Ron Paul’s “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag

[kylejack]

The South left the Union. The North responded by moving its military into the new nation.

Who started the war, and as such, whose motivations were more central to the cause of the war?

Federal troops were already in the South.

 

[southernsontn]

Many of you said the war had nothing to do with slavery, but according to the review several of the states' declaration of separation's say in the first paragraph that slavery was a major, if not the biggest issue why.

I have discussed this issue with several people over the years, and although what I say isn't popular, it is the truth. I see a lot of similarities in the slavery issue and the abortion issue. To me, an unborn infant is still an infant, and a human being that has the same rights as any other human being, This view is the reason that I personally oppose abortion, because the act denies a person of their right to life. To someone who is pro-abortion, however, an unborn infant isn't seen as a human being, but rather as some sort of "growth", that can be cut from an unwilling mother so that she doesn't have to be inconvenienced by the infants presence. I see it as completely repulsive and immoral, but to a pro-abortion supporter, it is seen as a property rights issue.

To eighteenth century (White) Americans, the same could be said for Slaves. they weren't viewed as completely human, but rather as something less than. This is a completely immoral position, but it was the position shared by the vast majority of (white) Americans of the day. The issue of Slaves as humans was a completely fringe issue at the time, and one that most (white) Americans didn't take seriously. When the issue was contested, it was seen as a property rights issue, which was a subset of property rights. Most of those who argued against slavery, did so because they opposed the idea of blacks being present on this continent, and that includes Lincoln. Lincoln made the statement several times that they should be "colonized" to Africa, because he opposed the idea of an integrated society. Slavery was an absolutely detestable institution, but it was part of a much larger racist view that was shared across America. Some free blacks even owned slaves farther propagating the issue that a slave wasn't a person until they were "granted" personhood by emancipation, just like many pro-abortionists hold the view that there is some magical moment when that "growth" becomes a person.

I personally believe that in 150 years, society will realize that abortion is an infringement of human rights, and will view pro-abortion proponents in the same light as we now view those who held a pro-slavery view 150 years ago. There will be those who will argue they they should view pro-abortionists as they were viewed then (now), but by and large, they will be ignored and viewed as "revisionists", and "abortion apologists".

 

[southernsontn]

sorry, double post...

 

[klamath]

I have discussed this issue with several people over the years, and although what I say isn't popular, it is the truth. I see a lot of similarities in the slavery issue and the abortion issue. To me, an unborn infant is still an infant, and a human being that has the same rights as any other human being, This view is the reason that I personally oppose abortion, because the act denies a person of their right to life. To someone who is pro-abortion, however, an unborn infant isn't seen as a human being, but rather as some sort of "growth", that can be cut from an unwilling mother so that she doesn't have to be inconvenienced by the infants presence. I see it as completely repulsive and immoral, but to a pro-abortion supporter, it is seen as a property rights issue.

To eighteenth century (White) Americans, the same could be said for Slaves. they weren't viewed as completely human, but rather as something less than. This is a completely immoral position, but it was the position shared by the vast majority of (white) Americans of the day. The issue of Slaves as humans was a completely fringe issue at the time, and one that most (white) Americans didn't take seriously. When the issue was contested, it was seen as a property rights issue, which was a subset of property rights. Most of those who argued against slavery, did so because they opposed the idea of blacks being present on this continent, and that includes Lincoln. Lincoln made the statement several times that they should be "colonized" to Africa, because he opposed the idea of an integrated society. Slavery was an absolutely detestable institution, but it was part of a much larger racist view that was shared across America. Some free blacks even owned slaves farther propagating the issue that a slave wasn't a person until they were "granted" personhood by emancipation, just like many pro-abortionists hold the view that there is some magical moment when that "growth" becomes a person.

I personally believe that in 150 years, society will realize that abortion is an infringement of human rights, and will view pro-abortion proponents in the same light as we now view those who held a pro-slavery view 150 years ago. There will be those who will argue they they should view pro-abortionists as they were viewed then (now), but by and large, they will be ignored and viewed as "revisionists", and "abortion apologists".

Unfortunately the whites knew blacks were human all the way before the founding of the nation but it wasn't convenient to acknoledge it and the same can be said about proabortionists. They know it is killing but it is not convenient to stop so they will not admit it..

 

[klamath]

they waited for four months! how long would you wait for a foreign military to leave your borders?

Maybe try using 4000 diplomates before lock loading and firing at will? Or was it a preemtive war.

 

[kill the banks]

bravo a thread that taught me a few subtle things

 

[Ricky201]

Actually, the whole issue of who owned slaves needs revising http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+duke+slavery&oq=

REALLY?! Jesus H Christ.

 

[porchdog]

you cant win this argument with people who have been educated in the public schools, taught that the war of northern agression,was about saving slaves from the evil south. you cant expect people to educate themselved or even care about history. I can only say I wish the south had won.

 

[nicname]

REALLY?! Jesus H Christ.

David Duke? good grief

 

[southernsontn]

Unfortunately the whites knew blacks were human all the way before the founding of the nation but it wasn't convenient to acknoledge it and the same can be said about proabortionists. They know it is killing but it is not convenient to stop so they will not admit it..

And on that, we can agree. In both cases, apologetic science gave/give them an excuse to be ignorant. either way, I make no moral argument or try to defend. I was asked a question, and I answered.

Maybe try using 4000 diplomates before lock loading and firing at will? Or was it a preemtive war.

many, myself included, would argue that Lincoln instigated the war by sending the resupply ship into Confederate waters in the first place, after he was expressly given prior warning that such an act would be considered an act of war.As far as diplomats, The confederacy did send diplomats to Washington, where they were absolutely ignored.

 

[klamath]

And on that, we can agree. In both cases, apologetic science gave/give them an excuse to be ignorant. either way, I make no moral argument or try to defend. I was asked a question, and I answered.



many, myself included, would argue that Lincoln instigated the war by sending the resupply ship into Confederate waters in the first place, after he was expressly given prior warning that such an act would be considered an act of war.As far as diplomats, The confederacy did send diplomats to Washington, where they were absolutely ignored.

And many would argue(that SC most certainly does as proved last night) that Iran building a nuclear weapon while stating they want to wipe Israel and the US off the map is starting it as well. My god we have given them 6 YEARS!
They gave the new president 8 days to work with them. They knew exactly what they were starting..
Firing on FT sumter

"will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

..confederate Sec state Robert Toombs.
They didn't use their main diplomat... Both side knew exactly what the first shots would bring and the south chose to start it.
And so they chanted dixie dixie dixie many years ago and last night they chanted USA USA USA at Newts victory speech.

 

[Kingfisher]

Even though The War was fought over states rights and the bad guys won. the average American has been brainwashed since grade school to think that Ol' Abe was a hero who freed the slaves. So its a subject we should let lie lest we alienate some of our less informed.

(Read Thomas Woods "The Politically Incorrect View of History") (Or something like that)

 

[Cyberbrain]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Article One, Section Eight

"The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

An armed but limited rebellion is an insurrection, and if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency. In a larger conflict the rebels may be recognised as belligerents without their government being recognised by the established government, in which case the conflict becomes a civil war.

 

[jmdrake]

No reason? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Unlike today, in the 1800s state identification and regional identification was huge. The initial forming of the US was really like the forming of the EU--except we all spoke the same language. People identified with their states and the states were like countries.

The South had a number of reasons and after 30+ years of feeling like they were getting punished by the north they said enough.

This actually undermines Ron Paul's position. In that speech in front of the confederate flag Ron Paul praised Andrew Jackson for killing the 2nd bank of the U.S. But Andrew Jackson was president during the nullification crisis. Read your own link.

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared by the power of the State that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina.

It was southerner Andrew Jackson that first threatened to invade the south. So if the hero who killed the banks was the one who threatened to invade over secession that undermines the idea that it was all a plot by big bankers for centralized government. Also the "tariff of abominations" was long gone before Lincoln became president. It was actually the repeal of that tariff that helped end the nullification crisis. Tariffs were at historic lows when the south seceded. There was a threat of a new tariff (the Morrill tariff if I recall correctly), but that tariff could not have passed if the seceding states senators had not left congress. That was tactically a stupid move. Anyway, as they say, the rest is history.

 

[gte811i]

This actually undermines Ron Paul's position. . . . .

I didn't say anything about Paul's position, or about Jackson. You are reading way more into what I said.

My point was that people want to look at just the historical facts without looking at historical context.
The historical context is that for years the south and the north were at odds; not just on slavery, but on tariffs, way of life, to just about everything.

As for Jackson, he had some great qualities, but some horrible ones too. Killing the 2nd bank was a great quality. But for example, I highly doubt that Paul is in favor of Jackson's treatment of the Indians.

I do read my own links, I just don't put words in other's mouths unlike like some might try to do.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Secession is not insurrection. The southern states were not attempting to overthrow the established government and install their own; they were opting out of the states' contract.

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't say anything about Paul's position, or about Jackson. You are reading way more into what I said.

My point was that people want to look at just the historical facts without looking at historical context.
The historical context is that for years the south and the north were at odds; not just on slavery, but on tariffs, way of life, to just about everything.

As for Jackson, he had some great qualities, but some horrible ones too. Killing the 2nd bank was a great quality. But for example, I highly doubt that Paul is in favor of Jackson's treatment of the Indians.

I do read my own links, I just don't put words in other's mouths unlike like some might try to do.

My point is that by the time the civil war came around the nullification crisis was long over (South Carolina won) and the tariff of 1820 was no longer a factor. The nullification argument would be stronger if people quit tying it to secession. At the outbreak of the civil war the south was actually angry at the north for nullifying the fugitive slave laws.

 

[jemuf]

This is one of the issues where Ron Paul is simply wrong. Slavery and states rights were both major issues factoring up in the Civil War. One cannot say it was exclusively about states rights, because it ignores why some states, such as Mississippi seceded.

Youtube video clip at ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B85TJJyKyKw&feature=player_embedded

Dr. Paul didn't say the Civil War was exclusively about states' rights. With Dr. Paul, on some of these more hot button issues, you have to open your mind, listen, listen again, THINK, study, and research. Maybe the most important action is to think.

Do you THINK Dr. Paul is pro-slavery? Do you THINK he's a racist? Do you THINK he's pro-terrorist? Do you THINK he's un-American?

If you answered no to all four then what is your problem? What is he wrong about?

Heaven forbid that a white man should have the courage to talk about the Civil War, slavery, and the consent of the people/states. Of course the words are not always perfect. When the words fail you then you have to look at the whole man...past and present.

Use your judgment and some common sense and quit being fooled by other people's minds. If more people would THINK then Dr. Paul would be the undisputed Republican nominee.

 

[njinsa]

Is this actually the confederate flag, or Georgia's flag? Does anyone know where this speech has taken place?

http://sos.georgia.gov/archives/museum/html/georgia_state_flag_since_1956.htm

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Secession is not insurrection. The southern states were not attempting to overthrow the established government and install their own; they were opting out of the states' contract.

This ^^