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

[IceBergSLiM]

It's really not, no matter if the states yielded powers to the fed or not, they do not hold such powers now. Therefore they aren't sovereign.

the European union technically has a Federalist structure but all the countries remain sovereign. Think about it.

(not advocating anything here just something to consider)

 

[RabidMongoose]

no I'd like to believe the rights and freedoms are inherent attribute of being born human on this planet.

in·her·ent/inˈhi(&#601rənt/
Adjective:

Vested in (someone) as a right or privilege

Its the whole concept that "god's law" or "natural law" supersedes the laws of man.

No, it seems that you believe that they come from state government.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Do you have any understanding of history?

Alabama can't even remove a segregation mandate from its state constitution today. (They can't, or they wont? ) There are no laws saying you can't leave Alabama either.

They won't. It has failed in Alabama.

I don't care if there are no laws saying that you can't leave Alabama. That is irrelevant as to civil liberties hating Ron Paul.

So what? If you don't like that run for office in another state, or get with your local and state legisslature to change the law

Same thing can be applied at the national level then.

So obviously there wouldn't be parallel protections in state constitutions.
(the only thing obvious, is that the people of the states need to pressure the state government to repeal laws that no longer represent their residents. It is the PEOPLES ultimate responsibility to govern themselves.

Ultimately, you don't believe that basic fundamental rights apply to state governments. You think that people shouldn't have a first amendment right if states decide to do away with them. I and most people would disagree with that.

It's just a difference in opinion. You want to remove civil liberties that people currently enjoy today. Ron Paul is the same. Thus, he is anti-civil liberties.

 

[fskimospy]

the European union technically has a Federalist structure but all the countries remain sovereign. Think about it.

(not advocating anything here just something to consider)

Actually the EU is a confederation. Association is voluntary, thus all states retain their sovereignty. Membership in a federation is not voluntary, hence, no sovereignty.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No, it seems that you believe that they come from state government.

I can't make it any more clear to you in the above. I went so far as including the definition of the word. How can you be so dense?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

They won't. It has failed in Alabama.If its failed in Alabama that means that Alabama residents don't want it? GET IT? ??????? What don't you get about that ? If they want the right or freedom they will vote at the state level for it!!! If the don't want the right or freed the residents of Alabama will vote against it! Its very simple concept. If you feel the majority of Alabama's residents beliefs and values aren't in line with yours due to their ability/inability to enact laws guaranteeing(notice I said guaranteeing not granting, because the rights are INHERENT) then it is your right to live somewhere else that is more agreeable to your views and beliefs.

I don't care if there are no laws saying that you can't leave Alabama. That is irrelevant as to civil liberties hating Ron Paul.



Same thing can be applied at the national level then.
no the bill of rights applies to the federal government, so it could not apply on a national level. Why are you having such trouble wrapping your head around this?


Ultimately, you don't believe that basic fundamental rights apply to state governments.Ultimately I already explicitly told you the rights are INHERENT and aren't granted by any Human created authority. INHERENT.

You think that people shouldn't have a first amendment right if states decide to do away with them. I and most people would disagree with that.If you and most people disagree with laws why would you vote for the law in your state? What don't you understand here, the states laws are created by the people. If the people don't want a law they won't vote for it and it won't be a law. End of story.

It's just a difference in opinion. You want to remove civil liberties that people currently enjoy today. Ron Paul is the same. Thus, he is anti-civil liberties.

Quote me any where in this thread where I implied or said I didn't want civil liberties. This convo isnothing to do with civil liberties, as I've said numerious times the debate is around the power of the fed over the states. The bill of rights is only a single application of this debate. Its not the whole debate. Why can't you understand that?

bolded

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Actually the EU is a confederation. Association is voluntary, thus all states retain their sovereignty. Membership in a federation is not voluntary, hence, no sovereignty.

Those uncomfortable using the “F” word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast). (R. Daniel Kelemen

 

[RabidMongoose]

Quote me any where in this thread where I implied or said I didn't want civil liberties. This convo isnothing to do with civil liberties, as I've said numerious times the debate is around the power of the fed over the states. The bill of rights is only a single application of this debate. Its not the whole debate. Why can't you understand that?

It is about civil liberties. Your argument for states rights is at the expense of civil liberties that people currently enjoy today.

The Bill of Rights right now gives people certain civil liberties. Those liberties exist as we speak. However, you and Ron Paul want to pretend that those civil liberties don't exist and then say "well, now that the bill of rights doesn't apply to states, then that has nothing to do with civil liberties!"

On the contrary, your ideology (if you believe in Ron Paul's platform) is in a position to remove civil liberties that exist in reality. This is the real world consequence of the Ron Paul platform. Thus, he is anti-civil liberties.

This is pretty simple stuff. Maybe you should read up more about the Constitution since you had no idea about the incorporation doctrine, so maybe this is confusing you.

 

[eternalone]

Bump.

 

[werepossum]

Is he really that ignorant? He says that the reason for the Civil War wasn't slavery, his reasoning being that we could have ended slavery by buying freedom for all the slaves... The South started the war by seceding, and the reason they did that was because an anti-slavery president was elected.

Of course, that would have been a huge motivation to begin importing new slaves . . .

Everyone knew that Ron Paul was fork-ready when he started, so I don't see this changes anything except maybe picking off some of his less-zealous supporters (assuming there are any such.) But above and beyond that, any politician speaking in front of a Confederate flag should automatically be looking for a new field of work. Any politician saying the South was right should automatically be looking for a new field of work. I won't claim to have researched whether or not the states were promised the right to secede because doing something for an evil reason is always wrong, whether or not it's technically legal. Slavery lingering as long as it did, long after Europe finally admitted it was a hideous institution not to be tolerated, is a serious blight on our nation's history, and seceding to preserve the right to keep people as property is a serious blight on the South's history. It is certainly nothing to be proud of; not all of anyone's heritage deserves to be celebrated.

Yeah, it's a beautiful flag. Put it in a nice glass case in a museum so that we can all remember that evil can make pretty things too. I'm a big supporter of private property rights, but people are not property, and making them so is evil.

EDIT: Shit, eternalone got me. How did I miss playing in this thread?

 

[Anarchist420]

Slavery lingering as long as it did, long after Europe finally admitted it was a hideous institution not to be tolerated, is a serious blight on our nation's history, and seceding to preserve the right to keep people as property is a serious blight on the South's history. It is certainly nothing to be proud of; not all of anyone's heritage deserves to be celebrated.

They didn't secede because of slavery. They seceded mostly because of the tariff and the growing power of the North. Also, keep in mind that some of the States that seceded did so individually before becoming a union so to suggest SC thought they could maintain slavery being their own country is just silly. Also, Maryland voted for a more pro-slavery candidate than VA did and the vast majority of MD didn't want to secede.

Secession should always be allowed, no matter the reason. That was his point. The fact that the North cared nothing for the slaves makes them worse than the South... the North spent so much money and lives on a war when they could've bought the slaves instead. The South used the slaves for the South, the North used the slaves to bargain for more mercantilism, the latter of which is much more immoral. The protections for slavery would not have been if it weren't for the mercantilism.

 

[woolfe9999]

They didn't secede because of slavery. They seceded mostly because of the tariff and the growing power of the North. Also, keep in mind that some of the States that seceded did so individually before becoming a union so to suggest SC thought they could maintain slavery being their own country is just silly. Also, Maryland voted for a more pro-slavery candidate than VA did and the vast majority of MD didn't want to secede.

Secession should always be allowed, no matter the reason. That was his point. The fact that the North cared nothing for the slaves makes them worse than the South... the North spent so much money and lives on a war when they could've bought the slaves instead. The South used the slaves for the South, the North used the slaves to bargain for more mercantilism, the latter of which is much more immoral. The protections for slavery would not have been if it weren't for the mercantilism.

Earlier in this old thread we linked the declarations of succession given by the southern states themselves giving the reason for their succession as primarily the disagreement about slavery. Those are primary source documents.

So far as your assertion that they "could've bought the slaves," I also provided a link explaining that Lincoln actually requested this, and he was ignored by the southern states. They didn't *want* to sell their slaves.

"Dr. Paul" does not know his history, and neither do you. Please stop making assertions about history that you clipped from some politician or partisan website.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They didn't secede because of slavery.

Really?

Without googling, tell me who wrote this:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Emphasis mine.

 

[werepossum]

Earlier in this old thread we linked the declarations of succession given by the southern states themselves giving the reason for their succession as primarily the disagreement about slavery. Those are primary source documents.

So far as your assertion that they "could've bought the slaves," I also provided a link explaining that Lincoln actually requested this, and he was ignored by the southern states. They didn't *want* to sell their slaves.

"Dr. Paul" does not know his history, and neither do you. Please stop making assertions about history that you clipped from some politician or partisan website.

I have a moral problem with rewarding people for owning people, but had they taken that route it would have been a net good thing in hindsight. As you say, selling the slaves would have required paying for future labor and the powerful plantation owners were against it; the main reason slavery existed was the economic benefit of free labor. Though even that was illusory; the growing financial strength of the free North was mostly because people simply work harder for their own family's benefit than for someone else's. It's the same problem as exists with Marxism, but doubled down since the "someone else" isn't just a faceless stranger, but someone you know and no doubt hate. Still, while slavery is a very poor tool for wealth creation it's an excellent tool for wealth concentration, and without the armed might of government it would have lingered much longer as all the ingredients to make it work - large amounts of cheap, fertile and well-watered land, a climate mild enough and energy cheap enough to make a marginally productive slave class economically profitable, an identifiably different slave class, large markets, concentration of political power and information flow among the elite - would have existed for decades more in the South.

 

[werepossum]

Really?

Without googling, tell me who wrote this:

Emphasis mine.

Robert Byrd?

Well, it SOUNDS like Byrd. And he was ancient.

 

[Anarchist420]

Please stop making assertions about history that you clipped from some politician or partisan website.

You've really deluded yourself.

Anyway, Lincoln also offered additional protections for slavery, but the South refused those also.

 

[woolfe9999]

Robert Byrd?

Well, it SOUNDS like Byrd. And he was ancient.

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but Byrd would have been speaking in the past tense had he said that...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Robert Byrd?

Well, it SOUNDS like Byrd. And he was ancient.

I think you know that it was not Robert Byrd. Don't be a jackhat.

It was in fact Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederate States of America. And it puts a stake through the heart of any claim that the secession was not about slavery.

 

[Anarchist420]

Really?

Without googling, tell me who wrote this:

Emphasis mine.

Jefferson Davis? In any event, one person who represents the CSA does not represent them all.

 

[woolfe9999]

You've really deluded yourself.

Anyway, Lincoln also offered additional protections for slavery, but the South refused those also.

The southern states made declarations of secession which stated that they were seceding primarily because of disagreements with the north over slavery. I'm pretty sure that when you want to know why someone does something, the best source is the words of the person or persons themselves, not some politician speaking 150 years later.

We've provided links to the actual documents. You never have the slightest bit of evidence to back up your claims and you allege that the people who provide evidence are deluded. You don't get to just make up history as you go along here, and I will continue to make a fool of you every single time you do.



- wolf

 

[Theb]

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but Byrd would have been speaking in the past tense had he said that...

This can't be said for certain until we are allowed to examine his birth certificate.

 

[werepossum]

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but Byrd would have been speaking in the past tense had he said that...

You're pretty sure I'm kidding? LOL

This can't be said for certain until we are allowed to examine his birth certificate.

+1

 

[Anarchist420]

We've provided links to the actual documents. You never have the slightest bit of evidence to back up your claims and you allege that the people who provide evidence are deluded.

That had nothing to do with why I called you delusional. It was your insulting accusation against me that and you've done it in the past at least once as well.

I realize that some of the seceding documents said they wanted to secede because of slavery, but had slavery been the only issue, they would not have seceded.

 

[werepossum]

That had nothing to do with why I called you delusional. It was your insulting accusation against me that and you've done it in the past at least once as well.

I realize that some of the seceding documents said they wanted to secede because of slavery, but had slavery been the only issue, they would not have seceded.

There are always ongoing resentments which can be tacked on to add gravitas and rally more supporters to the secession, but most people understand that slavery was the single issue that drove the secession. Most of the wealthy powerful people in the South derived much of their income from slave labor; most of the wealthy powerful people in the North did not. It really is the single overriding issue of the secession, and virtually all of the noise today about other issues is to give the South cover. I'm a lifelong Southerner and I love the South, but we were the losing side well before any shots were fired. You simply cannot argue for keeping people as property, no matter what other incidental issues you might have, and not be morally below your opposition.

The only other issue with any significant importance was money. Middle and West Tennessee were strongly Confederate; rocky, hilly East Tennessee, where most of the land was not suitable for slave plantations, was mostly Union. It takes a lot of money to convince most people that slavery is not a morally repugnant institution. But even here, the money is principally revolving around slavery. The South had issues, some even legitimate, concerning tariffs and trade policies, but the one thing they absolutely refused to give up was their slave labor. Had every issue been conceded except slavery, the South would still have seceded.