No DU'er should support Ron Paul: he opposed civil rights act of 1964, opposed Lincoln's civil war

[Herman Munster]

Any DU'er is fucking crazy if they support him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/

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.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

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.

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.

[Deja Q]

1. Opposed Lincoln's civil war? Just how old is the dude anyway?!

:wow:

[journalist3072]

2. Exactly! I posted about this very same issue earlier here on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2520226&mesg_id=2520226

[Richard Steele]

3. No Democrat who knows what he stands for can support him.

Reagan was a LIBERAL compared to that loon.

[saltpoint]

44. I'm on board with every syllable of that, dicksteele.

Paul has a niche following, and evidently can raise some bucks quickly.

But there's no Idea or Poetry to him or to his candidacy.

[skipos]

4. This thread will drop like a rock. Many DUers can't admit Paul blows

on many, many issues. And one other thing...

...TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!

[ShockediSay]

16. But see him this Sun AM on CorporaFascism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x78622

&, reportedly, the subject of NeoCon assassination plot

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7675

[BeyondGeography]

5. We agree, Herman

Great post.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. The Paulites, or Paulians or whatever they call themselves are in a tizzy tonight.

He went on Russert's show and didn't let Russert get away with his crap, for which I'll applaud the guy.

Then he stated the obvious, which is that we shouldn't be in Iraq, and after that went all Loony Tunes about abolishing the IRS and Dept of Education (not sure what that's about) as well as explaining how we won't ever engage in international diplomacy or international aid.

I look at a Paul presidency as being one which puts the stake through the heart of our struggling country, and then picks the bones clean.

All in the name of white supremacy. MKJ

[Hissyspit]

7. Ron Paul is running as a Republican.

Anyone who would vote for or support a Republican for President in 2008 is an asshole.

Or am I missing something?

[silverojo]

15. That's what I was wondering

Why would ANY of us support him?

[penguin7]

8. The civil war was horribly bloody and not exactly about slavery

So he has a point.

[Two Americas]

13. slavery

The southern politicians at the time thought the war was about slavery. The slave owners did. The Abolitionists thought that the war was about slavery. The Union soldiers in their letters back home said that they thought the war was about slavery. Lincoln's opponents in the North thought the war was about slavery.

The slaves themselves thought that the war was about slavery, and they staked their lives on that understanding.

All of those people were much closer to and more knowledgeable about this subject, and had much more at stake, than modern observers, including Paul, who wish to revise history for the purpose of promoting a political agenda.

There was nothing that Lincoln worked more diligently on during his presidency than his plan for compensated emancipation, and his main argument was that it would prevent bloodshed. It was the slave state politicians who unanimously and consistently rejected any such idea. Paul betrays a profound ignorance on this subject, or is intentionally dissembling, in making these carefully couched and mealy-mouthed remarks.

The revisionists are right about one thing - Lincoln did not "free the slaves." The slaves freed themselves, at great risk and sacrifice. But that would have been more difficult had it not been for Lincoln's leadership and the presence of tens of thousands of Union troops.

The Civil War was a terrible, almost unimaginable tragedy. But to place the blame for it anywhere but on those who stubbornly went to war to protect their property in the form of enslaved human beings is to dishonor those who gave so much in that struggle, and to trivialize the struggles and suffering of the slaves and their heroic efforts to gain their freedom.

[Dhampir Kampf]

21. Don't forget

...why South Carolina Seceded, and Abe Lincoln's actual platform.

South Carolina seceded because Lincoln didn't carry one southern state, yet still became President.

Lincoln did NOT call for the immediate emancipation. His platform was containment, he didn't want it spreading anymore west, and on numerous occasions did he state this. Also, don't forget the true reasoning behind the Emancipation Proclamation...It prevented France and Britain (Both Emancipated States) from taking to the side of the Confederates. Because that made it an issue of the war. Because up until that point in time, slavery was a legal practice.

Slavery was but a mere difference between the many differences in the North and South, the country was growing more and more apart, and even without the issue of slavery, the war was bound to happen.

[penguin7]

26. The problem was not slavery moving west

It was southern voting states moving west.

The civil war was first a political war.

[Two Americas]

31. not quite accurate

Lincoln did not believe he had the authority under the Constitution as president to end slavery. Containment he did believe he had the authority to do. Lincoln supported and promoted every effort to end slavery, consistent with his view of his duty and authority and consistent with his view as to the best tactical and strategic approach. He slapped down premature and unauthorized emancipation proclamations from the field by Generals Fremont and Hunter for reasons of integrity of command and strategic concerns. On the other hand, he supported General Butler's "contraband" declaration, as well as efforts by Grant and others to employ runaway and freed slaves. He often expressed concern for slaves still trapped behind Confederate lines and talked about ways to "bring them in" to freedom.

The differences between the North and the South other than slavery persisted for decades after the war, and those differences had also been successfully resolved previous to the war. I can't imagine anyone initiating a war on any other basis than slavery. Your hypothetical scenario is possible of course, but I think that would be a difficult case to make. Slavery was the main friction point, by far.

Slavery was most assuredly not "but a mere difference" in the view of the people living at that time, nor was it merely one issue among many.

Slavery was not ended as a legal practice by the Emancipation Proclamation, as you state, by the way. Lincoln was anxious to end slavery as a legal practice, and that was accomplished by the passing of an amendment to the Constitution. Lincoln worked extremely hard at getting that passed.

I am not sure that we can say that the "true reasoning behind the Emancipation Proclamation" was to prevent European involvement. Lincoln expressed doubts before it was issued as to its effect on the European governments and expressed that he was pleasantly surprised by its reception. At the time Lincoln claimed his reasoning to be to cripple the resistance of the Confederacy, and that is not contradicted by anything that happened.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. No, he has no fucking point

is answer is that the government should've bought the slaves and freed them? what about those who didn't want to sell?! Does he think we didn't need a 13th amendment?

And under Paul's vision, the government would have NO RIGHT to spend the people's money on freeing slaves.

He's a right-wing asshole, and his supporters are just as bad.

[bonito]

9. If Clinton gets the nom I will vote Nader n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

39. Clinton's platform is almost the same as Obama's and Edwards.

Anyone who doesn't know that is a fucking idiot.

[troubleinwinter]

11. If there are any Paul supporters around here, I figure they're sniffing glue. Whatterya gonna do.

[knitter4democracy]

12. No wonder the white supremacists support him.

Wow. He's against the war but for the wrong reasons. We can do better.

[kansasblue]

14. I can't speak for anyone other than myself...

but I find Ron Paul fascinating. Not because I agree with his views, nor do I hope he gets the nomination. But first I find it very cool when the down and out candidate rallies the populace and becomes relevant to the campaign.

Second, I love to see the Republican party deal with the voter wrath which they themselves created. They have drifted far from their core ideals and they have a growing rebellion to deal with.

Are there Ron Paul supporters here? None that I know but with over a 100,000 members I suppose there are. But for the most part I think the attraction is some what like watching a train wreck happen - you have to watch!

I'm going to keep follow the Ron Paul story.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. It seems Paul's supporters

are quite fond of saying there are no Paul supporters here.

Well, there are. Many people who say they prefer him over Candidate X. Others who've said they sent him money.

Yes, he has supporters here.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. There's nothing cool about right wing populism

When it happens with left wing or at least center-left candidates it's a different story because left wing populism requires you to think independently and have compassion for others.

Right wing populism is nothing more than creating scapegoats and blaming everything on them.

[cali]

40. Look at who he rallies before you praise him: He rallies a mob

He rallies people who are xenophobic or racist or both. And he rallies the ignorant.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. No support because he's not a Democrat! (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

18. I posted before about his views on the Civil War

and his trolls attacked me on multiple fronts - they said I was misquoting him (I wasn't) and then tried to argue that the Civil War was NOT about slavery at all.

His followers are bigger idiots than he is, as evidenced by the fact the money is flowing from them to him.

[Dhampir Kampf]

23. The way you phrase it..

..."Lincoln's civil war" is as if Lincoln led a crusade for emancipation, which he did not. Read any history book and you can easily see that. Lincoln felt it was a morally wrong act, but he didn't see a need for an immediate end to it, just to it's expansion west.

It's ignorant to say that the Civil War was not about slavery, but it's just as ignorant to claim that there were no other reasons for it.

I highly doubt that my numerous ancestors who fought in the 13th VA Cavalry fought for the institution of slavery. Especially since they were poor farmers who could not afford slaves. Why fight for something you can't have? Of course I don't know this for sure, but I think you have to be present in that point of time to understand their point of view. If you were to spend a week in the North, then a week in the South, and you would understand why they bumped heads on so many occasions. Just simply a different way of life.

Also, I find that it's quite ironic that the North has such a moral high ground on such an issue. In no way shape or form am I endorsing slavery, but to claim their life was better in the North is quite laughable at best. A black factory worker made little wages at best, and if he or she was sick and couldn't work, or hurt at work and couldn't work, or simply became too old to be able to work in such a demand, they were simply cast out onto the streets without a second look. Not to mention Abolitionists didn't necessarily believe that blacks were equal, just that they should be freed.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Yes

I suppose they were much better off being owned. :eyes:

God, the Paul threads sure are enlightening.

[Two Americas]

37. of course

Racism was used, and is still used, to dupe poor people in the South. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" as the Confederate soldiers came to call it. No surprise there.

The rest of your post is "don't get me wrong but" revisionism.

Of course it is true that some Abolitionists did not see Blacks as equals. You phrase it as though that invalidates the Abolition movement. That is revisionism.

And so what if they did? Politics is about power, not personal likes and dislikes. In don't care if you like me or not, so long as you don't have the power to harm me. If you will fight for my freedom, what do I care what your opinion of me is? And fighting to free people from bondage IS seeing them as equals in the most fundamental way imaginable.

"Lincoln felt it was a morally wrong act, but he didn't see a need for an immediate end to it, just to it's expansion west" is incorrect. People with a skimpy knowledge of the Civil War love to trot out these half truths with great self assurance. Expansion of slavery was where the battle lines were drawn, as Lincoln said "between those who think slavery right and those who think slavery wrong." It is hard to imagine slavery ending any faster than it did on Lincoln's watch.

Doing the right thing is more important than the way a person feels. We should admire people who fought for the freedom of the slaves, because it was the right thing to do, regardless of how they felt.

Your argument that wage earners were no better off than slaves was one of the main arguments that slavery apologists used in the 1850's. Reviving it now is revisionist and inaccurate, as well as in direct opposition to all principles of liberalism and human rights.

Saying that there was and is racism in the North is to state the obvious. Claiming that this supports the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery is nonsense.

You actually said "it's ignorant to say that the Civil War was not about slavery, but it's just as ignorant to claim that there were no other reasons for it" as though those were the two choices. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. At issue is whether or not the Civil War was overwhelmingly and primarily about slavery. It was.

Read any history book? I have read a few hundred Civil War histories, at least, and everything ever written about Lincoln, and I have yet to come to any glib and simplistic conclusions as you have.

This is like being in a time warp. In recent years I suddenly hear people using precisely the same arguments that the pro-slavery people used in the 1850's.

[silverback]

24. I wish you guys would stop forcing me to defend Paul...

But this racial angle isn't appropriate.

The Civil war was probably unavoidable, but the impulse driving the wish that it wasn't is entirely honorable.

The civil war was a tragic, tragic chapter in our history with serious ramifications that continue to influence us today, for good and ill.

Slavery was the unforgivable sin that lent legitimacy to the illegitimate actions of our 16th president, and everyone lost whether they realize it or not.

Paul would be the first to say there's no such thing as "states rights", that rights are intrinsic to individuals, not groups, and that governments have powers, not rights. Nevertheless Paul is a great believer in federalism, and that's an honorable position whether you agree with it or not.

If we can't beat any Republican on the issues, if we have to resort to this kind of arguement, then we're lost.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Do you think his approach was better?

To wait for the government to buy the slaves and free them?

What if the owners didn't want to sell?

And how do Paultards reconcile that plan with the notion that the government has no right to use the people's money for things like that?

Should there be a 13th Amendment?

[Two Americas]

34. no one is forcing you

You are making revisionist claims about the Civil War that originate from right wing sources. We can either let those stand, or refute them. If we refute them, we drive the thread off topic. If we let them stand, we are allowing right wing talking points to go unchallenged. We can talk about the Civil War on another thread. You can defend Paul on another board.

Lincoln as dictator is a right wing talking point, as is "the Civil War was not about slavery." So is saying that the "racial angle isn't appropriate." Just the way it is, my friend. No one is forcing you to say anything.

[mirrera]

42. You are brave!!!

I was fascinated enough to click on this thread because I watched Paul on MTP. But with posters calling people idiots it is ridiculous to even try and join the discussion, but I agree with you. There is an integrity to Paul's beliefs that could actually be debated under less paranoid and vitriolic circumstances. It is possible to listen to someone who believes in a different reading of the constitution, without being a troll or a something-bot. At least it is a debate about the constitution and not how much torture is ok. The Republican slate has set the bar very low and any Democrat that can't see Paul looking very good in that field is blind. If we can't argue issues, we are just a mirror for hannity/rush/coulter.

There are a lot of Republicans that don't know much about Ron Paul. First of all if you are still a Republican after 8 years of this bullshit, you are not exactly into research and inquiry. They only hear him in the debates and are flocking to him because of his foreign policy views of no nation building— period. It is also refreshing to know that there are that many Republicans that are open to a different approach then "I have the biggest balls and best religion, really!" They are not all racists and thugs. If you look at what he has said at the debates, you have to admire the Republicans for AT LEAST not going for the other candidates.

The Democrats for Paul are silly. They should be Kucinich supporters if they believe in our constitution and a reading of it that is in line with our principals, or Edwards if they are attracted to Paul because they think he is electable (doubtful).
My 2 cents-

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

46. I think it's his white supremacist, misogynist, xenophobic views which cause many here to

view his current stands as a politician's convenient statements, not as him displaying "integrity". MKJ

on edit, removed redundency.

[mirrera]

48. You would have to read to know it.

I did not listen to all of the Republican debate, it was very painful to watch any of it. Some of the clips that circulated would not illustrate those qualities. If your average right winger saw the same clip, they might actually just like what they are hearing. That was my point.

I remember once forwarding an email to my group about some bill that seemed very good, having to do with fixing our voting system which is an issue that is very important to me and what brought me to DU. I got a HORRIBLE reply from a friend raving about what a lunatic Ron Paul is. I didn't even know who Paul was! My email consisted of a link to the bill and a "what do you think of this bill?" kind of message.

Frankly my friend came off as a lunatic— yelling at me (caps) and being rude.

People need to lighten up! Even Hitler probably had a good idea or two— I lost major amounts of family in the Holocaust so don't even go there.

Now if I come across a Paul supporter (in my circle it is ALWAYS a non-political person who just heard a good clip and is looking for a way to feel "conservative" and preserve their Republican myth), I very nicely explain some of Paul's privatization dreams. I don't even have to go very far.

Point: most people don't know very much! That doesn't mean they have "white supremacist, misogynist, xenophobic views."

Does he attract that? If you say so I believe you because you obviously know way more than me about Ron Paul. I have done a lot of reading but I can honestly say I know very little about him. That is what allows me to see what others may be seeing. I know I do not have "white supremacist, misogynist, xenophobic views." So I suspect there may be others as well that can more accurately be described as "ignorant"— or in a nicer way— not knowledgeable.

Because I have not really read much about Ron Paul, having no reason in the world to read about a person that has never crossed my radar, I tend to listen to friends I admire that share my ethics and political beliefs.

Still it is always better to tell me about issues as opposed to "he is kook", which is what my friend said. I asked him repeatedly to talk about the bill and tell me if he thought it was a good bill. He couldn't, he was so incensed that it had been written by Paul. I was left very confused.

There are so many people who try and dismiss DK for being a kook, 9/11 truthers for being kooks, people who want universal health care, kooks. It is not the way to enlighten.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Here's Mr. Paul with Don Black...

founder of the radical racist site Stormfront, along with Black's son, Derek:





Black is a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

[silverback]

29. I have a picture...

with Barrack Obama myself, for all he knows I could be a grand poobah in the Nation of Islam. Candidates take pictures and shake hands and sign autographs for anyone who asks, it's what they do.

And this is what I was talking about before.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Ron Paul is supported

by the most hateful right-wing racist elements in our society.

I'm a bit shocked to see some of them here on DU.

[silverback]

32. OK.

About the only thing I find more dispicable than a racist is a person who'd make an unsubstantiated claim of racism for political gain.

Now you've not only done that, you've gone farther and made it personal between us,insulted me in a fashion you would never dare to do in person, particularly since you'd then realise how ridiculous such a charge would be. I don't feel inclined to continue with you.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. awww

you broke my heart.

Listen - I have no obligation on this site to be nice, or even tolerant, of Ron Paul and his supporters. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. If you want to defend Libertarian nutjobs without fear of being offended, there are plenty of sites for you - stormfront is one.

[Two Americas]

49. racism

"About the only thing I find more dispicable than a racist is a person who'd make an unsubstantiated claim of racism for political gain."

To talk about racism hurts rather than improves a person's chance at political gain. That is why it doesn't get discussed very much by politicians.

Equating someone being charged with racism with someone being a victim of racism betrays a deep confuson and misunderstanding as to what racism is.

[Herman Munster]

38. OMG

I had no clue what stormfront was. I ran a quick google search and came across their "white nationalist community" message board that had 122,000+ members. :puke:

[Skidmore]

35. Actually, Russert did me a favor yesterday.

Hubby had been making noises about Paul looking interesting and I kept telling him that Paul says a couple of good things about the war and foreign policy, but beyond that, he's a nut case and puts out some really crazy ideas. My husband, who has been all over the place the last two weeks with candidates (he gets the precaucus jitters) listened to Russert yesterday and heard this interview (I didn't). Anyway, at dinnertime, hubby blurts out "That Ron Paul is crazy!"

"Oh?" My eyebrows raise. "Why do you say that?"

"He voted against the Civil Rights Act."

Then I hear about the interview and the wide-eyed ravings of the fringe. I took the opportunity to let my husband know about the types of groups that support Paul. Well, Paul has been consigned to his "Never" list.

[LaurenG]

36. Well all that and he's not a democrat

I have been opposed to anyone supporting him here openly for a while now.

[Perry Logan]

41. Ron Paul seems to be the darling of alienated white guys--all the weird anti-government types.

[saltpoint]

45. Agree. They're flocking to him like ... well, you know.

They're an angry, disaffected bunch, those Paul fans.

[robcon]

43. Tell Kucinich what a nut job Ron Paul is.

He's one of the few Democrats who are impressed by Paul's anti-war views.

[4dsc]

47. Made sense to me!!

But then again, I'm not buying what the DLC controlled democratic party is selling today..