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

[IceBergSLiM]

You mean, circumventing the constitution by leaving it entirely up to the states on issues that are adressed in the constitution and by the SC FTW?

Yeah, RP doesn't care about the constitution, he wants to circumvent it entirely by leaving actual rights issues up to the states via popular vote (aka, majority rules), it's nothing but the tyranny of the majority.

your now painting RP as anti-constitution? Wwow........i'm done here.

 

[fskimospy]

Seceding over slavery does not equate to a war to free slaves. The war was a consequence of secession and rising tensions that spilled over into blood. It was to save the Union.

Takes dimwits to turn it into some false romanticized version of reality. Illinois itself used to teach the truth of Lincoln and the war, 50 years ago before the vultures had time to twist these facts.

Next thing you know people will tell us WW2 was to stop the holocaust, and in 100-200 years your kin will help make that lie a fact too.

As some last vestige of sanity, perhaps you should check with the man himself:

I'm not really sure who you are arguing with?. I never said the Civil War was a war to free slaves, I just said it was about slavery. You are correct it was a consequence to secession, but that secession took place over the issue of slavery.

Lincoln was explicit that he only wished to halt the expansion of slavery, but that means a lot more than what your quotes say. If you prevent slavery from expanding into any new territories or states, as time goes on the voting power of the slave holding states is diluted more and more, until one day it would most certainly have been abolished. The Confederates weren't stupid, they saw the writing on the wall. What the Confederates WERE however is insanely horrible, morally repugnant human beings who fought a war to protect their ability to enslave, rape, and murder people they thought were inferior.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.


---Yep thats a rascist if I ever heard one :roll;

 

[RabidMongoose]

your now painting RP as anti-constitution? Wwow........i'm done here.

Of couse he is anti-Constitution. He wants to rip entire portions of the existing Constitution out of it.

 

[fskimospy]

your now painting RP as anti-constitution? Wwow........i'm done here.

Ron Paul has a fringe view of the Constitution that doesn't meet with most of the rest of our society. So yes, he rejects the Constitution as it is commonly understood in the US and tries to replace it with his view.

 

[woolfe9999]

Seceding over slavery does not equate to a war to free slaves. The war was a consequence of secession and rising tensions that spilled over into blood. It was to save the Union.

Takes dimwits to turn it into some false romanticized version of reality. Illinois itself used to teach the truth of Lincoln and the war, 50 years ago before the vultures had time to twist these facts.

Next thing you know people will tell us WW2 was to stop the holocaust, and in 100-200 years your kin will help make that lie a fact too.

As some last vestige of sanity, perhaps you should check with the man himself:

You're right. The war was to save the union from secession. But secession was done principally over the issue of slavery. No slavery or no disagreement between north and south over slavery=no civil war. RP argues in his video that slavery was just one factor among many that caused secession. However, primary source documents indicate that it was the ruling factor. So what exactly is your point?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ron Paul has a fringe view of the Constitution that doesn't meet with most of the rest of our society. So yes, he rejects the Constitution as it is commonly understood in the US and tries to replace it with his view.

maybe it was once fringe it isn't any longer.

 

[Craig234]

The South's secession was driven by a feeling that they had zero power and were being exploited by the north, the largest issue their desire to preserve slavery.

The election of Lincoln made them feel that things had gotten much worse to where someone who was very much against them had been elected.

Tensions had been escalating for years; the election of Lincoln was a trigger, with seven states seceding between his election and taking office.

The idea of ending slavery with a plan to pay the slave owners for the slaves was actually Lincoln's earlier plan; he'd also wanted to send all slaves to Africa.

The way the end of slavery came about was largely a 'historical accident' in the war; Lincoln had originally wanted to end slavery by 1900, with that payoff to owners.

This is one more example of Paul's proximity to the racist fringe, though.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Of couse he is anti-Constitution. He wants to rip entire portions of the existing Constitution out of it.

very convincing. Thanks for your .02

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

your now painting RP as anti-constitution? Wwow........i'm done here.

Nah, he's for the constitution, he just don't want it to apply to any states in the USA.

If you don't get how that invalidates the constitution in it's entirety then you are retarded.

 

[Jaskalas]

This guy is done.

Takes modern day fascists to say a call for freedom and liberty makes a person 'done'. Secession (aka self determination) is a core tenant of our nation.

I stand by Ron Paul, the South, and the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should too.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ron Paul has a fringe view of the Constitution that doesn't meet with most of the rest of our society. So yes, he rejects the Constitution as it is commonly understood in the US and tries to replace it with his view.

Nah, he's for the constitution, he just don't want it to apply to any states in the USA.

If you don't get how that invalidates the constitution in it's entirety then you are retarded.

so you guys must also subscribe to the tyranny is freedom, war is peace, debt is wealth rhetoric from the last few presidents?

We are the feds and we're here to help!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

To make it simple...

1. Does RP want companies to be entirely free to discriminate based on anything they choose to discriminate on?

2. Does RP want states to have the right to invoke laws that are actually discriminatory?

3. Does RP want states to have the right to make laws that revokes the constitutional rights of citizens? (for example, abortion, gay marriage, discriminatory laws based on gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation, whatevertheywant)

The answer on all three is YES, he does.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

so you must also subscribe to the tyranny is freedom, war is peace, debt is wealth rhetoric from the last few presidents?

Nope, equal rights under the constitution with no infringements and as interpreted by the highest court in law is what made the US a free nation, RP wants no more of that.

Tyranny would be leaving it up to a direct majority to decide the rights of others, something RP is ALL FOR.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I stand by Ron Paul, the South, and the Declaration of Independence. Maybe you should too.

Well, I stand by the Constitution, something that Ron Paul hates with a passion.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

To make it simple...

1. Does RP want companies to be entirely free to discriminate based on anything they choose to discriminate on?

2. Does RP want states to have the right to invoke laws that are actually discriminatory?

3. Does RP want states to have the right to make laws that revokes the constitutional rights of citizens? (for example, abortion, gay marriage, discriminatory laws based on gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation, whatevertheywant)

The answer on all three is YES, he does.

Sorry was that your entire post I was waiting for links to back up your assertions

 

[Jaskalas]

...I never said the Civil War was a war to free slaves, I just said it was about slavery...

Fair enough, but what do you mean by this?

In case anyone ever tries to trot out the 'Civil War wasn't about slavery' BS...

I don't think anyone arguing says it did not involve slavery, but I contest it was not the driving force. When we say Secession people yell Slaves, as you appeared to do there.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Nope, equal rights under the constitution with no infringements and as interpreted by the highest court in law is what made the US a free nation, RP wants no more of that.

Tyranny would be leaving it up to a direct majority to decide the rights of others, something RP is ALL FOR.

you should probably look up what tyranny means

 

[woolfe9999]

Fair enough, but what do you mean by this?



I don't think anyone arguing says it did not involve slavery, but I contest it was not the driving force. When we say Secession people yell Slaves, as you appeared to do there.

According to the confederate states themselves, slavery WAS the driving force behind their decision to secede. Take a look at the materials already quoted and linked here. Your point - that Lincoln went to war to protect the union rather than to free slaves - was correct, but is a different issue.

As a side note, I was taught that Lincoln went to war to protect the union rather than to free slaves, but that the secession was caused mainly by disagreements over slavery. That history that I was taught in high school is correct according to the all the material I've read since. Lincoln fighting a war to free slaves may be a popular myth to some extent, but I don't think that is the way it is taught in public schools generally.

 

[airdata]

To make it simple...

1. Does RP want companies to be entirely free to discriminate based on anything they choose to discriminate on?

2. Does RP want states to have the right to invoke laws that are actually discriminatory?

3. Does RP want states to have the right to make laws that revokes the constitutional rights of citizens? (for example, abortion, gay marriage, discriminatory laws based on gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation, whatevertheywant)

The answer on all three is YES, he does.

He believes in states rights.... trust me.. especially in this economy you wouldn't get far opening a whites only hot dog stand. Ron Paul knows that racism is a thing of the past. I don't think there are any places where people could pass blatantly discriminatory legislature anyhow... so it's really a non issue.

 

[Siddhartha]

Mr Paul's position on the Civil War and his palling around with white supremacists are not new news. His real hardcore supporters know about this and have taken it into account. But there is a part of his base who support him for his isolationist and anti-drug war positions. I doubt these people are going to feel that comfortable with him when the media really starts reporting about his racists friends.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

you should probably look up what tyranny means

You should look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority".

I've seen true tyranny of the majority in Assfuckistan, i know the difference between actual tyranny and the tyranny of the majority in a (somewhat) civilised nation like the US.

It doesn't change ANYTHING though, not more than saying "well at least we are better off than Uganda".

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

He believes in states rights.... trust me.. especially in this economy you wouldn't get far opening a whites only hot dog stand. Ron Paul knows that racism is a thing of the past. I don't think there are any places where people could pass blatantly discriminatory legislature anyhow... so it's really a non issue.

But in some sheitholes like SC or AK you could get away with instituting Biblical commandments as law per popular vote.

The thing is, rights are rights and everyone should enjoy them, it's not up for states to vote on these things, the absolute right to your own person isn't something that should be discussed in ANY first world nation but it's constantly discussed in the US and believe you me, if it came up for a vote, the majority WOULD exercise their tyranny on this matter in some places.

Leave states rights alone, let them decide on things that the constitution and the SC have nothing to do with but leave the constitutional rights of ALL people as interpreted by the SC alone, no one gets to vote on other peoples rights.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You should look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority".

I've seen true tyranny of the majority in Assfuckistan, i know the difference between actual tyranny and the tyranny of the majority in a (somewhat) civilised nation like the US.

It doesn't change ANYTHING though, not more than saying "well at least we are better off than Uganda".

you lost me here.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

But in some sheitholes like SC or AK you could get away with instituting Biblical commandments as law per popular vote.

The thing is, rights are rights and everyone should enjoy them, it's not up for states to vote on these things, the absolute right to your own person isn't something that should be discussed in ANY first world nation but it's constantly discussed in the US and believe you me, if it came up for a vote, the majority WOULD exercise their tyranny on this matter in some places.

Leave states rights alone, let them decide on things that the constitution and the SC have nothing to do with but leave the constitutional rights of ALL people as interpreted by the SC alone, no one gets to vote on other peoples rights.

what rights in particular are you talking about? This is to generic to make any sort of sense of.

States are not supposed to be homogenous in their implementation of state government. If you don't like the laws of one state you can move to another state. Thats the whole concept behind states..