Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
James Kirchick of the New Republic has managed to find a treasure trove of old Ron Paul writings that show a lot of disturbing opinions on a wide range of subjects. Since 1978, Paul has sent out a monthly newsletter to followers under various names - Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report.
The Freedom Report has archives online going back to 1999, but finding copies of the newsletter that predate that is apparently quite difficult. Though the newsletter apparently had a circulation of 100,000 at one point, because it was published privately it's not the sort of thing most libraries would carry and archive. But Kirchick managed to find a number of them in the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society.
Kirchick first points out the difficulty of knowing what was written specifically by Ron Paul and what may have written by others:
Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.
When his political opponents have quoted some of those newsletters in the past, Paul has claimed that he didn't actually write the passages that went out under his name. Frankly, I don't think that matters. At the very least, he let them go out under his name and that clearly suggests agreement and approval. I have little sympathy for someone who lets crazy ideas go out under his name and then complains about being criticized for advocating crazy ideas. And yes, some of these ideas are pretty crazy.
Kirchik accurately identifies the split that I have discussed before between different strains of libertarianism and identifies Paul's long-standing involvement with what I consider to be the wrong kind:
To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."
This was one of the first things that really sent up a red flag for me about Ron Paul, his ties to the anti-14th amendment wing of neo-confederate "libertarianism" (I put that in parentheses because, frankly, I don't think it's libertarian at all, I think it's anti-libertarian). I've tangled with these folks many times over the years on this blog and many of them, including Woods and DiLorenzo, have shown up here in the comments. I make no secret of my disdain for their views. So when I learned that Ron Paul was deeply involved with them, that was a big deal to me. Still is. Now let's get to some of the statements in those newsletters.
Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage.
Very nice. And it ties perfectly into a theme that is quite prevalent among the neo-confederate crowd - the coming race wars. This belief is absolutely ubiquitous in these social circles:
This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
Comparing blacks to animals. Beautiful. Need I mention that he doesn't seem to like Martin Luther King much?
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
And let's not forget anti-gay bigotry that would make Fred Phelps smile:
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
If there's a difference between that and the kind of lunatic ravings we hear from the Westboro Baptist Church, it's a matter of slight degree only. Here's how the Ron Paul campaign responds:
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
It becomes even less believable when you consider that he has consistently worked with the people who espouse these insane views, spoken to their groups, hired them to work on his congressional staff and promoted their organizations. It is far too late in the day for his apologists to claim that this is merely "guilt by association." This is absolutely legitimate criticism.
Just as I was finishing this post, a friend sent me a link to Ron Paul's statement on the New Republic article:
In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
Again, this response strains credulity to the limits. He let people write these vile things in his name for 20 years (the issue was first raised in 1996 during a campaign; his first response was that the quotes were "out of context" and then, in 2001, he said that he didn't really write them) and didn't put a stop to it? He never bothered to even read what they wrote in his name? Sorry, that's laughably ridiculous.
It's even more ridiculous when you consider that he is closely associated with a wide range of groups with a long history of taking the very positions he says he condemns now. And that he was pandering with his newsletter to the very people who agree with such arguments. Even if he didn't write it, he absolutely bears responsibility for it. David Bernstein sums this up well:
Yet, as Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
Ron Paul has spent the better part of 30 years building relationships to virtually every one of those groups of conspiracy nutballs, speaking to them, making arguments that appeal to them, putting their loudest and most obnoxious advocates on his congressional staff. I'm simply not naive enough to believe that this is just a big misunderstanding. He's asking you to believe that he spent 20 years being utterly unaware that other people were writing outrageous things under his name. Can anyone really take that position seriously?
I don't write this with glee, I write this with disappointment. I'm disappointed because all of this makes Ron Paul the wrong messenger for what is often precisely the right message. And I hope that message does not get lost. I have another post that will go up in the next couple days about our long term federal debt, which now stands at a staggering $53 trillion. $53 trillion dollars.
We are on the brink of fiscal chaos in this country. Our currency is in a freefall. We are spending our children's money like frat boys at a liquor store and unfortunately Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party who recognizes that it is time not for cutting a few billion here and there but for wholesale restructuring of the federal government. That's the right message, but Ron Paul is the wrong person to carry it. But who else will?
Comments
I'm nowhere near the right-wing zionist conspiracy type nutjobs on the libertarian continuum. But I think anyone who simply dismisses critiques of Lincoln's decision to wage war against the secessionst states is simplistic, and blindly refusing to consider the possibility that the war really wasn't necessary.
First, the idea that Lincoln went to war to end slavery is a great myth. Lincoln wanted to hold the union together, pure and simple, because he believed whole-heartedly in a strong country. He was also a stauch supporter of tariffs. In brief, Lincoln was a statist Republican, not someone who shared many beliefs with modern libertarians.
The Articles of Confederation specified that the states retained their "full sovereignty and independence," meaning the U.S. was not a single country, but a confederation of sovereign states (something like the United Arab Emirates today, if I understand their setup correctly). However the Constitution simply glosses over the concept of sovereignty, never specifying whether it made the U.S. a single country or just a more tightly-knit confederation.
It was reasonable, in the context of the time, for the states to think they had the right to secede. During the War of 1812, there was talk of secession among the New England states, who thought the War was hurting their commercial interests. So the Civil War was
The problem, of course, is that it's impossible for any right-minded person, particularly libertarians, to have any sympathy for the slave system of those secessionist southern states. But the fact that we disapprove of their whole socio-economic structure doesn't give license to intellectually gloss over every other argument. It's not particularly sophisticated to say, "they were racists so anybody who suggests anything they did might have been justified is also a racist."
That is, I just wanted to make the claim that a critique of the Civil War does not automatically make on a racist hate-mongering yahoo. The two issues are seperable. However Ron Paul, if he is not one himself, certainly keeps company with them.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 9, 2008 9:55 AM
This sums up exactly how I feel, and how I responded to Paul's campaign's response to the New Republic piece.
What is even more of a shame is that Paul's rhetoric on limited government, fiscal responsibility and foreign and domestic policy has attracted so many new young and energetic supporters. These supporters only hear these good ideas, and think they accurately represent everything Paul stands for. I don't know if you've read Brian Doherty's piece on Paul in the latest issue of Reason, but he points out that when Paul speaks to college crowds, he doesn't address his views on immigration or his anti-14th amendment views. I hope this means that many Paul supporters are unaware of these views rather than apathetic. Unfortunately, the tendency of many Paul supporters to rabidly attack anyone who dares criticize Paul leaves me with my doubts on that subject as well.
What it all comes down to is that, as Kip has said at A Stitch in Haste, "Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Never was, never will be." I think, ultimately, the Ron Paul Revolution will end up harming the libertarian movement far more than it helps it.
Posted by: Chris Berez | January 9, 2008 10:12 AM
Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically
Even if that were true, would you want someone for President who is such a naïve and disorganized leader? What would his underlings do on his behalf in the White House that he would be oblivious to?
Posted by: Kristine | January 9, 2008 10:31 AM
Anyone who has ever studied American history has stumbled over the question as to whether any state had/has the right to secede from the union, which brings up the question as to whether the Lincoln administration should have gone to war. Personally, I believe it was the right thing to do, as a separate Confederacy would have been at war, both hot and cold, with the remaining Union for decades afterwards. The Underground Railroad had only been restricted by the federal government's desire to hold the slave states and free states together; with two separate nations, one free and one slave, the activities of the Railroad would have become far more extensive and open, at least in the North. There would have been no way to avoid continuing hostilities if the Confederacy held on to slavery.
But having that kind of discussion does not require, nor does it excuse, the vile bigotry, hatred and simple arrogance of these newsletters. Paul's insistance that he is not responsible for the writings is both disingenuous and unethical. I thought taking responsibility for one's actions, if any negative results were unintentional, was part and parcel of the conservative mindset?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | January 9, 2008 10:39 AM
"For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
Posted by: Gretchen | January 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Before I'd speculated that folks like David Duke who endorsed Paul so enthusiastically had read something in the newsletters we hadn't seen that they liked a great deal. Although still speculative, I'd bump it up to highly probable, especially given that one of those letters endorsed David Duke.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | January 9, 2008 10:50 AM
The "I didn't write it" thing is a lame excuse. If these are the sorts of people that end up on Paul's staff (in addition to Rockwell and North) one can only expect that they'd end up in a Paul administration.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | January 9, 2008 10:53 AM
All I needed to know about Ron Paul I learned a decade ago, after we received a fund-raising letter from him. The letter was to solicit funds for Jesse Helm's re-election campaign. From that, I concluded that Paul was a racist, anti-semite and homophobe; one is known by the company one keeps.
Thanks for the information on the von Mises Institute. I had presumed that it had had some relationship with von Mises, not with the nutcase Lew Rockwell
Going up a bit to James Hanley | January 9, 2008 9:55 AM, I'm sorry, but your comment is completely ahistorical. Almost to the extent of being nutty. First, as to who started the War of Northern Agreession, it was the South: they shot first shots at Ft. Sumter, a Northern installation.
Second, I guess it escaped your notice that the Constitution was intended to, and did supplant and supercede the Articles of Confederation, and severely limited the sovereigntly of the states in many ways. You may want to consider re-reading the Constitution..
Third, if the Constitution was considered tantamount to a contract, to dissolve a contract requires the consent of all parties. The Southern states wanted to do it unilaterally. That's a big no-no.
And, note that I have written nothing favorable about Lincoln.
Posted by: raj | January 9, 2008 11:06 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | January 9, 2008 11:39 AM
A reader on Reason's Hit & Run blog said "Look, he's a Congressman. You actually expect him to read stuff his name is on? Then hold the sponsors of the Patriot Act to the same standard." Which made me laugh, albeit darkly. Ron Paul supports the Read the Bills Act, yet he couldn't be bothered to read his own newsletters-- or so he claims.
It's downright painful to see a presidential candidate who wants to change the federal government in such necessary ways demonstrated to have had such terrible judgment. His reputation wouldn't suffer more if it were discovered that he used to be a crack dealer. The appropriate thing would be to give a full explanation, including names of actual authors if he really wasn't one of them. But I doubt it would really make a difference in terms of damage control.
I'd still rather have a former-- or current-- racist in the White House than any of the others running, but it sure would be nice to have a different libertarian in Paul's shoes right now, so I wouldn't have to say that.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 9, 2008 11:40 AM
But who else will?
I thought Kucinich's plans were similar to Paul's. Am I being naive in this analysis?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | January 9, 2008 11:53 AM
I hate to keep bringing this up since, based on comments on earlier threads on this blog, there doesn't appear to be much interest but Representative Pauls' dalliance with medical quacks and cranks is at least as worrisome as his dalliance with racists.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/index.php?page=2
Posted by: SLC | January 9, 2008 12:14 PM
Well, unlike Paul, Kucinich:
-- Supports universal health care
-- Is highly anti-gun ownership. Supports a national ban on handguns
-- Has a bad record on freedom of expression, including supporting a flag desecration amendment and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine to force broadcasters to present "opposing viewpoints"
-- Supports reparations for Africans in America
-- Supports affirmative action
-- Wants the federal government to promote arts and culture
-- Wants the federal government to increase funding for education and environmental protections
-- Is a vegan, supports increased animal rights legislation
...to name a few. So yes, I think it's safe to say that they're rather different. Kucinich commented at one point that he'd like to have Paul as a running mate, to which Paul's campaign said "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on ending the war and protecting civil liberties. However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible."
Posted by: Gretchen | January 9, 2008 12:27 PM
I agree with James Hanley that there are reasonable arguments to be made on the issue of states' rights to secede, and that raising those arguments is not evidence of any sympathy for slavery or the confederacy. Gore Vidal, among many other liberals, takes the position that the South should have been allowed to secede. And if the League of the South and other neo-confederate groups only made those arguments, the case would be quite weak against them. But of course, they don't stop there. They also go on to argue silly things like "the pre-civil war South was the most harmonious society with racial mixing in history" and "slaves loved their masters." Ugh.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 9, 2008 12:29 PM
I agree with you Ed. And I am very disappointed.
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 9, 2008 1:09 PM
Ed Brayton | January 9, 2008 12:29 PM
Gore Vidal, among many other liberalstakes the position that the South should have been allowed to secede
I sincerely don't care what Gore Vidal has to say about much of anything--he was an entertaining fiction writer, I presume, but I'd never give him credence on legal matters. Apparently you missed my reference to "unilateral succession." If the Southern states had negotiated secession with the rest of the Union, that would be one thing. But they didn't. They unilaterally broke a contract. Whether that warranted a war is another issue, but they started the war, as I noted in my comment.
Quiite frankly, you seem to be ignoring history a bit, too. The slave states had been "pushing the envelope" for way too long, compromises of this that and the other year, and, quite frankly, the slave states via the Fugitive Slave Acts made the North (non slave states) complicit in their slavery. Hence the anti-slavery riots in Boston in 1853, and hence the Underground Railway. Forcing people to be complicit in what they believe to be an abomination does nothing to simmer them down. Re-read Lincoln's 1858 Republican Convention speech: a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Posted by: raj | January 9, 2008 1:27 PM
raj-
You're missing the point. I think Lincoln ultimately did the right thing and I think the Civil War was an ugly necessity under the circumstances. James and I are just saying that there are reasonable arguments on the other side and that taking that position does not necessarily mean one supported slavery or is a racist. That's all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 9, 2008 1:41 PM
I find that raj and I often disagree. A nice thing about a blog that encourages discussion like this is that we can disagree and debate these things. So here's my response to his critique of my prior post.
Ah, I meant to comment on that to head off this argument, and didn't, so it's a fair shot. Raj's claim is accurate, but his interpretation of its significance is not. Yes, the South fired the first shots, but they also would have been amenable to stopping at that point if the North would have let them go. Wholesale scorched earth war as a necessary consequence of the Ft. Sumter fight? No, not even close. Ahistorical to the point of being nutty? Ouch, I suppose, but, again, no, not even close. You didn't read my post carefully. I pointed out that one difference between the Articles and the Constitution was that the Constitution was wholly silent on the issue of sovereignty. (This was a pragmatic ommission--if they had specified it either way, opponents of that specification would have defeated ratification.) What that means is that the ratification of the Constitution cannot be taken to conclusively state that the states were subordinate to the Federal Government. The simple historical fact is that the Southern states never thought the states had surrendured their sovereignty. To say that it's definitively clear that they had, if that's what raj means, is ahistorical.Oh, and yes I do read the Constitution frequently. It's boring reading, but it's part of my job.
This argument is reasonable, but all hinges on the key word "if." There's no clear evidence that the Constitution was considered a contract in the sense we're talking about here. Remember that the states retained their full sovereignty and independence under the Articles of Confederation (Article II). That means they agreed to the Constitution as independent and sovereign states (not provinces, but states). It's at least as reasonable to consider the Constitution as being as much treaty as contract, and states can opt out of treaties.I am not arguing that the Southern state's interpretation was the correct one, and that raj's and Lincoln's is wrong. I'm arguing only that historically this was their intrepretation, and that the text of the Constitution does not itself refute it. And Lincoln could have chosen not to force them back into the Union.
Whether it was a good thing to do is a separate question from whether it was a necessary thing. CPT_Doom makes the good argument for why it was the right thing to do.
Personally, with 20-20 hindsight and tongue only slightly in cheek, I think if Lincoln had let them go we wouldn't have to deal with the southern conservatives running our couuntry. Just think, no century of Senate filibustering of Civil Rights legislation, no Strom Thurmond, no Newt Gingrich, no George W. Bush, no Tom Delay, no Trent Lott (and no SEC football!). As I see it, the only good things that came out of the south was blues and southern rock, and we would have gotten that even if they weren't part of the U.S.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM
Ed and I have been agreeing too much lately. I'm going to have to say something to piss him off so people don't think I'm sucking up to him. ;)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 9, 2008 1:47 PM
James Hanley | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM
I disagree with much of your comment (and I won't repeat what I said above) but I do very much agree with this
Personally, with 20-20 hindsight and tongue only slightly in cheek, I think if Lincoln had let them go we wouldn't have to deal with the southern conservatives running our couuntry
even though I was born in Norfolk VA of Southern parentage. The parents can't stand Southern politicians of either party, either, and we're all what would be considered white.
Posted by: raj | January 9, 2008 2:06 PM
It in interesting to me how so many people think of the right of a state to secede as being completely non-sensical. But the right of secession was widely held early in the history of the US. When NY ratified the Constitution, it included the signing statement that it reserved the right to secede.
Even General Ulysses Grant stated in his memoirs that he believed that the 10th Amendment clearly gave the states the right to secede as the power to secede was not prohibited to the states in the rest of the Constitution.
Posted by: Mike | January 9, 2008 2:08 PM
It should also being remembered that the New England states thought about leaving the union earlier in the century. It was widely assumed at the time that this was possible.
I would also like to point out that if Lincoln had let the South go there probably would have been a war sooner or later anyway over the ownership of the Western terrirories. So I, for one, am glad that we had one that ended slavery instead.
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 9, 2008 2:22 PM
Interestingly (is that a word?), Vidal also had a sympathetic take on Timothy McVeigh, who considered himself a modern day John Brown.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | January 9, 2008 2:45 PM
sigh. One things i rather enjoyed about this blog is that it usually refrains from discussing hit pieces from the likes of James Kirchick. This stuff was already known long ago. But what I don't get is that Ron Paul never had a chance so I am still perplexed at why so much ink is spent on him. Personally I rather like Ron Paul and many of his positions (his immigration stance not being one of them) but I could never get myself from looking at him more as an amusement than anything. I liken him to a crotchety old uncle that keeps questionable friends. And its really of no surprise that nutcases who think the central government is just a massive conspiracy that wants to destroy their lives would support a candidate that believes in a limited government.
Sorry for this interruption - you may all go back to discussing a war fought over 140 years ago now....
Posted by: yoshi | January 9, 2008 4:26 PM
Raj, in my hypothetical union absent southern states, I would be glad to let you and your parents in as a refugees seeking political asylum.
I think Perry Willis is right that there would likely have been war over the Western territories.
As a libertarian, I believe in the right of people to self-sort and engage in political self-determination. Unfortunately, humans rarely seem able to engage in that peacefully.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 9, 2008 4:38 PM
The question that is not being discussed here is money: Presumably, these (up to) 100,000 newsletters were not printed and distributed for free.
Were the subscriptions? If so, where did this money go, and who oversaw the accounts? Did Ron Paul personally benefit? The Mieses Foundation? We all knew Paul hung out with questionable characters and groups, that's old news. Show me the money.
And since it appears to be required in this comment thread, I agree with Prof. Hanley both that the South had the right to secede and with Lincoln's decision to oppose secession by force.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 9, 2008 5:39 PM
I'm surprised Godwin's Law hasn't been fulfilled yet. Let me do it:
Referring to "the enemy" in the singular reminds me of "the Russian" and "the Jew" and, as a self-designation, "the Aryan"... at the very least, it sounds like the newsletter authors were mentally stuck in the 1940s.
------------
LOL!
------------
How much longer would slavery have lasted anyway, considering British pressure?
------------
I've seen it very often, and Google has seen it 13,400,000 times, so...
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 9, 2008 6:35 PM
Something I included in my post on this subject, is a link to a page that takes a look at Thomas Woods, his book, and the League of the South. Read here.
Posted by: Skemono | January 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Though probably unintended, this is a nice pun on a German word for "bad"...
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 9, 2008 6:40 PM
what I don't get is that Ron Paul never had a chance so I am still perplexed at why so much ink is spent on him
This mostly just reminds me of the "if creationism is so scientifically unimportant, then why do scientists spend so much time fighting them?" argument. :|
Posted by: Coin | January 9, 2008 6:45 PM
As a matter of fact, Ron Paul does not support the "Read the Bills Act." We have never been able to get a good explanation of why not. His staff always mumbles something about violating the separation of powers.
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 9, 2008 7:09 PM
This makes no sense. Remember that the South was a sort of stratified society with an aroistocracy that owned plantations and owned slaves to work those plantations. So a Polish Jew Anarcho-capitalist is pro-Confederate? Huh?
Posted by: Confederate Jew | January 9, 2008 8:11 PM
According to this interview he does:
Posted by: Gretchen | January 9, 2008 8:29 PM
Gretchen: The reality is that the Congresscritter is never going to read the bill: The issue is whether at least the staff have a chance to review things. When I was a Congressional Aide (1987-90) we generally had from 3-5 days from Committee markup to a floor vote (assuming the matter was controversial). We had access to the bill itself (via a precursor of the internet) and the summary from the Democratic Study Group (a subscription service). If it was a bill I was covering, I would normally also speak to a senior aide for either the sponsor or the sponsoring Committee(s). The Committee print of the bill with Committee notes was generally only available about 7-10 days after markup, so we normally did not have that.
You do the best you can, and hope that the information you have is more or less correct. In this sense, politics is a lot worse than making sausage.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 9, 2008 9:08 PM
Fine, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote for it. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for we who have to obey it, but just dandy for those who make it?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 9, 2008 9:22 PM
"...hit pieces from the likes of James Kirchick."
When someone uses the term "hit piece" to describe a magazine/newspaper article regarding an individual, it usually translates to mean "a piece with no factual errors or misrepresentations of any kind that makes a person I like look bad." The above quotation is no exception.
"...Ron Paul never had a chance, so I am perplexed at why so much ink is spent on him"
It's ironic that yoshi is wondering "why so much ink is spent" on Ron Paul in response to a story (a congressman and major-party presidential candidate whose past includes publishing a newsletter under his name that included writings that wouldn't be out of place at a Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nations rally) that shows why so much ink is spent on him.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 9, 2008 9:38 PM
Regarding Lincoln's right to war with South Carolina (and the states that followed):
What's the difference between refusing to allow a state to secede vs. allowing them to secede, then declaring war on them and taking them over once you defeat them? (And graciously granting them statehood upon doing so?)
Posted by: itchy | January 9, 2008 10:22 PM
Itchy: That's a good observation. I suspect the difference would have somethign to do with people's perceptions of whether the war was just or not, but personally I'm a Clausewitzian so I consider war to be the pursuit of policy by other means. If you hold to that attitude then its really only the outcome that matters, not the legal niceities involved in obtaining it.
Ed: I share your disappointment in Paul. As more information about him has come out I see him as a nut of questionable worth. The truly tragic thing is that were I a US citizen I would still probably vote for him as I have no question as to the worth of any of the other candidates, and a vote for Paul might push the Republicans ina more libertarian direction in the future. Otherwise I have a bad feeling that Huckabee represents the future of Team Red (hell, he practically represents the present of Team Red) and if that happens your country is royally screwed.
Posted by: James | January 9, 2008 11:58 PM
There are three types of shallow people:
1. People scared of Paul because he would end the special treatment they get from the government.
2. People who don't understand his ideas and can't be bothered presenting a reasoned case against them, even though Paul's ideas are well supported in the academic literature by the likes of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and various other classical liberals.
3. People who are just plain nasty for no good reason. These people use a newsletter which Paul has admitted moral culpability for (by not overseeing what went out under his name) to smear his other positions or his good name, an intellectually dishonest tactic because it equates the writings with what he personally believes -- even though his issue page on racism on his website clearly states to the contrary.
All three types share the common position of calling him a crank or "way out there" because labelling intellectual opponents is an easy way to win laughs from the crowd of snickering know-it-alls.
Posted by: Pablo Escobar | January 10, 2008 12:08 AM
"1. People scared of Paul because he would end the special treatment they get from the government"
What "people" getting "special treatment from the government" are you talking about?
"2. People who don't understand his ideas..."
Maybe it's not so much a matter of the people in category #2 not "understanding" his ideas as much as it is of these people not agreeing with them (unless one wants to take the snide position that a person only doesn't agree with Paul's ideas because they don't
understand them).
"3. People who are just plain nasty for no good reason."
This first sentence of category #3 characterizes the type of people who wrote for Paul's newsletter as much as it does his supposedly awful opponents.
"All three types share the common position of calling him a crank or "way out there" because labelling intellecutal opponents is an easy way to win laughs from the crowd of snickering know-it-alls"
The fact alone that Paul, in your own words, did not oversee "what went out under his name" is odd enough that I think it merits the "crank" and "way out there" labels.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 10, 2008 12:41 AM
Black people, obviously.
No, no, no. Haven't you been listening to Ron Paul? It's not that they don't understand him, it's that anyone who disagrees with his political positions are stupid. He's said so, and he's always right.
So he's admitted moral culpability, but it's "just plain nasty" of us to actually hold him culpable? Hilarious.
But no, you're right. How dare we smear the "good name" of a man who thinks black people are stupid, violent animals!
It's dishonest to think that the views he wrote, or at least tacitly endorsed by publishing under his own name? Sure. I mean, I know that I'd trust the public slogan of someone saying whatever it takes to get you to vote him into the White House over the words that same person writes in private. It's just common sense.
And by the way, what he wrote on his web page is not at all at odds with the racist crap he published in his newsletters. In fact, his talk about individualism and liberty simply reinforces his sneering at "civil rights" (scare quotes his) and black people's attempts to actually progress in society.
Posted by: Skemono | January 10, 2008 1:25 AM
So you mean to tell me a rich white man who is involved in Republican politics and is from Texas turned out to be a little racist? Do we have any way of confirming this?
Seriously, it is a shame though. I like the message if not the man.
Posted by: Hepatitis_B_Good | January 10, 2008 2:33 AM
Well, I did find something that he can't weasel out of by saying they weren't his words.... Not that it'll stop the die-hard Paul fanatics.
Posted by: Skemono | January 10, 2008 2:51 AM
The continued revelations about Paul upset me. I did not join the Paul Revolution but had committed myself to voting for him, mainly because of his Iraq stance and the fact he was the only republican who understands why 911 happened. I also agree with his statements on the federal reserve.
I'm fairly upset, Iraq took a toll on me...
And I know no one other than Kucinich would resist the call of the Military Industrial Complex as president.
Oh well, why bother, Iraq will continue, more people will die, more billions will be stolen and no one really seems to care...
Posted by: gene | January 10, 2008 3:52 AM
James wrote
I've been curious about the Huckabee vs. Romney issue for evangelicals, so I asked my mom, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who never misses an election, and a devout conservative evangelical, if she would for for Romney. She paused, then in a thoughtful tone said, "Yes."
Then I asked whether she'd vote for Huckabee, and she firmly said, "No."
She thinks Mormons are going to hell, but she also recognized that being a "proper" Christian isn't a sufficient qualification for President (she used Jimmy Carter as an example), and she also doesn't see Huckabee as a true conservative--apparently he's not willing to round up and execute all teh illegals.
She's only 1 data point, but she's a Limbaugh and Hannity listener, and gets the Focus on the Family literature, so she's fairly representative of the type.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 10, 2008 7:52 AM
kerhsam,
It damn sure is a requirement that you agree with me!
Seriously, I liked the information in your post about being a Congressional aide. I'm aware that there are literally thousands of bills submitted each session, and Congressmembers probably can't find time to fully read all those they vote on, what with time taken up by committee meetings, constituent service, constant campaigning, etc. But I'm not a congressional expert by any means (I had a single undergrad class in it), so that bit of info was new to me.
If I ever get around to writing a textbook on American Government, I might ask you to contribute a few paragraphs along those lines.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 10, 2008 7:59 AM
Does this really come as a surprise?
Posted by: Donna | January 10, 2008 10:47 AM
James Hanley: I find that strangely reassuring. I mean Romney is a weasel, even for a politician, but Huckabee apeears as though he was specifically designed to annoy me. Left-wing Nanny Statism and foaming fundamentalism wrapped up in one nasty little package.
Perhaps Obama will turn out better than I intially expected. He hired a Chicago economist as an economics advisor, so that's a good sign. I'll wait to see if he says anything substantial.
kehrsam: That really is bad. In NEw Zealand we have 3 full reading in the House of every Bill, one when it is introduced, one after it comes out of Select Committee and one once all the ammendments ahve been considered. Even if the house is sitting under urgency only the committee stage is skipped.
This is, in part, possible because our laws are writted by civil servants (the Parliamentary Councils' Office) rather than just any amateur, and as such they have a common and reasonably elegant style. If you are interested in the difference it can make, I recommend you visit www.legislation.govt.nz
Posted by: James | January 11, 2008 2:37 AM
Thers no evidence to sopport any of it! i cant believe you guys are listening to this.
Posted by: Brandon | January 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. (static)
Hello People this guy is a Democrat of course hes gonna try and ruin ron paul's name! First of all Democrats dont know anything about economics! democrats try to take away your rights and freedoms with goernment control look up Ezra Levant. THis guy is a total dem he reports for the Natinal Center for Science. Democrats hurt business want bigger goverment welfare for all! free health care for all nothing is free and i am not paying free health care out of my taxes for a bum who drinks and does drugs and doesent have a job!
Posted by: David | January 21, 2008 7:09 PM
Who would've thought that actually reading someone's blog to get a hold on his political views could be so darn taxing?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 21, 2008 7:27 PM
Look i looked at every artical possible there is no evidence what so ever. How would you like to be accused of something thats not true. in America we say innosent until proven guilty! or at least thats were i come from.
Posted by: Fred | January 21, 2008 7:29 PM
Well, given the "support" Ron Paul is getting from his supporters here, I think it's just as well that he's not doing well. I think even Bush's appointees would be a step up from these...
Posted by: gwangung | January 21, 2008 7:31 PM
Unqualified supporters of any political candidate are not exactly the brightest bunch, gwangung.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 21, 2008 7:50 PM
I do not sopport Ron Paul. I dont dont see evidence. Please show me evidence thats all i am asking.
Posted by: Fred | January 21, 2008 8:11 PM
Evidence of what?
Posted by: Skemono | January 21, 2008 8:14 PM
Fred: If what you want is support for the proposition that the newsletters exist, they most certainly do. In fact, when I was a Congressional Aide (1987-90) they were mailed to every office on a regular basis (no, we didn't subscibe; someone thought the thing important enough to send one to every office free). As the economics guy in the office, they wound up in my inbox.
While the newsletter was mostly about crackpot economic theory (abolish the Fed, go back to the gold standard, flat consumption tax, etc) there was always plenty of nativism, racism, and plain old Bircher crazy talk to keep the conversation flowing. I don't know what evidence you're looking for, either, but the newsletter certainly existed, and the New Republic article is a pretty fair summary of its contents.
As an aside, I was a long-time subscriber to the New Republic who quit a year or so ago because the magazine had largely ceased to carry investigative journalism. This article is a good sign, but they still need to rediscover the sense of humor they once had.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 21, 2008 8:31 PM
David -
Good gods your in the line for most ironic comment, grounded in sheer ignorance. Ed is not a democrat, nor is he a republican. And he is a fairly extreme opponent of universal health care. Your's is another example of absurd dichotomies.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 21, 2008 9:52 PM
I strongly believe that Ron Paul is sincere in his dedication to upholding the Constitution. Ron Pauls governance plan is libertarian, although personally his Christian religious beleifs clash with this. His alleged personal beliefs as mentioned in several earlier posts are of no consequence to his proposed libertarian style of governance. For example his personal opposition to drugs, gay mariage, abortion, (alleged racism), (alleged neo-confederate alliance) etc etc etc MAY be anti-libertarian, and possibly based on his conflicting religious beleifs etc, BUT....................
THIS is of no consequence, due to the fact that there will be NO federal laws taking away the individual rights and liberties of any of these groups or other free choice activities..............................................................................................................
Ron pauls opinion on the civil war as I understand is that it was a waste of lives and money no matter how noble the cause. His argument was that the same result was acheived in other countries such as England abolishing slavery with out the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Basically it wasn't necessarilly as honorable as many have been led to beleive, during their public school doctrination.
Posted by: Brent | January 22, 2008 10:00 AM
Indoctrination
Posted by: Brent | January 22, 2008 10:02 AM
Sure he is. Except for any parts of it he doesn't like, such as the 1st amendment, the 14th amendment, the 16th amendment.... He pretty much only seems to give a damn about the 2nd and 10th amendments, really.
Except for the ones that Ron Paul has already tried to pass?
Posted by: Skemono | January 26, 2008 10:11 PM
To paraphrase "Yes Minister", I'm sure Neville chamberlain was quite sincere about wanting peace and look how that ended up.
Even if Ron Paul is not a racist and is not a homophobe and sincerely believes that the Federal government should have no right to override state governments on human rights issues, what matters is what effect his policies woudl have if he were elected and they were enacted.
It's pretty damn obvious that the effect of those policies would be to roll back a whole range of civil liberties in the US.
If practice of course, in the vastly unlikely event Paul were elected, virtually none of his legislative proposals would be supported by either party; he'd probably veto every single spending bill and he'd likely either end up being impeached or as the least powerful President since Andrew Johnson.
Hands up everyone who wants a President philosophically opposed to the very existence of the EPA negotiating an international agreement on carbon emissions.
(Actually given his opposition to the UN as well he'd likely refuse point-blank to negotiate any such agreement. Trade embargo here we come.)
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2008 12:30 AM