Enjoy your solstice celebration.
LATER: Right forgot to show this demonstration of unthinking hypocrisy.
Libertarian, right? So Mr. Paul would have had no taxes at the time.
When Mr. Paul says he'd have had the government buy and free the slaves, I wonder how the government would buy the slaves?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas
Ah...the edit to add the
Ah...the edit to add the video kinda fucked up the mood, huh?
Seems like he agrees with Lincoln
Seems like he agrees with Lincoln more than what he lets on. Lincoln wanted to compensate slaveholders for their "loss" too. So Paul, like Lincoln, believed in reparations for white slaveholders but, obviously, would be completely against such a redistribution of wealth, conveniently, when the question of reparations to African-Americans is raised.
That should come as no surprise sense there is obviously way more value placed on a white life. When Paul and others talk about the 600,000 "American" lives lost in the senseless war between the states, we know they're not calculating the lives of those who were called slaves or subject to be put into slavery, free or bond. We also never get a count of how many Africans/African-Americans lost their lives during the American slavery era.
Again, there is obviously more value placed on a white life. That's why I find the retrospective rather revealing. I hear, "why in the world did we kill each other over some n*ggas." Doesn't matter whether that was the reason or not. Just the fact that it functioned that way is a enough for the revulsion in the retrospective.
So, even back then, he wouldn't have supported
Black folks as citizens...hmmmm
Not that I'm surprised, though.
It all comes down to "property rights" in a Paulian world
Apparently, Ron Paul believes that freedom is inextricably linked to property -- backtracking to the Constitution, which only counted slaves as three-fifths of a person.
That final compromise gave pro-slavery states disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War.
In getting back to the Constitution, is Paul advocating the return of de facto segration under the guise of freedom?
Paul obviously doesn't know
Paul obviously doesn't know shit about slavery in the British Empire. The Haitian Revolution was really the catalyst that brought about the end of slavery in the British Empire and beyond. The British actually lost more soldiers trying to re-enslave the inhabitants of the colony of St. Domingo than they did in the American Revolution. Successive slave revolts in other European colonies in the West Indies and their costly aftermaths helped to seal the fate of slavery in the New World.
Nquests' comparison of Paul with Lincoln is very apt. The Great Emancipator would have preferred to deport black people rather than make them full-fledged American citizens. Lincoln mourned the fact that white people should be killing themselves over an issue that concerned African Americans and was not hesitant to express this feeling to black leaders. Paul is still stuck in the 19th century when it comes to issues of race and justice. He reminds me of the Arkansas lawmaker discussed on this site a couple of weeks back who expressed his admiration for the way the Founding Fathers waffled on this issue of slavery. Despite the similarity with Lincoln's positions concerning slavery, however, the symmetry ends here. Paul's anti-imperialist convictions aside, there is no redeeming factor in Ron Paul that would put him in the same class with Lincoln.