It would seem so:
Ron Paul Tells Chris Matthews He Favors Enforcement of No-Blacks Covenants in Deeds?]: Richard said... Is it wrong for me to wonder when Paul said 'property rights and states rights' whether those same words would have applied in slavery days?
Matt said... I'm sure, if pressed, Sen. Paul would also be against the Emancipation Proclamation; after all, talk about messing with 'private property'! Clearly he'd have preferred the 'free-market' solution...
The mind does boggle. Somewhere nearby on the quantum wave function of the multiverse:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have supported the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.... MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '63 proclamation, a landmark that took strides toward ending slavery....
Paul... explained that he would have opposed the Proclamation 'because of the property rights element, not because I approve of slavery.'...
'This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist,' said the Texas congressman. 'That's just outlandish.'
Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring that he or she employed slaves in his or her business, people wouldn't patronize it...
"
Comments