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

[isee]

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

Ron Paul has made no secret the fact that he thought that the South was right in the Civil War. Here he is giving a speech in front of a giant Confederate Flag about why he believes the North was wrong in the Civil War and why the South was right.

Several Ron Paul supporters have asked that the video be taken down, from the pro-Confederate channel, Patriot Review but Patriot Review believes that the video could help Paul win South Carolina. If they do take it down, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has downloaded a copy of the video

SOURCE: NewsOne.com is your destination for news and information for and about Blacks in America. Filled with original stories, diverse opinions, photos, videos and polls, let NewsOne be your daily stop and make your voices heard!

Interactive One (which now incorporates Community Connect, Inc.) is the leading online platform serving the African American consumer reaching more than 9 Million unique visitors per month and growing. Our mission is to embrace and positively impact the lives of African Americans. Interactive One will empower the African American community by providing news, information, entertainment, community, tools and services which speak uniquely and directly to our audience’s values and needs

hxxp://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/

 

[raginggran]

That article and another one from the site are being tweeted extensively.. help me refute these claims on twitter.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

News One is a pro-Obama, anti-white propaganda website. Don't respond to those smear merchants

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Refute the claims? Ron Paul and the South were right.

Most people don't understand why the Civil War happened.

Goals of both sides:

South: Secede from oppressive Union government.
North: Keep the South in the union.

Slavery was a side disagreement. One of the arguments was whether slavery would be allowed in the WEST. There was never an effort to abolish slavery in the South.

Based on the facts, the South had the right to secede.

But if we switch it around to the commonly held belief of what happened, that the Union was fighting to free the slaves in the South, then that means the Union would have the moral argument and they would be right.

 

[undergroundrr]

Just a lure for the unwise Paul grassroots and opposition plants to make imprudent comments. Resist the temptation and let the Obamabots have their party. This video is unlikely to blow up into being a significant issue.

 

[raginggran]

replyed with stop smearing.. lol

 

[raginggran]

I agree.. I'm asking them to actually read real history.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

Refute the claims? Ron Paul and the South were right.

Most people don't understand why the Civil War happened.

Goals of both sides:

South: Secede from oppressive Union government.
North: Keep the South in the union.

Slavery was a side disagreement. One of the arguments was whether slavery would be allowed in the WEST. There was never an effort to abolish slavery in the South.

Based on the facts, the South had the right to secede.

But if we switch it around to the commonly held belief of what happened, that the Union was fighting to free the slaves in the South, then that means the Union would have the moral argument and they would be right.

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.

I agree the North was more concerned about the preservation of the union, which is actually a rather practical policy. America divided up into a million little nations would have paved way for Europeans or other foreign powers exerting their influence over the Americas. Very possibly we would have been colonized once more, whether it be directly or indirectly through puppet states. Do we have a right to secede? No. The Civil War settled that legally. Although we didn't have a right to secede from Britain, but we did. And of course it was for the better.

Ron Paul is sympathetic to the South, I can understand that. I have a certain respect for the Confederacy and southern heritage as well. But I absolutely detest historical revisionism.

 

[low preference guy]

Do we have a right to secede? No. The Civil War settled that legally.

That's ludicrous. Violence doesn't change laws. Only amendments do. That's like saying that if I punch your face, it is settled legally that you have no right to resist violent physical attacks. Again, that is idiotic.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If those same thirteen states seceded today, would it hold up? The south alone today accounts for 40% of the military's new enlistees. It's also hard to imagine existing today the political will in the non-seceding states to support violently suppressing the rebellion with the country's military, as Lincoln did.

Anyway, this is just garbage. Outside of Charles Johnson's dank corner of the internet, this old video seems to be being met with a massive, cartoonish yawn.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

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.

I agree the North was more concerned about the preservation of the union, which is actually a rather practical policy. America divided up into a million little nations would have paved way for Europeans or other foreign powers exerting their influence over the Americas. Very possibly we would have been colonized once more, whether it be directly or indirectly through puppet states. Do we have a right to secede? No. The Civil War settled that legally. Although we didn't have a right to secede from Britain, but we did. And of course it was for the better.

Ron Paul is sympathetic to the South, I can understand that. I have a certain respect for the Confederacy and southern heritage as well. But I absolutely detest historical revisionism.

I already stated that abolition of slavery in the South was never a goal of the Union. The matter of slavery was one of the conflicts, and that argument was about Western slavery. There were other conflicts as well.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

That's ludicrous. Violence doesn't change laws. Only amendments do. That's like saying that if I punch your face, it is settled legally that you have no right to resist violent physical attacks. Again, that is idiotic.

Where is there a constitutional amendment that says we have a right to secede? Or any law for that matter? Sorry but the argument in favor of secession goes in favor of natural laws. And there was really no reason for the South to secede during the 19th century. Again, secession would only lead to foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.

 

[pinkmandy]

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.

I agree the North was more concerned about the preservation of the union, which is actually a rather practical policy. America divided up into a million little nations would have paved way for Europeans or other foreign powers exerting their influence over the Americas. Very possibly we would have been colonized once more, whether it be directly or indirectly through puppet states. Do we have a right to secede? No. The Civil War settled that legally. Although we didn't have a right to secede from Britain, but we did. And of course it was for the better.

Ron Paul is sympathetic to the South, I can understand that. I have a certain respect for the Confederacy and southern heritage as well. But I absolutely detest historical revisionism.

The average southerner in the 1860's wasn't fighting so the 1% could keep their slaves any more than the average soldier today is fighting so the bankers can make a profit. While the media can go crazy reporting on this the fact will be that many southern repub voters do support states rights and probably know more about the civil war (known as the War of Northern Aggression in these parts) than they know about our current wars. I'd wager that many in my area couldn't find Yemen on a map and have no idea what goes on there w/our foreign policy but they can tell you all about the burning of the Shenandoah Valley.

 

[erowe1]

Does Ron Paul actually say the words, "The South was right."? If so, what exactly does he say they were right about.

N.B. Saying the North was wrong is not the same as saying the South was right.

 

[gte811i]

Where is there a constitutional amendment that says we have a right to secede? Or any law for that matter? Sorry but the argument in favor of secession goes in favor of natural laws. And there was really no reason for the South to secede during the 19th century. Again, secession would only lead to foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.

The 10th.

 

[klamath]

Just an attempt to bring out the confederate revisionists to porve that RP is racists because of his followers. It is working quit wellby the way.

 

[The Goat]

Every one saying that Europe would have re colonize America. can you tell me which country was helping us during the civil war to prevent europe from doing this during the civil war?

Here's a hint.

 

[gte811i]

Where is there a constitutional amendment that says we have a right to secede? Or any law for that matter? Sorry but the argument in favor of secession goes in favor of natural laws. And there was really no reason for the South to secede during the 19th century. Again, secession would only lead to foreign powers taking advantage of the situation.

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.

 

[FrankRep]

SOURCE: NewsOne.com is your destination for news and information for and about Blacks in America.

This is what racism look like.

 

[low preference guy]

Where is there a constitutional amendment that says we have a right to secede?

Nothing you say here changes that it is idiotic to say that an act of violence settles the law. Again, with that argument, punching you in the face and knocking you out would mean that I legally settled that you have no right to self defense.