebels creating an insurrection and a legislative body from a state in a union of states declaring its independence. ala the Soviet Union breakup...

How is the secession of Georgia from the Soviet Union legitimate but the secession of our Georgia from the United States illegitimate?

What am I missing?

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 10:39 PM

Dr. Ron Paul clearly demonstrated that he is the best truth-warrior of any candidate. This was a great interview....every hardball thrown was hit out of the ballpark.

Did you otice how they left out the original question regarding Ron Pual's fascist statement regardingg Huck's Xmas ad from the original taped interview? Instead, Tim changes the nature of the original question, and then plays Ron Paul's taped answer, which was not his complete answer, thus, taking Ron Paul's statement out of context.
Yet, Ron Paul was still able to effectively answer the question.

The Iran / Mars reference was priceless!! LOL

They tried to make him appear anti-Isreal, but it back-fired. Ron Paul revealed that his policies would greatly help Israel. This should headline news, but the corporate media will not mention the fact that if we stopped giving our hard earned tax money to all the Middle East countries.

Ron Paul revealed the injustice and abuse of the Federal Government and how the Neo-Cons trample our rights, and state rights by arresting sick people who are legally using medical marijauna and putting them into jail. He clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and abuse of the govt. on the war on drugs, torture, etc.

Ron Paul's facial expressions were priceless, looking at Tim in disbelief in not understanding that amendments to the Constitution IS Consitutional.

Ron Paul clearly demonstrated that he has what it takes to take on ANYONE, and has raised more money than any other Republican. There is very good change that he will the next President of these United States of America.

Posted by Greg | December 23, 2007 10:44 PM

Wrong Jason,
We have a Constitution. We are born with rights, given to us by our creator and the governement was created to SERVE us. Get it. Serve the people. That's why we have the right to replace it/them if they fail to protect the CONSTITUTION. "Every citizen is a "subject" of two sovereigns" You're joking, right? Once again, The citizen has allowed the government to serve them. "We the people" serve no one. Perhaps you have the wrong country.

Posted by Dave | December 23, 2007 10:45 PM

Jason C,

"The Southern states had no right to secede. The system we have is one of dual sovereignty; from the time the United States was formed, it was the acknowledged legitimate government over all the land that fell within its boundaries."

I am happy to agree with you. Can you tell me where this understanding was written down somewhere? Is it in the Constitution? What other documents formed the Union? Is it in one of those?

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 10:46 PM

"Some dudes in South Carolina attacked a fort. Does that justify invading Virginia?

I don't follow how that would be the remedy. Sounds like a respond to Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq type reasoning."

Some dudes? You mean the confederate army? You don't see the difference between responding to an attack by an agressive army, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 911? Really? Are you aware South Carolina and Virgina were both a part of the confederacy? You're acting like they were as unrelated as Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Posted by mad6798j | December 23, 2007 10:52 PM

I want to put aside my fears and go for what is right and what is good, and put aside what might be at best a splint while a break heals, to walk, eventually to run. We need to shed the civil rights laws as written.

Posted by Thomas | December 23, 2007 10:52 PM

Some dudes in South Carolina attacked a fort. Does that justify invading Virginia?

The Virginians and South Carolinans were in it together. The Confederate States of America was a very real entity, unlike a hypothetical Al-Q/Iraq alliance. If the CSA didn't like it, they should have expelled SC and begged the U.S. not to go after them. Heck, seeing how secessionist SC has been since nullification, they probably could have been convinced to secede from the Confederate States.

Posted by Quietus | December 23, 2007 10:53 PM

Can you tell me where this understanding was written down somewhere? Is it in the Constitution? What other documents formed the Union? Is it in one of those?

The ability of states to secede from the union is a settled legal question. We fought a war over it. The seceding states lost.

If you need textual references though, let's go the Constitution . . .

Art. I, Sec. 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

Art. VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Posted by southpaw | December 23, 2007 10:57 PM

Calling all dudes...

From Wiki:"The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government."

Sounds like Lincoln officially considered them 'some dudes' and not from a legitimate army.

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 11:05 PM

All the young dudes...

From Wiki:"The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government."

Sounds like Lincoln officially considered them 'some dudes' and not from a legitimate army.

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 11:05 PM

It seems to me that since the States created the Federal government through a contract and also made it weak by design that the intention was to always leave open the option of secession if the contract was violated. The north (federal government) violated the contract then and continues to violate its contract on a hundred counts with the states today.

I would love to see a state such as California, Wyoming or New Hampshire secede. I guess the federal government would just bomb them into the stone age...?

Posted by Robert Moore | December 23, 2007 11:10 PM

Southpaw,

You are correct, We fought a war over it. That settled the legal question. No doubt.

But the legal question existed. Art I and VI can both be read to be speaking of the action of the states WHILE IN THE UNION.

The legal question was settled by violence not legal argument.

Posted by letma peoplego | December 23, 2007 11:10 PM

Mike M quotes and writes: ""Our once great nation will be lost forever if this election is not taken by Ron Paul."

When Paul's supporters make statements like that it reinforces the idea that he's running a cult, not a campaign. Similar claims are made by LaRouchies. Ron Paul is a political candidate. He's not a messiah. There are no messiahs."

The true significance of a Paul victory would not be the manifestation of his messianic power, but rather a bellwether for a population ready to throw off the yoke of corporate dominance."

Ron Paul is as likely to be an effective anti-corporation President as I am to win the upcoming NBA Slam Dunk contest at the All Star game. It's funny how his followers are ascribing all sorts of magical powers to him.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 11:12 PM

The South commenced hostilities?

Well, Fort Sumter was in the Confederacy, and was occupied by Northern Troops at the time the South shot a few rounds at it (causing zero casualties), wasn't it?

Isn't holding a military position in someone else's territory a military provocation? Isn't a non-lethal warning barrage a reasonable response?

(If you are still SHOCKED that we are likely to be attacked when we occupy other peoples' territory, you are not paying very close attention to Dr. Paul. See Current Day Middle East)

By that time, the Northern States had already mobilized their militias, and were ready for war. Lincoln specifically ordered Northern Troops to hold Fort Sumter, and must have known that this would provoke some forceful response from the Confederacy. He clearly engineered the start of the war, and was ready when it started.

Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter was to frantically recruit 75,000 additional troops and start massacring people without further ado.

Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia were so offended that, after consistently refusing to join the Confederacy, they succeeded too.

Posted by Addison | December 23, 2007 11:12 PM

We are born with rights, given to us by our creator and the governement was created to SERVE us. Get it. Serve the people. That's why we have the right to replace it/them if they fail to protect the CONSTITUTION.

Sure. But now you're getting into fundamental questions about the legitimacy of government. Of course rebellion is justified sometimes - it's how the country was formed.

But this basically places the Confederate States on the level of, say, Timothy McVeigh, considering the heinousness of the "cause" they were fighting for. They were engaged in open rebellion against the United States. But many apologists for the Confederacy seem to want to deny this fundamental truth. They want to treat secession like a perfectly legal move that was met with unprovoked violence by the North, rather than what it was - an attempt to overthrow the federal government.

Sometimes, trying to overthrow the government is warranted, I'll be the first person to grant. Whether it was justified for the Southern slaveholders and their representatives is another question; I don't think it was. But regardless, we shouldn't act like it was anything but what it was: a revolt.

Posted by Jason C. | December 23, 2007 11:16 PM

Addison types: "Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia were so offended that, after consistently refusing to join the Confederacy, they succeeded too."

They didn't succeed. Like the rest of the slavery-loving Confederacy, they got their asses kicked.

And deservedly so, no matter what Macaca Allen and his fans think.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 11:19 PM

gunther,

Being a Ron Paul supporter I know that you did not once consider him because Ron Paul haters have the same pattern in their writing. So yeah, don't lie.

Posted by Tony | December 23, 2007 11:25 PM

"Ron Paul is as likely to be an effective anti-corporation President as I am to win the upcoming NBA Slam Dunk contest at the All Star game. "

That is true if you believe that corporate power is exercised against the state. If you believe corporate power is exercised through the state, the picture looks somewhat different. I don't think it's an unreasonable argument.

Posted by Charles Martel | December 23, 2007 11:28 PM

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9BJGrsqPY0

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EN6BZOT_9w

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwevF2cIhM

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ns7hbk_A4Q

Posted by Southern Swagga | December 23, 2007 11:34 PM

Article is misleading, watch it for yourself!

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9BJGrsqPY0

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EN6BZOT_9w

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwevF2cIhM

Ron Paul on Meet The Candidate Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ns7hbk_A4Q

Posted by D-Block Nucca | December 23, 2007 11:36 PM

The secession was over slavery. The war was started over "Union", not slavery. The war then morphed, as they are wont to do; Lincoln expected a cakewalk. Eventually the war ended up being about slavery.

But it did not start over slavery or anything high-minded. It started as a central state attempting to squash a secession. The irony is, of course, that that same state had successfully seceded, itself, just four score and change years earlier.

People don't understand the cause of the war much any more, because to our modern minds the idea that a democratic state would attack its equally democratic neighbor only to assert a "right to rule" it is so astoundingly illiberal. We believe in the right of self government, even though we don't have it.

Posted by Leonard | December 23, 2007 11:40 PM

"In Ron Paul's America, it would be perfectly legal for Denny's to hang a big "Whites Only" sign outside their restaurant."

And thus expose the bastards for what they are? Let's WELCOME it.

Posted by okay okay okay | December 23, 2007 11:41 PM

Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia were so offended that, after consistently refusing to join the Confederacy, they succeeded too

Admittedly, through the hindsight of historical retrospect, the federal government should have made a greater effort to keep the border states from slipping. But that is a question for alternate history, as is the prospect of Robert E. Lee fighting for the Union and the war ending in half the time.

Lincoln specifically ordered Northern Troops to hold Fort Sumter, and must have known that this would provoke some forceful response from the Confederacy. He clearly engineered the start of the war, and was ready when it started

Well, if the CSA had the moral high-ground, then they should had peaceably went their slavering way, instead of taking the bait, shouldn't they? But they did, and they shelled Fort Sumter, so it was their fault.

Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter was to frantically recruit 75,000 additional troops and start massacring people without further ado.

Massacring people?

And to play the Wikipedia-quoting game, "Similar Unionist secessions [like West Virginia] attempts appeared in East Tennessee, but were suppressed by the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis arrested over 3000 men suspected of being loyal to the Union and held them without trial."

Well, it doesn't seem that the CSA had such a high opinion of secession, either. How hypocritical of them.

And to go back to Ron Paul- the point that the U.S. was the only country to have a war to end slavery is interesting (though I'm not sure of its accuracy; Latin America had its own wars where slavery was an issue), but then so is the point that if U.S. had stuck it through in the British Empire it would have became independent without bloodshed, either. Which is to say that seeing opportunities in historical retrospect are pretty useless besides for entertainment value.

Posted by Quietus | December 23, 2007 11:42 PM

Gotta love these replies:

"There's no connection between white supremacy and Ron Paul's libertarianism, and Southern Secession was too completely justified."

Posted by MikeN | December 23, 2007 11:43 PM

Leonard writes: "People don't understand the cause of the war much any more, because to our modern minds the idea that a democratic state would attack its equally democratic neighbor only to assert a "right to rule" it is so astoundingly illiberal."

Wow. I'm trying to comprehend a mind which could say that a society BASED on slavery and one which has (for the most part) abandoned and condemned slavery are "equally democratic."

I can't do it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 11:44 PM

This is a truly amazing election cycle we are having. When has the Civil War, the legality of the Federal Reserve and the IRS even been mentioned in Presidential politics? I don't think it has occurred in about a century. At the least Paul is someone who brings interesting and possibly valid arguments into the light where they belong. At best he will be a president who restores the required conflict in Washington that brings about sound and well deliberated policies which put the American citizens interests first.

Posted by Phil G | December 23, 2007 11:47 PM

"Sounds like Lincoln officially considered them 'some dudes' and not from a legitimate army. "

No, he considered them illegitimate rebels, but he wasn't confused that they used actual armies. You're the only person that seems to think they were just a loose group of ne'er do wells.

"Well, Fort Sumter was in the Confederacy, and was occupied by Northern Troops at the time the South shot a few rounds at it (causing zero casualties), wasn't it?

Isn't holding a military position in someone else's territory a military provocation? Isn't a non-lethal warning barrage a reasonable response?"

No, military bases exist on federal land, owned by the federal government. States don't have the right to unilaterally take back land they agreed to cede to the federal government.

Posted by mad6798j | December 23, 2007 11:50 PM

There are a lot of Republicans who are pro Confederate - Ron Paul was just less discrete.

As someone who spends time in the south from time to time - I can report back that there a quite a number of people, in the Party of Lincoln, who have revisionist views re Fort Sumter to Appomattox.

Posted by Comment | December 23, 2007 11:50 PM

Gosh Moe, maybe you should consider the United States before secession if you want a democratic slave state. You know, the one the Union troops were fighting for, up until the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't hurt so much, did it?

Posted by Charles Martel | December 23, 2007 11:52 PM

Russert and the rest of the talking heads have no clue. This is NOT about Ron Paul or what he said 4 years ago or 20 years ago. What this is about is Americans are so fed up that want massive change. Americans are electing themselves through Ron Paul. American's see things they like that Ron Paul says and know he is so honest and truthful that he will do what he says or try damn hard to get it done. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul can't abolish the Income tax, but maybe he can abolish the IRS or the Central Bank. They know he WILL get out of Iraq and stop the war as quickly as possible. They know their rights will be safer with him, they know the world would respect a Ron Paul Administration more than any other candidate.

Its Americans electing themselves.

Posted by Joe Lawson | December 23, 2007 11:52 PM

I just love all of these hair-splitting arguments about racism, Messiah, and the lunacy of gold versus the Federal Reserve.
Someone even posted about "property rights."

Now, are we getting what's right in front of our noses? The Fed is taking property to secure business (by Eminent Domain) despite protestations of the locals. The Anglos and pseudo-Anglos (France, Canada, Britain, US, et al) are banding together to eviscerate the Arabs (racism, economic or otherwise). The Central Banks deal in gold to balance the money flows--but the citizens are told that it is "kooky" to believe in a gold standard. And as for Messiah, and the relevancy to the political process, just see what is in front of your nose--Romney and Huckabee, both awash in religious blather.

Please, can we stop thinking of why Lincoln or Johnson did this or that, and start thinking about how we can get out of the mess that Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have wrought? The discussion is not on 1864, or 1964, but on 2008. And, quite frankly, as most of the mainstream candidates are talking about a world that does not exist--either on paper or in reality--we're going to have to go with Paul or someone else outside the available pool. That's the point of the discussion.

Posted by Scott Harmon | December 23, 2007 11:54 PM

maybe you should consider the United States before secession if you want a democratic slave state. You know, the one the Union troops were fighting for, up until the emancipation proclamation?

The U.S., unlike the C.S., wasn't set up solely for the purpose of continuing slavery. As one can see by comparing the two's constitutions:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

Posted by Quietus | December 23, 2007 11:59 PM

This election is not about the civil war. That battle is already won......(or lost). Don't let this obscur philo-distraction steal the day.

Paul did an OK job this morning. He did not say anything that killed him but he did not sound Presidential enough to change the minds of many people. A few perhaps, but not many.

I think credit should be given to Tim Russert. First he had Ron Paul on the show. The rest of the talking heads have not done that.

Second, he treated Paul like any other candidate. He grilled him about his positions on real issues. He could have sought to marginalize Paul by talking about contributions from white supremacists or past associations with conspiracy theory nut jobs. Instead he have Paul the chance to talk about the IRS, the Constitution and Foriegn Policy. The questions were tough, but they were fair and on the issues.

Posted by Simon Girty | December 24, 2007 12:03 AM

Lincoln sent a naval force to Charlston to reinforce the fort. If it had reached the harbor before the fort was secured by the South Carolina forces they would have lost control of the harbor. Also, Virginia had not voted at that time to leave the union, but was in the process.

Posted by Howard Davis | December 24, 2007 12:04 AM

Freddie, "And, you know, the "War of Northern Aggression" rhetoric aside, it was the South that began hostilities against the North."

The South didn't start it. It's called blowback. Lincoln sent troops to SC and set them on an island in Charleston Harbor with cannons pointed at homes. Reckon you would have a problem with someone moving into your neighborhood and pointing a cannon at your home?

Posted by Larry in SC | December 24, 2007 12:07 AM

They didn't move in, the Fort was already there.

Posted by mad6798j | December 24, 2007 12:12 AM

area where libertarian ideology and white supremacist ideology just so happens to overlap, but there you have it -- overlap
with white supremacist ideology.

Matt Y. believes that communism is bad. So did the Nazis. It just so happens that Matt's ideology overlaps with Nazi ideology, but there you have it -- overlap with Nazi ideology.

Wow. That was hard.

Posted by jim | December 24, 2007 12:15 AM

Isn't holding a military position in someone else's territory a military provocation? - mad6798j

How can you possibly be an American and not have your head explode? When US troops come under fire in Iraq or Afghanistan, or if they came under fire in Cuba, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Ethiopia, Kuwait, and so forth, would you accept that the US had started it?

Posted by brooksfoe | December 24, 2007 12:16 AM

Oh, sorry mad6798j - you were citing some weirdo. I repeat my flabbergastery, but directed at the weirdo.

Posted by brooksfoe | December 24, 2007 12:19 AM

It was well known and accepted when the constitution was accepted, that the states had the right of seccession. Two of the states, I belive NY was one, explictedly stated in their radification of the constitution that they retained the right to leave the union, but it was common knowledge that the states were the key elements of the union, not the new federal government, and that each could leave the union at will. This is what the civil war destroyed...the preemident position of the states over the federal government, and this is what needs to be reestablished. We used to be "the United States are..." but we have become "the United States is..." We need to get back to "are" with the states being the main part of the union...and, of course, "the people" above each of the states they live in. And the "interstate commerce clause" needs to be interpreted as it was during the first 60 years or so and as it was meant...simple to prevent the states from taxing or otherwise interfering with goods from other states...not as an invitation to the federal government managing all trade in the country.

Posted by MarkC | December 24, 2007 12:20 AM

Yeah, but I've had arguments with libertarians where they seriously endorsed slavery in the context of indentured servitude based on freedom of contract.

I really don't know if that's huffing the gas fumes of your ideology to death or white supremacy, but the end result is going to be really ugly and not without a racial dimension.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 24, 2007 12:21 AM

" Like the rest of the slavery-loving Confederacy, they got their asses kicked.

And deservedly so, no matter what Macaca Allen and his fans think."

There's a certain irony in a lefty like MoeLarryJesus gloating about the Union victory in the Civil War. Had he been alive then, he would probably have been rioting against the war and refusing to serve, just like the Democrats in New York did. A century and a half later, they're all hawks.

"The Anglos and pseudo-Anglos (France, Canada, Britain, US, et al) are banding together to eviscerate the Arabs (racism, economic or otherwise)"

You must be on crack. The "Anglos" found the fucking oil under the Arab countries, showed them how to extract it, and entered into joint ventures with them to produce the oil (e.g., ARAMCO). The Arabs nationalized these joint ventures and kept all the money for themselves. Now the Arabs are buying our largest banks with their sovereign wealth funds full of petrodollars they would never have earned without the "Anglos".

Posted by Harry | December 24, 2007 12:26 AM

"This is what the civil war destroyed...the preemident position of the states over the federal government, and this is what needs to be reestablished"

The direct election of Senators further weakened the position of the states relative to the federal government, as did the establishment of the federal income tax.

Posted by Fred | December 24, 2007 12:31 AM

Charles Martel writes: "Gosh Moe, maybe you should consider the United States before secession if you want a democratic slave state. You know, the one the Union troops were fighting for, up until the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't hurt so much, did it?"

Since I don't see any scenario in which a victorious Union would have continued the slave state, I'll dismiss that question as pointless.

It requires pretending that the tensions over slavery weren't the major cause of the war, and unlike apologists for the slavery-loving Confederacy I'm not stupid enough to buy it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 24, 2007 12:32 AM

Quietus --

That is a fantastic site, but I don't see what bearing it has on my point. Had the South surrendered after one week, would we say the Union had been fighting to make itself a less democratic country? I suppose we would.

I would think this notion might sober a man drunk on his own (historical) righteousness, but perhaps not.

Posted by Charles Martel | December 24, 2007 12:34 AM

The Arabs nationalized these joint ventures and kept all the money for themselves.

Not to get in the way of your little indignation rally or anything, and if the interests of the people of Saudi Arabia meant anything I'd say good for them, but Saudi Aramco is still kicking back one hell of an amount of money the other way for no particular great reason.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 24, 2007 12:34 AM

"Had the South surrendered after one week, would we say the Union had been fighting to make itself a less democratic country? I suppose we would."

That does not even begin to make sense. The South seceded because it wanted to protect its peculiar institution, and because it feared that the (democratic) ascension of Lincoln would threaten it. The site's analysis shows that. It doesn't matter how long the war lasted; in either case, the South had been fighting for the undemocratic institution of slavery, and had undemocratically rejected the election of Lincoln. The timeframe of the war matters not.

Posted by Quietus | December 24, 2007 12:41 AM

Harry quotes and writes: " " Like the rest of the slavery-loving Confederacy, they got their asses kicked.

And deserv