Has Ron Paul ever read a history book that wasn't written by DiLorenzo?
I want to see 1 quote from a Founder that acknowledges unilateral secession. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about the Articles of Confederation:
"When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience."
Here's what James Madison has to say:
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
*I want to see 1 quote from a Founder that acknowledges unilateral secession.*
The only quotes that count are cherry picked, out of context quotes, which need to be shoe horned into fitting some revisionist axe-grinding agenda.
Or, for arguments sake, if L. Ron Paul Hubbard believes something, no matter how utterly wrong, lacking in fact or hopelessly unprovable, one must automatically agree with him.
@MPedroful The Battle Flag was not the National Flag of the Confederacy. The banner you are erroneously attributing to slavery was a bit different. Look at the present flag of the State of Georgia to see the CSA National Flag.
The Battle Flag was mostly innocuous until the time of desegregation. Then it was appropriated by men far more evil than on either side in the Civil War.
@4GooMan The KKK was all but entirely made up of Confederate Veterans in it's earliest days. The Klan formed between 1868-70 in Pulaski Tenn. Origionally the Klan was a vigilante group in the Reconstruction era south where few feared the law if & where there was any symbolence of law & order. In time some saw it as a rebirth of the CSA and others used it for their own selfish gains. Many of the Klan's origional members left as it became more politicized & expanded above the Mason/Dixon line.
@BradNC11175 Exactly. The latter day version of the Klan was the group responsible for the sad reputation the Battle Flag has come to mean in many eyes.
@4GooMan Yes that is so but the Klan has probably flown the flag of each state. The Klan has flown the US flag as well. I've seen the Klan flying Canadian and British flags and the checkered flag. The most grevious offense is the Confederate battle flag flying side by side with the Swastika. These two standards have absolutely nothing in common and nobody should be more offended than a proud Southerner when he/she sees a Rebel flag & Swastika flying side by side.
@BradNC11175 The American Nazi Party was the origin of the Swastika flying with the Stars and Bars. But it was short lived as the overwhelming majority of Southerners considered it near blasphemy.
But don't expect the Libtards to admit that. And you'll NEVER catch them admitting that the Klan had almost as many operatives in the North during the first half of the last century.
@4GooMan George Lincoln Rockwell was the founder of the American Neo Nazi movement and a lunatic assassinated by his own followers for trying to form alliances with the Nation of Islam who both believed their common enemy was the Jew. Rockwell supported New Africa where white southerners would be expelled from the south and black Muslims would be able to form their own nation seperate from the US there. Ironically Malcom X may have been killed by Nation of Islam for not supporting the alliance.
@MPedroful it's an emblem of the south, idk where you're from, but I'm from the south, and that flag is still used freely and an emblem of the south, no slavery ties to it by any means.
@MPedroful having a confederate flag in your house doesn't make you pro-slavery. it means something different for the vast majority of southerners. it has unfortunate associations, but please don't paint southerners with such a broad stroke.
@MPedroful You mean there was a Confederate Flag hanging during a lecture on secession? Something tells me there was also an American flag hanging close by. The Mississippi state flag still contains the Confederate Flag. By your logic, "Why would any Mississippi state Gov. give a speech in front of the state flag? Are they that stupid?" Calm down, it's a symbol that is very relevant to the topic he is speaking of.
its pretty sad people in this country were brain washed in to thinking the civil war was only about slavery if the confederates won the war im sure it would of been a matter of time before they rethought their slavery issue,
What's really sad is that people try to say it wasn't all about slavery when the Confederate states themselves admitted over and over in their statements of secession like this that it was:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
@Rundstedt1 When one examines the share cropping system that exploited both poor whites and "freed slaves" was what legally replaced slavery at the end of the Civil War. Prison chain gangs that were predominently made up of black inmates arrested and given lengthy sentences of hard manuel labor for the most petty of crimes in many instances. Both existed well into the 20th century. Not only was the Civil War NOT ABOUT SLAVERY IT DIDN'T EVEN END SLAVERY.
And what you describe is NOT chattel slavery, but just the influence of capitalism in general! That the South tried as was quite successful with replacing chattel slavery with other form of exploitation is meaningless, and its use here is a poor attempt to lessen the moral morass of slavery. It is a cheap distraction to make the false equivocation you do.
@Rundstedt1 However is capitalism to blame for sharecropping?
All of human history is replete with slavery until fairly recently. And that is a "moral morass"?
I would think one would be much more concerned with the present day "moral morass" of executing babies before they are born, and since PrezBO took over, when they are partially delivered.
"...the war ended the institution of chattel slavery. that was an institution that the country could not have carried into the twentieth century without suffering a crippling handicap. It is not easy to see how the institution could have been disposed of, except by violence." Bruce Catton, "Reflections on the Civil War" p4
@Rundstedt1 The South fucked up in two places: 1) the CSA should've never fired upon Ft. Sumpter first as this made them the aggressor. 2) They should have given slaves the same terms (from the start) that Washington gave slaves during the Revolution and offered Emancipation for all slaves who would agree to take up arms for the Confederacy. The CSA's whole agenda was to get recognition from Europe. Lincoln was crafty enough to know Europeans wouldn't support slave owners in the South.
But the South could not bring themselves to do that, they showed their attachment to slavery by holding on to it even if it meant not getting European recognition. And they could barely bring themselves to allowing the recruitment of slaves very late in the war, and even then didn't even free those few that were attempted to be formed up and stated: "That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners"
Perhaps you should first look up who 'Mr Catton' is. And your comparison with Brazil is shallow and ignores the enormous differences in the two structures. The two systems were totally different and what transpired in Brazil could not have happened in The South. In Brazil the slaves are held by only a relatively few owners on large land holdings, in the Am. South it is much more widespread, and on avg. 1/3 of southern families owned slaves.
@Rundstedt1 Son, you've managed to spam a whole page and accomplish naught.
Your comments are replete with quotes - not those of statisticians, but just rank opinions. If you think adding a stranger's opinion lends any more credence to your own, you're deluding but yourself.
You also have little or no knowledge of Brazilian history.
Every third Southern family owned slaves? Just where did you pull that statistic from?
Ahh, the quotes are from the most accredited most respected and most knowledgeable historians in the specific field. And the fact that on avg. one third of Southern families owned slaves comes from the 1860 Census and as is widely reported in various academic Civil War history sources such as here: civilwarcauses (dot) org/ stat (dot) htm
Brazil did not have a politically powerful slave owing class with its own political party to call upon to prevent abolition as did US.
In Brail there is a different concept of race that is not the strict 'black and white' version of the US, this allowed people of color to exist in and have some political power in Brazil. In Brazil the proportional numbers of freed blacks was rising, not so in the South where more and more were enslaved.
Please actually look up Brazilian history. My claims that the freed proportion of slaves increased is based on the Brazilian census figures and Brazilian history articles. And more and more were enslaved in the American South due to natural growth of the population. the second most important 'product' of Virginia before the war was the 'breeding' of slaves.
"As of 1860, the second most important export of the commonwealth of Virginia was human flesh.
Virginians wanted to make sure that if white Southerners were going to buy slaves, they were going to buy slaves that bore the phrase "made in Virginia." - Professor Brooks Simpson
Both the nature of slavery itself and the political climate it existed in; in other countries was totally different than in the Southern US. The situations were nowhere near the same. For example; while more slaves might have been imported to Brazil, due to the higher death rates, and that mostly men were brought in as slaves there, meant that by 1860 approximately two thirds of all slaves in the Americas lived not there but in the US South.
Yes mostly male slaves were brought in. Brazilian free society had a natural male/female ratio, but not the slaves that were brought in, and who mostly died in slavery never having reproduced. This was not the case in the American South where after the slave trade was banned natural reproduction saw a growing slave population.
Brazil had only between 1 and 1.5M slaves. In 1872 the overall slave population of Brazil is 15%, and that was distributed throughout the nation, not regionally as in the US. In the US in 1860, slavery is concentrated in that one region and constitutes a growing 3.9 Million of its little more than 9 Million total population. No, bringing up Brazil only shows that slavery could not have ended in the South of its own volition and how different the situations were.
@Rundstedt1 Slaves in Brazil were concentrated in the States of Bahia, Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and the Northeast. That can hardly be considered nationwide distribution.
The situations of slaveholders are remarkably similar in any era and locale. The slaves MUST BE FED, even when there is no work for them. What forced the hand of emancipation in Brazil was a drought in the Northeast.
The arrival of the Boll Weevil in the South would have achieved the same result.
What's pretty sad is when you post what you did obviously either unaware or not caring that the Confederate Vice President himself said:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
What's sad is that you think that the South was going to willing give up slavery soon even though they had just instituted a war to prolong and protect it. That slavery had been growing, that more were enslaved in the South in1860 than had been in 1850. That it was more than just the economics of slavery that was of concern, but of a whole culture as shown by the statement from Virginia's secession commission slightly before it succeeded:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
No, what's really sad, is that people still try to make that old 'lost cause' myth.
The reason people think the Civil war was about slavery is because it WAS about slavery, and historians agree on that.
What is sad, is the ignorance or denial by some not to admit it.
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
@Rundstedt1 Bullshit, the "Rebellin was going to happen with or without slavery. Southern states of 1861 weren't the first to try and seceed from the Union. The road to conflict was paved with the Federalist vs. Anti Federalist debate that began in the wake of the Revolution and still exists to this very day. The Federalist vs. Anti Federalist debate is at the root of every internal political dispute in this nation's history from the time of Washington to the present.
The Southern desire to secede was tied directly to slavery as the Southerners themselves stated over and over, and as I have shown, it matters not what was the root of other debates, none of which resulted in secession anyway, the Southern act of 1860 was the result of slavery, period.
And the South also had NO PROBLEM using and expanding federal power when it was in service or protecting slavery.
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
@Rundstedt1 Slavery was not exclusive to the South in the Antebellum era and the Emancipation proclomation didn't free a soul, it merely allowed for Union Forces engaged in the rebellion to sieze any and all property that could aid in the rebellion. The Lincon administration, leery of European support for the rebellion, turned the conflict into a moral crusade against slavery to quell any & all direct support of the Rebellion in Europe. How do you explain northern slavery after the Emancipation?
The North had already given up slavery, even as early as 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North and that number is falling. (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era"). And Yes sorry the EP did actually free hundreds of thousands of slaves. It freed all those aht had reached Union lines and it freed all those that the Union army will later reach. And the ability to seize rebel property had already occurred in the previous confiscation acts.
@Rundstedt1 Are you saying that there were less than 3,000 slaves in Kentucky alone? How about Maryland? Missouri? None of the aforementioned States were part of the Confederacy.
Or are you arbitrarily moving the Mason Dixon line to and fro as your argument moves along?
Well you are right on one thing, the 'states right' concerned was slavery. But slavery in the South wasn't dying, it was growing and rather widespread. Slavery was more widespread in the South then is commonly assumed and you allude to, on avg. 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and this rose to 1/2 in the deep South. Most slave owners were middle class and small farmers holding only a few slaves.
@Rundstedt1 Half the familes in the Deep South held slaves? I want to say LMFAO!, but I'll politely wait for you to provide from whence you pulled that little bit of whimsy.
census (dot) gov / prod / w w w / abs / decennial / 1860 (dot) h t m l
It's under the section headed "Statistics of the United States, (including mortality, property, &c.)" and then listed per state. But as I have already posted you can also find it as a synopsis at:
@Rundstedt1 I find your claim that "rebellion" would not have occured without slavery quite laughable. Not only were the seeds of war planted by the Federalist vs Anti Federalist dispute of the Founders, the Morril Tariff that exempted most major Northern ports was the straw that broke the camel's back in 1861. Northern industry would have been killed if European merchants could have dealt directly with southern ports, southern industry & plantation owners by cutting out the Yankee middle man.
It is not only my claim, but that of all the most respected historians in the field as I have shown. And again the tariff did not cause secession as the Southern admitted themselves. And European merchants could already deal "directly with southern ports" Although commodities aren't bought from the 'ports' they are sold at exchanges and those and middlemen would still exist.
@Rundstedt1 The Morrill Tarriff would have killed southern ports such as Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington and Norfolk but this mattered little to the northern ports (not effected) that stood to gain from it. Had southern industry been able to grow and European merchants been able to cut out the Yankee middle man industry of the north this would not bode well for Northern industry and ports now would it? You fail to mention the significance of the Morrill Tarriffs as a causality for secession.
Morrill would never have passed if the South had stayed in to vote against it. And the traffic done by all those southern ports didn't add up to what was done in New York alone. And tariffs effect ALL ports equally, not just Southern ones! And most tariffs were actually paid by the North.
Southern industry didn't grow because the Southerners didn't want or need it to, they saw plantation slavery as the better economic and cultural system and invested in that instead
"The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population.
The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties.
There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples.
There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff.
There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons).
Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels.
One can come up with many more examples." James McPherson, North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52.
So most tariffs were paid by those in the North, the only reason it was an issue for some was because of the nature of the plantation economy, so gain it all relates back to slavery.
More than half of all owners had five slaves or less. And those in the South that didn't own a slave mainly aspired to do so. "While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113
@Rundstedt1 Why don't you quote US census figures rather than Mr. Franklin's fantasy?
If every third Southerner held slaves, then the population of white Southerners would be (338,000 x 3) a million souls. Do you purport the population of the American South to have been but 1,000,000 whites at the outbreak of the War Between the States?
No, because once again the 1/3 figure is by FAMILY household. You can't take the total of whites and just divide that into the number of slaves because that number includes children and wives who are in slave owning families, and who as children couldn't own slaves, and women who usually owned very little property in the South, and yet are part of that slave owning family but not counted in the 338,000 number of official owners. So the correct way to look at is by family.
Additionally, those that didn't directly own slaves, rented them, or worked for a business that was in some way reliant upon slavery.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." - Professor Brooks D. Simpson
@Rundstedt1 More blah, blah, blah opinions quoted from a stranger with absolutely no notation of the source of the information leading to such silliness.
Sorry, I'm using the most qualified historians of the topic, they are of course "strangers" to you because you have never legitimately actually studied the period.
We can see the importance of slavery, not only to the economy of the south, but to its culture as well, by this official statement from the Virginia secession commission published shortly before it seceded to state its position.
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
@Rundstedt1 I am curious do you spend so much time with quotes from biased authors because you have little to add to the conversation from your own mind? Even a cover band has to play some of it's own material from time to time.
I use legitimate sources as I have degrees in history and teach it. It really bothers you that I can use so much backing for what I say. You on the other hand have just been printing made up garbage.
"[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom", p113
@Rundstedt1 Are you so bereft of ideas that you must resort to quoting those of someone who acts like he had a privy knowledge of the hearts of Southerners?
And, finally, there were no efficient and economical mechanical cotton pickers until about the time of WWII and the harvesting of crops that the South was reliant upon will continue mainly by manual means a century. Slavery was completely efficient for its purpose at the time and it would have been supported and continued for an untold amount of time, as it was ingrained not only in the economy, but also the culture and entire social system.
@Rundstedt1 What you miss is that a sharecropper must feed, clothe, and house himself through good harvests and bad. This was a far, far better deal than the planters got with slaves.
And what you miss is that the slave is paid NOTHING and still must essentially feed and house himself, nothing is better than the free labor provided by slavery.
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks Simpson
@Rundstedt1 The South's economy was agrarian, the North's was manufacturing. The South preferred to sell to Europe at higher prices than the Northern factories wanted to pay. But the North imposed import/export controls to force the sale of Southern commodities to them.
Cotton production continued after the War, hence it could not be construed a necessity of the Southern economy.
The North paid the same prices as Europe for Southern produce. The Southern commodity was bought by purchasing agents and marketed on exchanges by middle men to whomever would buy it. There were no export controls, export tariffs are unconstitutional in the US Constitution. The CSA however DID allow export taxes so you argument is exactly backward there.
And the only 'import control' would be tariffs and the tariffs were at their lowest since the 1820s and even then most those were paid by the North The Tariffs law that was still in effect, was written by the South and voted in favor of by them and no new tariff would have passed if the South had stayed in the congress.
But it was not until the departure of fourteen senators from the Deep South that the Morrill Tariff could pass the Senate. Thus secession made it possible for the tariff to become law: as secession happened prior to the passage of the legislation, the passage of the legislation did not cause secession, and no southern state seceded between the passage of the act and Lincoln’s call for troops in the wake of the attack upon and surrender of Fort Sumter.
Those facts render highly problematic the claim that “the tariff” caused secession, since the tariff in place at the time of secession, the Tariff of 1857, was very favorable to southern interests
There are larger issues in play here. Southerners were not opposed to tariffs in the abstract. They were opposed to protective tariffs that did not directly protect their interests. They did not object to protective tariffs that protected southern interests (such as Louisiana sugar plantations).
Generally speaking, protective tariffs protect domestic economic interests from foreign competition by raising the price of foreign-produced goods above the price of their domestically-produced counterpart in the marketplace. Low tariffs promoted southern economic interests, namely the export of cotton produced and harvested by slaves.
Nor were southerners opposed to the principle of the federal government protecting and promoting economic interests … especially their own. After all, they endorsed the use of the federal government to protect and promote their most important economic interest: slavery.
In pursuit of that interest, southern political leaders had supported measures looking toward territorial expansion (even if obtained through war and conquest) and the erection of a federal bureaucracy to return fugitive slaves through a process that abridged the civil rights of Americans.
In short, white southerners did not believe in federal neutrality when it came to supporting economic interests. They thought it was just fine when the federal government supported their interests, even if it meant committing American soldiers to wars of expansion at the cost of American lives or compromising the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
The economic interest they supported was the exporting of the products produced by the commercial capitalistic agribusiness known as plantation slavery. Slavery made possible that economic interest and made possible its profitability.
Ironically, it was secession that enabled Republicans to pass their ambitious economic agenda during Lincoln’s first term. The story would have been far different had the Deep South done what everyone before had done when they lost an election: represent their interests in the political process, and look to future elections for voter approval for changes in policy.
Let’s make this painfully clear: a low tariff serves certain economic interests just as a high tariff serves certain economic interests. Whatever the policy of the federal government might be as reflected in legislation, certain economic interests benefit, and other do not. One’s position of tariff policy was more often determined by whether that policy would serve one’s interest, and in the slave states that interest was tied, one way or another, to slavery.
In the upper South, where there was more economic diversification, attitudes toward tariff policy were more diverse, and it did not serve as a rallying cry (Virginians in early 1861 talked about the benefits of tariff protection as they sought to diversify). Not a single state in the upper South seceded in response to the passage of the Morrill Tariff.
In short, “the tariff” as an abstract principle did not cause secession. Indeed, southerners had accepted tariffs before, especially when they served southern interests. They had also welcomed other forms of federal support on behalf of their economic interests. Those economic interests, in turn, were fundamentally shaped by the presence of plantation slavery.
No slavery, no plantations, and the course of southern economic development (and thus southern responses to federal legislation to shape that development) would have been fundamentally different.
Try as you might, somehow it all comes back, one way or another, to slavery and the efforts of secessionists to protect it through secession." Professor Brooks D. Simpson
@Rundstedt1 Yes the south's economic system was heavily dependent upon slavery but northern industry and European markets were highly dependent upon the plantations of the south that could not function without slavery. The very idea that the north and even Europe had clean hands with regards to slavery is pure fantasy. And let's not forget those northern "servants" either.
Again it is a false equivocation to compare the paid free labor of the Northern servants with the chattel slaves of the South. And yes, Northern markets did use Southern Cotton, and in that they were complicit, but they were not the ones keeping the slaves in bondage. They were not the ones whose politicians did all they could to perpetrate slavery. Their Northern politicians, even many of the Democratic ones, wanted to see slavery curtailed.
Maryland is below the Mason Dixon line and almost seceded itself, it was probably only kept in because of the Union military presence; Kentucky and Missouri (Missouri compromise remember) were given stars to represent them on the Confederate flag, by the confederates themselves, they are both Southern border states that were only kept in the Union through political intrigue and force.
@Rundstedt1 You are evading the point that you initially listed North and South. Now, you conveniently add a third category to plug a leak in one of your arguments.
What's next, other categories for the Plains States? The Mountain States? The far West?
Are we now to consider western NC and eastern Tennessee to be Northern because they resisted the "Cause" throughout the War?
No, the Border states are a well known category and that exact categorization is used by virtually every historian. I can't believe you are being this ignorant here, either you don't know anything at all about the topic or you are just being a dishonest troll.
@Rundstedt1 More or less the Missouri populace was pro Confederate where as the governor was pro Union whilst the opposite was true in Kentucky. Virginia was divided and the western half of the state seceeded itself from the eastern, hence the reason we have West Virginia. This nearly happened in Tennessee as eastern Tennessee (as was much of western North Carolina) was staunchly pro Union but Jefferson Davis along rushed Confederate troops in much like Lincoln had done in Maryland.
There was no 'Northern' slavery after emancipation because there was no Northern slavery before emancipation. The Border states that were not in rebellion were not affected, as Lincoln had no power to issue a proclamation that would affect non-rebelling areas. Here he worked to have the state's ban slavery by changing their constitutions, as he was successful in Maryland in this and later Missouri, and then work begun almost immediately on the 13th to finish what the EP started
@Rundstedt1 Oh thats right, they liked to refer to them as "servants" up north... a fancy word for saying SLAVE... much like the "servants" the Lincolns even had at the time of "Honest" Abe's death.
Yes, paid FREE employees. Not chattel slave but an free person employed as in a service. Of course in capitalism all are slaves of some sort, but that is not the issue here and you know it. Your attempt to muddy the waters is faulty, and obvious. The free paid servants of the North were not slaves, and to make the analogy you do shows a distinct lack of compassion and knowledge of what slavery was in the South.
@Rundstedt1 Actually I find your distaste for "capitalism" to be quite enlightening. Karl Marx was a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. This helps me emensly to understand your appreciation for the Centralization of government in which the Lincoln Administration and Federalists were seeking. This makes me even more skeptical of your "historical sources" of information. Centralized power by the Federalists was the first step on the road to Marxism in this country courtesy of Abe "Stinkin" Lincoln.
@Rundstedt1 Actually if I may steal a quote: "Of course in capitalism all are slaves of some sort". I am sure those "free workers" were paid top wages and never treated with any manner of prejudice or disrepect by those "northern crusaders". We do agree on one thing: those greedy ass plantation owners who were to busy sipping tea & mint julips on their victorian era porches cost the Confederacy dearly and ultimately reaped what they sowed. Robert E. Lee & Pat Cleburn would agree with that.
Again an unjustifiable and false equivocation. But keep on impugning capitalism, I won't stop you. And Lee was a tea sipping elitist, fighting to maintain the power of his class, he only could see the writing of the wall from the battlefield and knew that if something desperate wasn't done they were certainly done for. But it didn't matter for as it was, they were done for even well before Lee made his proposal.
@Rundstedt1 Robert E. Lee was an arostocrat no doubt and believed very much in a sense of duty and the code of the gentleman next to his Christian faith these were his two highest principals. He was born into the aristocracy via a mother who was a distant relation to Martha Washington and a father who was some what of a whore mongerer that squandered his fortune and wrote a bouncing check to G. Washington. R.E. Lee never knew his father but saw Washington as his hero from an early age.
@Rundstedt1 Robert E. Lee was a slave owner but freed his slaves about 2 months (I believe) before the Emancipation proclomation. Not all slave owners were brutal and cruel to their slaves and not all slaves hated the south or their masters.
@sumozack The War was about State's Rights. And the foremost amongst said rights was to hold slaves. Few Southerners held slaves, in fact many were against the War. But when push came to shove, they maintained their loyalties to their State.
Slavery was doomed to eventually become obsolete. It cost quite bit to buy and keep a slave. Machinery was about to take the place of much of the menial labor, and sharecropping took care of the rest.
Origin of this flag is based on the Scottish Flag which bears the St Andrews Cross.
St. Andrew was crucified on a X shaped decussate cross. In St. Andrews church, there is a statue of St. Andrew, holding an X shaped cross in his hands.
ron paul fucktard and all who follow the fucktard are FuCkTaRds a quitter wants to pack up his bags stay and fight the liberal shits but not ron paul the fucktard
@why760nitro Yes, that's about exactly as good as it gets with any anti-ron paul speech. Because the people who are anti-Ron Paul are too stupid to actually think about and comprehend what he is actually saying to come up with anything other than "ron pauls a fUckTaRd, hehehohohaha"
There is nothing wrong with that flag. Its simply a part if US history...it doesnt mean racism. its simply the flag that the south used during the civil war. And yo northies..at one time, you had slaves too so dont blame it all on us...hmm
@WeskerHouse013 Oh no, there is something wrong with that flag. It's not the flag of the United States, in fact it's the flag of a "nation" we fought a war against.
They used to fly it above the State capitals in the South until the Supreme Court ordered them to stop.
There is a big movement for secession in rural Texas these days, they argue that Texas produces everything necessary to sustain itself and doesn't need to be part of the U.S.
"The Republican Party is no more. It is not a political party; as David Brooks noted 'the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.'
It has become a clearing house for religious fanatics, Ayn Rand groupie weirdos [me] and angry white racists driven literally mad by seeing a black man in the White House, a black man more articulate and intelligent -- not to mention annoyingly even tempered -- than they or their bizarre leaders are." -- Frank Schaeffer, The Huffington Post, 07/21/11
People are using this to call Paul racist. I didn't hear a single racist word uttered. There's no explanation given here, but it looks like the flags probably there because he's talking to some sort of historical society or something.
Let's not mention the fact that he also discussed that slavery is incompatible with a free society, the South's slave based agrarian economy was on the brink of collapse and the Northern abolitionists opposition to the civil war!
In either case, I commend "LoonyRonPaul" for not just cutting out the audio and showing Paul in front of a confederate flag.
@Zlogical1 Look at it the other way: if West Virginia can secede why can't Virginia? Besides, WV was illegaly separated from Virginia, a rump legislature seceded without the consent of the real Virginia legislature, in fact three counties in Northern VA elected to stay with VA but were forced into submission by the Federal Army to secede with WV.
You have it ass-backwards: as WV chose NOT to secede from the US, it was acting lawfully... it was the rest of Virginia that was rogue. Don't you have some Holocaust denier web-board to attend to?
@plightweisgoff "WV chose NOT to secede from the US" Obviously, but does that make it somehow better? When they do it to the 'bad' guy it's okay? "it was acting lawfully" The real VA legislature would disagree with you; read Mark Stein's 'How the State's Got Thier Shapes', he pays mention to this secession.
I'm not a holocaust denier; just because you have nothing more to say doesn't mean you need to resort to idiotic and immature attacks with no validity.
@Rundstedt1 If that quote of Lee is accurate then he did in fact commit treason. Officer's are sworn to obey the Constitution & disobey non constitutional orders unlike enlisted men who can only disobey unlawful orders. If in fact Lee knew that secession was Unconstitutional then he should thank God that Lincoln had a policy of "Let em up easy." from his wrestling days.
Ron Paul will still have my vote, Always has had it and I will only change that if he really treatens America... This is not a threat to america, it is a RedNeck hall meeting That is ALL
You have been conditioned to think it was all about slavery. It wasn't. Slabery was a small part of it. It was about getting out of the union and money.
Ron Paul says nothing of siding for Slavery and you would have to be a propagandist to have even posted his for any other reason than just historical recognition he knows his history.
Obviously no he doesn't. The South was not about to give up slavery as I have shown over and over, and as any Civil War historian will tell you the war was caused by and about slavery. He ignorantly thinks the war could have been easily avoided and resolved even though country had been going through crisis after crisis and had to have numerous compromises because of it and was already fighting proxy war over it in Kansas. Historians are always having to correct Libertarians.
@Rundstedt Hey man! What a hell of an assertion collection! How do I begin mister 'historian'? Slavery was drying up in the South! The owner's wives hated it, especially when so many of the slave children started "look'in kinda pale & a lot like my husband". Just how is it 'ignorant' to 'think the war avoidable'?Just what 'crisis after crisis' are you using hyperbole to cite?Just where did the South get all the money for those lovely grey outfits & arms? Bankers then,bankers now!
Sorry slavery was not dying in the South, the number of slaves increased in the previous decade as did the area that they cultivated. And you obviously slept through your history classes and missed the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri compromise, the popular sovereignty debate, , the Fugitive slave laws, and Bleeding Kansas, among other things. And most Confederate soldiers didn't wear lovely grey uniforms, they wore home dyed butternut.
@Rundstedt1 You obviously think your history classes were teeming with credulity, but they were only serving the agenda's of the Bankers! Check the publishers names: Ford, Rockfeller, etc.The Missouri Compromise was 40 years earlier, and in 1850 - it was slaverly's last gasp. Utah, N.Mex, & Ariz, could have but never did become slave states. As I said, it was dying. Only politicians working for the Bankers pushed it in the house, but the people at large were growing sick of it. Word!
Yes slavery had been dividing he nation for quite some time and the reason for the Missouri compromise was.... wait for it.... slavery. And again slavery was growing and going strong and whether slavery could actually be successful there the South didn't care, they just wanted the ability for slavery to be there, and they also had designs on Cuba and parts of Mexico, and hoped that through the expansion of the Fugitive slave laws they could bring and keep their slaves in non slave states.
Slavery was NOT dying in the South, you can show no laws that were passed in the South that would indicate that slavery was dying, instead they protected slavery and made it even harder for slaves to be manumitted. The number of slaves had grown for the past decade, you have NO support to say slavery was ending in the South, you're just making crap up that historians would laugh at. Here's what Virginia said before seceding, it sound like they're about to end slavery?
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Just Because there is a Flag that appears to be Confederate dose not mean that it is! The Cherokee Nation Fought and died in numbers for the Confederacy as Confederate soldiers. If you think that the Union was better you need to go back to elementary school idiot and read up on the removal of the Native Americans and the trail of tears. There were bad Slave owners in the North as well as the south, That war was fought over bankers stealing land. the Yankee army was fighting for the Banks!
Exactly what banks stole land; provide proof. And slavery had ended in the North by the war, indeed by 1820 there will be only about 3000 slaves left in the North and falling, (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era") And the trail of tears happened in the South, and because those states like Georgia wanted the Indians removed and were willing to allow the use of federal power any federal power to do so, if the CSA was had been around they would have removed them also
@TheWolfzilla Man, your way off! Both the South and North were fighting for the bankers. That's all wars are ever fought for! Lincoln detested the Banks & hence made printed 600 million greenbacks, interest free, fiat paper! The Bankers wanted control over the U.S. Currency, so they fueled both sides of the war to in debt us to them. Where do you think the South got all the money for it's it's weaponry & costume? Same as the North,THE BANKERS! Follow the money for the answer.
Hey, your tin-foil hat fell off. There was this little thing called slavery that everyone at the time recognized was behind the war, including the South itself.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens
@Rundstedt1 U b funny! Ha ha! But while I dawn my tin hat, I pray ye don't re-write history for yourself, only the way, 'YOU BABY', like IT!! U C wut I'm saying? LOL!! Slavery only became an agenda for the war LATE in the war. The negroes that fought so hard, for both sides deserved it!! But the bankers fueled the resentment of a few politicians in the South to keep the fight going. Alexander Stephens was one of them!! He made himself & the bankers a lot of money using free labor.
You are just deluded and not worth dealing with, you have no evidence for your conspiracy crap and prove your delusion by trying to say that there were so called 'black confederates.' It is just a sad joke and anti-historical to try and make the claim that there were 'black confederates'. As the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities states, the idea of there being these so called 'black confederates' is: "not only untrue; it’s complete nonsense."
And this myth, states David W. Blight, professor of history at Yale University, editor of Passages to Freedom: The Underground Railroad in History and Memory, and author of Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. "is driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement."
And he goes on to say: "What could better buttress the claims of "color-blind conservatism" in our own time than the suppositions that the slaveholding leaders of the Confederacy were themselves the true emancipators, and that many slaves were devoted to the southern rebellion? George Orwell warned us: who needs real history when you can control public language and political debate?
The Confederate President himself in a "Message to the Confederate Congress" on Jan 12, 1863 (which I can post if necessary) recommended the immediate execution of all black soldiers and virtually all union officers that were captured.
However in an act of generosity in the obvious recognition of reprisals, the "Response of the Confederate Congress to Message From Jefferson Davis on the Emancipation Proclamation" May 1, 1863, only prescribed death for any black soldiers and the specific officers who commanded them and spared the rest of the Union officer corps. Sorry your delusions like there being so called 'black confederates' break upon the rock solid ground of reality
Rundstedt1 : Secession in the 1860's was a direct and predictable outcome of the great internal contradictions that existed in the hastily ratified United States Constitution.
It is history's lesson that a republic cannot be held together peacefully over such an extensive territory. The dissimilitude of interests and outlooks only guarantee internal conflict over access and influence over an increasingly powerful central government. The US was founded as an empire and not a republic.
"Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery. And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the [US], that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery." - Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard
Has Ron Paul ever read a history book that wasn't written by DiLorenzo?
I want to see 1 quote from a Founder that acknowledges unilateral secession. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about the Articles of Confederation:
"When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience."
Here's what James Madison has to say:
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."
KayBeeEee1983 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983
*I want to see 1 quote from a Founder that acknowledges unilateral secession.*
The only quotes that count are cherry picked, out of context quotes, which need to be shoe horned into fitting some revisionist axe-grinding agenda.
Or, for arguments sake, if L. Ron Paul Hubbard believes something, no matter how utterly wrong, lacking in fact or hopelessly unprovable, one must automatically agree with him.
Haven't you learned anything?
MikeM2608 1 hour ago
ron paul. Wake me up when he actually wins a primary.
ICantDecryptTheCode 10 hours ago
Why is Ron Paul delivering a speech in front of a symbol of human slavery? Is he that stupid?
MPedroful 1 day ago 6
@MPedroful The Battle Flag was not the National Flag of the Confederacy. The banner you are erroneously attributing to slavery was a bit different. Look at the present flag of the State of Georgia to see the CSA National Flag.
The Battle Flag was mostly innocuous until the time of desegregation. Then it was appropriated by men far more evil than on either side in the Civil War.
4GooMan 1 day ago
@4GooMan The KKK was all but entirely made up of Confederate Veterans in it's earliest days. The Klan formed between 1868-70 in Pulaski Tenn. Origionally the Klan was a vigilante group in the Reconstruction era south where few feared the law if & where there was any symbolence of law & order. In time some saw it as a rebirth of the CSA and others used it for their own selfish gains. Many of the Klan's origional members left as it became more politicized & expanded above the Mason/Dixon line.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175 Exactly. The latter day version of the Klan was the group responsible for the sad reputation the Battle Flag has come to mean in many eyes.
4GooMan 1 day ago
@4GooMan Yes that is so but the Klan has probably flown the flag of each state. The Klan has flown the US flag as well. I've seen the Klan flying Canadian and British flags and the checkered flag. The most grevious offense is the Confederate battle flag flying side by side with the Swastika. These two standards have absolutely nothing in common and nobody should be more offended than a proud Southerner when he/she sees a Rebel flag & Swastika flying side by side.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175 The American Nazi Party was the origin of the Swastika flying with the Stars and Bars. But it was short lived as the overwhelming majority of Southerners considered it near blasphemy.
But don't expect the Libtards to admit that. And you'll NEVER catch them admitting that the Klan had almost as many operatives in the North during the first half of the last century.
4GooMan 15 hours ago
@4GooMan George Lincoln Rockwell was the founder of the American Neo Nazi movement and a lunatic assassinated by his own followers for trying to form alliances with the Nation of Islam who both believed their common enemy was the Jew. Rockwell supported New Africa where white southerners would be expelled from the south and black Muslims would be able to form their own nation seperate from the US there. Ironically Malcom X may have been killed by Nation of Islam for not supporting the alliance.
BradNC11175 13 hours ago
@MPedroful "Stupid"? No. Racist? Yes.
Dr. Douchebag has a looooooooong history of this sort of bullshit. But his mindless followers refuse to accept it.
librarianeric 1 day ago
Saying the confederate flag is a symbol of human slavery is like saying the American flag is the symbol of genocide and imperialism.
introvertedgal 1 day ago
@MPedroful it's an emblem of the south, idk where you're from, but I'm from the south, and that flag is still used freely and an emblem of the south, no slavery ties to it by any means.
UKwildcats2121 23 hours ago
@MPedroful having a confederate flag in your house doesn't make you pro-slavery. it means something different for the vast majority of southerners. it has unfortunate associations, but please don't paint southerners with such a broad stroke.
chadimus84 19 hours ago
@chadimus84 The Confederate-Flag is the first American-Flag!
1BlubeTube 10 hours ago
@MPedroful You mean there was a Confederate Flag hanging during a lecture on secession? Something tells me there was also an American flag hanging close by. The Mississippi state flag still contains the Confederate Flag. By your logic, "Why would any Mississippi state Gov. give a speech in front of the state flag? Are they that stupid?" Calm down, it's a symbol that is very relevant to the topic he is speaking of.
tweedon1 17 hours ago
its pretty sad people in this country were brain washed in to thinking the civil war was only about slavery if the confederates won the war im sure it would of been a matter of time before they rethought their slavery issue,
sumozack 1 day ago
@sumozack (1/5)
What's really sad is that people try to say it wasn't all about slavery when the Confederate states themselves admitted over and over in their statements of secession like this that it was:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 When one examines the share cropping system that exploited both poor whites and "freed slaves" was what legally replaced slavery at the end of the Civil War. Prison chain gangs that were predominently made up of black inmates arrested and given lengthy sentences of hard manuel labor for the most petty of crimes in many instances. Both existed well into the 20th century. Not only was the Civil War NOT ABOUT SLAVERY IT DIDN'T EVEN END SLAVERY.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175 (1/2)
And what you describe is NOT chattel slavery, but just the influence of capitalism in general! That the South tried as was quite successful with replacing chattel slavery with other form of exploitation is meaningless, and its use here is a poor attempt to lessen the moral morass of slavery. It is a cheap distraction to make the false equivocation you do.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 However is capitalism to blame for sharecropping?
All of human history is replete with slavery until fairly recently. And that is a "moral morass"?
I would think one would be much more concerned with the present day "moral morass" of executing babies before they are born, and since PrezBO took over, when they are partially delivered.
4GooMan 1 day ago
@BradNC11175 (2/2)
"...the war ended the institution of chattel slavery. that was an institution that the country could not have carried into the twentieth century without suffering a crippling handicap. It is not easy to see how the institution could have been disposed of, except by violence." Bruce Catton, "Reflections on the Civil War" p4
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 The South fucked up in two places: 1) the CSA should've never fired upon Ft. Sumpter first as this made them the aggressor. 2) They should have given slaves the same terms (from the start) that Washington gave slaves during the Revolution and offered Emancipation for all slaves who would agree to take up arms for the Confederacy. The CSA's whole agenda was to get recognition from Europe. Lincoln was crafty enough to know Europeans wouldn't support slave owners in the South.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC175
But the South could not bring themselves to do that, they showed their attachment to slavery by holding on to it even if it meant not getting European recognition. And they could barely bring themselves to allowing the recruitment of slaves very late in the war, and even then didn't even free those few that were attempted to be formed up and stated: "That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners"
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Perhaps Mr. Catton should look to the Brazilian model to see a non-violent way out of slavery.
4GooMan 1 day ago
@4GooMan (1/4)
Perhaps you should first look up who 'Mr Catton' is. And your comparison with Brazil is shallow and ignores the enormous differences in the two structures. The two systems were totally different and what transpired in Brazil could not have happened in The South. In Brazil the slaves are held by only a relatively few owners on large land holdings, in the Am. South it is much more widespread, and on avg. 1/3 of southern families owned slaves.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Son, you've managed to spam a whole page and accomplish naught.
Your comments are replete with quotes - not those of statisticians, but just rank opinions. If you think adding a stranger's opinion lends any more credence to your own, you're deluding but yourself.
You also have little or no knowledge of Brazilian history.
Every third Southern family owned slaves? Just where did you pull that statistic from?
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
Ahh, the quotes are from the most accredited most respected and most knowledgeable historians in the specific field. And the fact that on avg. one third of Southern families owned slaves comes from the 1860 Census and as is widely reported in various academic Civil War history sources such as here: civilwarcauses (dot) org/ stat (dot) htm
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (2/4)
Brazil did not have a politically powerful slave owing class with its own political party to call upon to prevent abolition as did US.
In Brail there is a different concept of race that is not the strict 'black and white' version of the US, this allowed people of color to exist in and have some political power in Brazil. In Brazil the proportional numbers of freed blacks was rising, not so in the South where more and more were enslaved.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Please be specific about your claim that prior to emancipation in Brazil the blacks had some political power.
Your claims that freed Brazilian slaves increased as a portion of the whole prior to emancipation is based on what?
Since the importation of slaves was prohibited decades before the Civil War, however did more and more become enslaved?
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan (1/2)
Please actually look up Brazilian history. My claims that the freed proportion of slaves increased is based on the Brazilian census figures and Brazilian history articles. And more and more were enslaved in the American South due to natural growth of the population. the second most important 'product' of Virginia before the war was the 'breeding' of slaves.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (2/2)
"As of 1860, the second most important export of the commonwealth of Virginia was human flesh.
Virginians wanted to make sure that if white Southerners were going to buy slaves, they were going to buy slaves that bore the phrase "made in Virginia." - Professor Brooks Simpson
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (3/4)
Both the nature of slavery itself and the political climate it existed in; in other countries was totally different than in the Southern US. The situations were nowhere near the same. For example; while more slaves might have been imported to Brazil, due to the higher death rates, and that mostly men were brought in as slaves there, meant that by 1860 approximately two thirds of all slaves in the Americas lived not there but in the US South.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt Mostly men were brought into Brazil as slaves? Just how in the world do you explain that the male/female ratio was a normal 50/50?
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
Yes mostly male slaves were brought in. Brazilian free society had a natural male/female ratio, but not the slaves that were brought in, and who mostly died in slavery never having reproduced. This was not the case in the American South where after the slave trade was banned natural reproduction saw a growing slave population.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (4/4)
Brazil had only between 1 and 1.5M slaves. In 1872 the overall slave population of Brazil is 15%, and that was distributed throughout the nation, not regionally as in the US. In the US in 1860, slavery is concentrated in that one region and constitutes a growing 3.9 Million of its little more than 9 Million total population. No, bringing up Brazil only shows that slavery could not have ended in the South of its own volition and how different the situations were.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Slaves in Brazil were concentrated in the States of Bahia, Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and the Northeast. That can hardly be considered nationwide distribution.
The situations of slaveholders are remarkably similar in any era and locale. The slaves MUST BE FED, even when there is no work for them. What forced the hand of emancipation in Brazil was a drought in the Northeast.
The arrival of the Boll Weevil in the South would have achieved the same result.
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
According to the Brazilian Census data from the University of Texas, that is not so.
utexas (dot) edu / cola / orgs / hemispheres / _ files / pdf / presentations / Skidmore _ Table (dot) pdf.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@sumozack (2/5)
What's pretty sad is when you post what you did obviously either unaware or not caring that the Confederate Vice President himself said:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@sumozack (3/5)
What's sad is that you think that the South was going to willing give up slavery soon even though they had just instituted a war to prolong and protect it. That slavery had been growing, that more were enslaved in the South in1860 than had been in 1850. That it was more than just the economics of slavery that was of concern, but of a whole culture as shown by the statement from Virginia's secession commission slightly before it succeeded:
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@sumozac (4/5)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@sumozack (5/5)
No, what's really sad, is that people still try to make that old 'lost cause' myth.
The reason people think the Civil war was about slavery is because it WAS about slavery, and historians agree on that.
What is sad, is the ignorance or denial by some not to admit it.
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Bullshit, the "Rebellin was going to happen with or without slavery. Southern states of 1861 weren't the first to try and seceed from the Union. The road to conflict was paved with the Federalist vs. Anti Federalist debate that began in the wake of the Revolution and still exists to this very day. The Federalist vs. Anti Federalist debate is at the root of every internal political dispute in this nation's history from the time of Washington to the present.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175
The Southern desire to secede was tied directly to slavery as the Southerners themselves stated over and over, and as I have shown, it matters not what was the root of other debates, none of which resulted in secession anyway, the Southern act of 1860 was the result of slavery, period.
And the South also had NO PROBLEM using and expanding federal power when it was in service or protecting slavery.
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Slavery was not exclusive to the South in the Antebellum era and the Emancipation proclomation didn't free a soul, it merely allowed for Union Forces engaged in the rebellion to sieze any and all property that could aid in the rebellion. The Lincon administration, leery of European support for the rebellion, turned the conflict into a moral crusade against slavery to quell any & all direct support of the Rebellion in Europe. How do you explain northern slavery after the Emancipation?
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175 (1/2)
The North had already given up slavery, even as early as 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North and that number is falling. (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era"). And Yes sorry the EP did actually free hundreds of thousands of slaves. It freed all those aht had reached Union lines and it freed all those that the Union army will later reach. And the ability to seize rebel property had already occurred in the previous confiscation acts.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Are you saying that there were less than 3,000 slaves in Kentucky alone? How about Maryland? Missouri? None of the aforementioned States were part of the Confederacy.
Or are you arbitrarily moving the Mason Dixon line to and fro as your argument moves along?
4GooMan 1 day ago
@4GooMan (1/9)
Well you are right on one thing, the 'states right' concerned was slavery. But slavery in the South wasn't dying, it was growing and rather widespread. Slavery was more widespread in the South then is commonly assumed and you allude to, on avg. 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and this rose to 1/2 in the deep South. Most slave owners were middle class and small farmers holding only a few slaves.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Half the familes in the Deep South held slaves? I want to say LMFAO!, but I'll politely wait for you to provide from whence you pulled that little bit of whimsy.
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
It's called the 1860 Census.
census (dot) gov / prod / w w w / abs / decennial / 1860 (dot) h t m l
It's under the section headed "Statistics of the United States, (including mortality, property, &c.)" and then listed per state. But as I have already posted you can also find it as a synopsis at:
civilwarcauses (dot) org/ stat (dot) htm
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 I find your claim that "rebellion" would not have occured without slavery quite laughable. Not only were the seeds of war planted by the Federalist vs Anti Federalist dispute of the Founders, the Morril Tariff that exempted most major Northern ports was the straw that broke the camel's back in 1861. Northern industry would have been killed if European merchants could have dealt directly with southern ports, southern industry & plantation owners by cutting out the Yankee middle man.
BradNC11175 12 hours ago
@BradNC11175
It is not only my claim, but that of all the most respected historians in the field as I have shown. And again the tariff did not cause secession as the Southern admitted themselves. And European merchants could already deal "directly with southern ports" Although commodities aren't bought from the 'ports' they are sold at exchanges and those and middlemen would still exist.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 The Morrill Tarriff would have killed southern ports such as Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington and Norfolk but this mattered little to the northern ports (not effected) that stood to gain from it. Had southern industry been able to grow and European merchants been able to cut out the Yankee middle man industry of the north this would not bode well for Northern industry and ports now would it? You fail to mention the significance of the Morrill Tarriffs as a causality for secession.
BradNC11175 12 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (1/8)
Morrill would never have passed if the South had stayed in to vote against it. And the traffic done by all those southern ports didn't add up to what was done in New York alone. And tariffs effect ALL ports equally, not just Southern ones! And most tariffs were actually paid by the North.
Southern industry didn't grow because the Southerners didn't want or need it to, they saw plantation slavery as the better economic and cultural system and invested in that instead
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (2/8)
"The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (3/8)
The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (4/8)
There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (5/8)
There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (6/8)
There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons).
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (7/8)
Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@BradNC11175 (8/8)
One can come up with many more examples." James McPherson, North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52.
So most tariffs were paid by those in the North, the only reason it was an issue for some was because of the nature of the plantation economy, so gain it all relates back to slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (2/9)
More than half of all owners had five slaves or less. And those in the South that didn't own a slave mainly aspired to do so. "While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Why don't you quote US census figures rather than Mr. Franklin's fantasy?
If every third Southerner held slaves, then the population of white Southerners would be (338,000 x 3) a million souls. Do you purport the population of the American South to have been but 1,000,000 whites at the outbreak of the War Between the States?
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
No, because once again the 1/3 figure is by FAMILY household. You can't take the total of whites and just divide that into the number of slaves because that number includes children and wives who are in slave owning families, and who as children couldn't own slaves, and women who usually owned very little property in the South, and yet are part of that slave owning family but not counted in the 338,000 number of official owners. So the correct way to look at is by family.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4GooMan
*If every third Southerner held slaves, then the population of white Southerners would be (338,000 x 3) a million souls*
Hmmmm. Southern Families only consisted of 1-3 people? I never knew that.
L. Ron Paul Hubbard 2012
MikeM2608 1 hour ago
@4GooMan (3/9)
Additionally, those that didn't directly own slaves, rented them, or worked for a business that was in some way reliant upon slavery.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." - Professor Brooks D. Simpson
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 More blah, blah, blah opinions quoted from a stranger with absolutely no notation of the source of the information leading to such silliness.
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
Sorry, I'm using the most qualified historians of the topic, they are of course "strangers" to you because you have never legitimately actually studied the period.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
Editing error there is no (4/9) in this set.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 I guess even a spammer can admit screwing up a sequence.
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan (5/9)
We can see the importance of slavery, not only to the economy of the south, but to its culture as well, by this official statement from the Virginia secession commission published shortly before it seceded to state its position.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@4GooMan (6/9)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 I am curious do you spend so much time with quotes from biased authors because you have little to add to the conversation from your own mind? Even a cover band has to play some of it's own material from time to time.
BradNC11175 12 hours ago
@BradNC11175
I use legitimate sources as I have degrees in history and teach it. It really bothers you that I can use so much backing for what I say. You on the other hand have just been printing made up garbage.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (7/9)
"[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom", p113
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Are you so bereft of ideas that you must resort to quoting those of someone who acts like he had a privy knowledge of the hearts of Southerners?
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
They're called academics and scholars. Yes, they have specific knowledge and insight based upon diligent academic research.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (8/9)
And, finally, there were no efficient and economical mechanical cotton pickers until about the time of WWII and the harvesting of crops that the South was reliant upon will continue mainly by manual means a century. Slavery was completely efficient for its purpose at the time and it would have been supported and continued for an untold amount of time, as it was ingrained not only in the economy, but also the culture and entire social system.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 What you miss is that a sharecropper must feed, clothe, and house himself through good harvests and bad. This was a far, far better deal than the planters got with slaves.
4GooMan 16 hours ago
@4GooMan
And what you miss is that the slave is paid NOTHING and still must essentially feed and house himself, nothing is better than the free labor provided by slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (9/9)
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks Simpson
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 The South's economy was agrarian, the North's was manufacturing. The South preferred to sell to Europe at higher prices than the Northern factories wanted to pay. But the North imposed import/export controls to force the sale of Southern commodities to them.
Cotton production continued after the War, hence it could not be construed a necessity of the Southern economy.
4GooMan 15 hours ago
@4GooMan (1/15)
The North paid the same prices as Europe for Southern produce. The Southern commodity was bought by purchasing agents and marketed on exchanges by middle men to whomever would buy it. There were no export controls, export tariffs are unconstitutional in the US Constitution. The CSA however DID allow export taxes so you argument is exactly backward there.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (2/15)
And the only 'import control' would be tariffs and the tariffs were at their lowest since the 1820s and even then most those were paid by the North The Tariffs law that was still in effect, was written by the South and voted in favor of by them and no new tariff would have passed if the South had stayed in the congress.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (3/15)
But it was not until the departure of fourteen senators from the Deep South that the Morrill Tariff could pass the Senate. Thus secession made it possible for the tariff to become law: as secession happened prior to the passage of the legislation, the passage of the legislation did not cause secession, and no southern state seceded between the passage of the act and Lincoln’s call for troops in the wake of the attack upon and surrender of Fort Sumter.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (4/15)
Those facts render highly problematic the claim that “the tariff” caused secession, since the tariff in place at the time of secession, the Tariff of 1857, was very favorable to southern interests
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (5/15)
There are larger issues in play here. Southerners were not opposed to tariffs in the abstract. They were opposed to protective tariffs that did not directly protect their interests. They did not object to protective tariffs that protected southern interests (such as Louisiana sugar plantations).
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (6/15)
Generally speaking, protective tariffs protect domestic economic interests from foreign competition by raising the price of foreign-produced goods above the price of their domestically-produced counterpart in the marketplace. Low tariffs promoted southern economic interests, namely the export of cotton produced and harvested by slaves.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (7/15)
Nor were southerners opposed to the principle of the federal government protecting and promoting economic interests … especially their own. After all, they endorsed the use of the federal government to protect and promote their most important economic interest: slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (8/15)
In pursuit of that interest, southern political leaders had supported measures looking toward territorial expansion (even if obtained through war and conquest) and the erection of a federal bureaucracy to return fugitive slaves through a process that abridged the civil rights of Americans.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (9/15)
In short, white southerners did not believe in federal neutrality when it came to supporting economic interests. They thought it was just fine when the federal government supported their interests, even if it meant committing American soldiers to wars of expansion at the cost of American lives or compromising the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (10/15)
The economic interest they supported was the exporting of the products produced by the commercial capitalistic agribusiness known as plantation slavery. Slavery made possible that economic interest and made possible its profitability.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (11/15)
Ironically, it was secession that enabled Republicans to pass their ambitious economic agenda during Lincoln’s first term. The story would have been far different had the Deep South done what everyone before had done when they lost an election: represent their interests in the political process, and look to future elections for voter approval for changes in policy.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (12/15)
Let’s make this painfully clear: a low tariff serves certain economic interests just as a high tariff serves certain economic interests. Whatever the policy of the federal government might be as reflected in legislation, certain economic interests benefit, and other do not. One’s position of tariff policy was more often determined by whether that policy would serve one’s interest, and in the slave states that interest was tied, one way or another, to slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (13/15)
In the upper South, where there was more economic diversification, attitudes toward tariff policy were more diverse, and it did not serve as a rallying cry (Virginians in early 1861 talked about the benefits of tariff protection as they sought to diversify). Not a single state in the upper South seceded in response to the passage of the Morrill Tariff.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (14/15)
In short, “the tariff” as an abstract principle did not cause secession. Indeed, southerners had accepted tariffs before, especially when they served southern interests. They had also welcomed other forms of federal support on behalf of their economic interests. Those economic interests, in turn, were fundamentally shaped by the presence of plantation slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan (15/15)
No slavery, no plantations, and the course of southern economic development (and thus southern responses to federal legislation to shape that development) would have been fundamentally different.
Try as you might, somehow it all comes back, one way or another, to slavery and the efforts of secessionists to protect it through secession." Professor Brooks D. Simpson
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 You posted 38 straight comments.
KayBeeEee1983 6 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 Yes the south's economic system was heavily dependent upon slavery but northern industry and European markets were highly dependent upon the plantations of the south that could not function without slavery. The very idea that the north and even Europe had clean hands with regards to slavery is pure fantasy. And let's not forget those northern "servants" either.
BradNC11175 12 hours ago
@BradNC11175
Again it is a false equivocation to compare the paid free labor of the Northern servants with the chattel slaves of the South. And yes, Northern markets did use Southern Cotton, and in that they were complicit, but they were not the ones keeping the slaves in bondage. They were not the ones whose politicians did all they could to perpetrate slavery. Their Northern politicians, even many of the Democratic ones, wanted to see slavery curtailed.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@4GooMan
Maryland is below the Mason Dixon line and almost seceded itself, it was probably only kept in because of the Union military presence; Kentucky and Missouri (Missouri compromise remember) were given stars to represent them on the Confederate flag, by the confederates themselves, they are both Southern border states that were only kept in the Union through political intrigue and force.
Rundstedt1 21 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 You are evading the point that you initially listed North and South. Now, you conveniently add a third category to plug a leak in one of your arguments.
What's next, other categories for the Plains States? The Mountain States? The far West?
Are we now to consider western NC and eastern Tennessee to be Northern because they resisted the "Cause" throughout the War?
4GooMan 15 hours ago
@4GooMan
No, the Border states are a well known category and that exact categorization is used by virtually every historian. I can't believe you are being this ignorant here, either you don't know anything at all about the topic or you are just being a dishonest troll.
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@Rundstedt1 More or less the Missouri populace was pro Confederate where as the governor was pro Union whilst the opposite was true in Kentucky. Virginia was divided and the western half of the state seceeded itself from the eastern, hence the reason we have West Virginia. This nearly happened in Tennessee as eastern Tennessee (as was much of western North Carolina) was staunchly pro Union but Jefferson Davis along rushed Confederate troops in much like Lincoln had done in Maryland.
BradNC11175 13 hours ago
@BradNC1175 (2/2)
There was no 'Northern' slavery after emancipation because there was no Northern slavery before emancipation. The Border states that were not in rebellion were not affected, as Lincoln had no power to issue a proclamation that would affect non-rebelling areas. Here he worked to have the state's ban slavery by changing their constitutions, as he was successful in Maryland in this and later Missouri, and then work begun almost immediately on the 13th to finish what the EP started
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Oh thats right, they liked to refer to them as "servants" up north... a fancy word for saying SLAVE... much like the "servants" the Lincolns even had at the time of "Honest" Abe's death.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175
Yes, paid FREE employees. Not chattel slave but an free person employed as in a service. Of course in capitalism all are slaves of some sort, but that is not the issue here and you know it. Your attempt to muddy the waters is faulty, and obvious. The free paid servants of the North were not slaves, and to make the analogy you do shows a distinct lack of compassion and knowledge of what slavery was in the South.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Actually I find your distaste for "capitalism" to be quite enlightening. Karl Marx was a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. This helps me emensly to understand your appreciation for the Centralization of government in which the Lincoln Administration and Federalists were seeking. This makes me even more skeptical of your "historical sources" of information. Centralized power by the Federalists was the first step on the road to Marxism in this country courtesy of Abe "Stinkin" Lincoln.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175
Hey, I'm not the one that equated free workers with slavery, that was you. Thank you comrade, lol
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Actually if I may steal a quote: "Of course in capitalism all are slaves of some sort". I am sure those "free workers" were paid top wages and never treated with any manner of prejudice or disrepect by those "northern crusaders". We do agree on one thing: those greedy ass plantation owners who were to busy sipping tea & mint julips on their victorian era porches cost the Confederacy dearly and ultimately reaped what they sowed. Robert E. Lee & Pat Cleburn would agree with that.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@BradNC11175
Again an unjustifiable and false equivocation. But keep on impugning capitalism, I won't stop you. And Lee was a tea sipping elitist, fighting to maintain the power of his class, he only could see the writing of the wall from the battlefield and knew that if something desperate wasn't done they were certainly done for. But it didn't matter for as it was, they were done for even well before Lee made his proposal.
Rundstedt1 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Robert E. Lee was an arostocrat no doubt and believed very much in a sense of duty and the code of the gentleman next to his Christian faith these were his two highest principals. He was born into the aristocracy via a mother who was a distant relation to Martha Washington and a father who was some what of a whore mongerer that squandered his fortune and wrote a bouncing check to G. Washington. R.E. Lee never knew his father but saw Washington as his hero from an early age.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Robert E. Lee was a slave owner but freed his slaves about 2 months (I believe) before the Emancipation proclomation. Not all slave owners were brutal and cruel to their slaves and not all slaves hated the south or their masters.
BradNC11175 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 Your fluid definitions of North and South would be humorous if they were not so pathetic.
4GooMan 15 hours ago
@4GooMan
My definitions can be easily confirmed by anyone with even a small bit of honesty
Rundstedt1 6 hours ago
@sumozack The War was about State's Rights. And the foremost amongst said rights was to hold slaves. Few Southerners held slaves, in fact many were against the War. But when push came to shove, they maintained their loyalties to their State.
Slavery was doomed to eventually become obsolete. It cost quite bit to buy and keep a slave. Machinery was about to take the place of much of the menial labor, and sharecropping took care of the rest.
4GooMan 1 day ago
Origin of this flag is based on the Scottish Flag which bears the St Andrews Cross.
St. Andrew was crucified on a X shaped decussate cross. In St. Andrews church, there is a statue of St. Andrew, holding an X shaped cross in his hands.
DuctapePenguin 1 day ago
ron paul fucktard and all who follow the fucktard are FuCkTaRds a quitter wants to pack up his bags stay and fight the liberal shits but not ron paul the fucktard
why760nitro 2 days ago
@why760nitro Yes, that's about exactly as good as it gets with any anti-ron paul speech. Because the people who are anti-Ron Paul are too stupid to actually think about and comprehend what he is actually saying to come up with anything other than "ron pauls a fUckTaRd, hehehohohaha"
TheMetalGuy852 2 days ago
There is nothing wrong with that flag. Its simply a part if US history...it doesnt mean racism. its simply the flag that the south used during the civil war. And yo northies..at one time, you had slaves too so dont blame it all on us...hmm
WeskerHouse013 2 days ago
@WeskerHouse013 Oh no, there is something wrong with that flag. It's not the flag of the United States, in fact it's the flag of a "nation" we fought a war against.
They used to fly it above the State capitals in the South until the Supreme Court ordered them to stop.
There is a big movement for secession in rural Texas these days, they argue that Texas produces everything necessary to sustain itself and doesn't need to be part of the U.S.
But that's not how it works.
RonaldPaulstein 2 days ago in playlist Ron Paul = epic fail.
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama wins by a landslide in 2012.
Get with the program. :)
RonaldPaulstein 2 days ago
"The Republican Party is no more. It is not a political party; as David Brooks noted 'the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party.'
It has become a clearing house for religious fanatics, Ayn Rand groupie weirdos [me] and angry white racists driven literally mad by seeing a black man in the White House, a black man more articulate and intelligent -- not to mention annoyingly even tempered -- than they or their bizarre leaders are." -- Frank Schaeffer, The Huffington Post, 07/21/11
RonaldPaulstein 2 days ago
People are using this to call Paul racist. I didn't hear a single racist word uttered. There's no explanation given here, but it looks like the flags probably there because he's talking to some sort of historical society or something.
pecosdave 2 days ago
Oh, no! Someone is talking about secession!
Let's not mention the fact that he also discussed that slavery is incompatible with a free society, the South's slave based agrarian economy was on the brink of collapse and the Northern abolitionists opposition to the civil war!
In either case, I commend "LoonyRonPaul" for not just cutting out the audio and showing Paul in front of a confederate flag.
VictoryCough 2 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Dude you just contradicted yourself. Virginia can secede, but West Virginia can't why not?
Zlogical1 3 days ago
@Zlogical1 Look at it the other way: if West Virginia can secede why can't Virginia? Besides, WV was illegaly separated from Virginia, a rump legislature seceded without the consent of the real Virginia legislature, in fact three counties in Northern VA elected to stay with VA but were forced into submission by the Federal Army to secede with WV.
RevBillyRayCollins 3 days ago
@RevBillyRayCollins
You have it ass-backwards: as WV chose NOT to secede from the US, it was acting lawfully... it was the rest of Virginia that was rogue. Don't you have some Holocaust denier web-board to attend to?
plightweisgoff 1 day ago
@plightweisgoff "WV chose NOT to secede from the US" Obviously, but does that make it somehow better? When they do it to the 'bad' guy it's okay? "it was acting lawfully" The real VA legislature would disagree with you; read Mark Stein's 'How the State's Got Thier Shapes', he pays mention to this secession.
I'm not a holocaust denier; just because you have nothing more to say doesn't mean you need to resort to idiotic and immature attacks with no validity.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 day ago
@Rundstedt1 If that quote of Lee is accurate then he did in fact commit treason. Officer's are sworn to obey the Constitution & disobey non constitutional orders unlike enlisted men who can only disobey unlawful orders. If in fact Lee knew that secession was Unconstitutional then he should thank God that Lincoln had a policy of "Let em up easy." from his wrestling days.
Zlogical1 3 days ago
@Zlogical1 Where in the Constitution is secession prohibited?
BradNC11175 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul will still have my vote, Always has had it and I will only change that if he really treatens America... This is not a threat to america, it is a RedNeck hall meeting That is ALL
flybradfield85 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He's in the south, what do you expect,
flybradfield85 4 days ago
Ya'll got owned by Rundstedt. Sorry.
chadem311 4 days ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 cool story bro. I bet you made mommy proud conducting a ridiculously long Youtube rage reply!
puncher53 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have been conditioned to think it was all about slavery. It wasn't. Slabery was a small part of it. It was about getting out of the union and money.
anthonynutt1 5 days ago
Ron Paul says nothing of siding for Slavery and you would have to be a propagandist to have even posted his for any other reason than just historical recognition he knows his history.
TheWolfzilla 6 days ago
@TheWolfzilla
Obviously no he doesn't. The South was not about to give up slavery as I have shown over and over, and as any Civil War historian will tell you the war was caused by and about slavery. He ignorantly thinks the war could have been easily avoided and resolved even though country had been going through crisis after crisis and had to have numerous compromises because of it and was already fighting proxy war over it in Kansas. Historians are always having to correct Libertarians.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt Hey man! What a hell of an assertion collection! How do I begin mister 'historian'? Slavery was drying up in the South! The owner's wives hated it, especially when so many of the slave children started "look'in kinda pale & a lot like my husband". Just how is it 'ignorant' to 'think the war avoidable'?Just what 'crisis after crisis' are you using hyperbole to cite?Just where did the South get all the money for those lovely grey outfits & arms? Bankers then,bankers now!
TroddinSod 6 days ago
@TroddinSod
Sorry slavery was not dying in the South, the number of slaves increased in the previous decade as did the area that they cultivated. And you obviously slept through your history classes and missed the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri compromise, the popular sovereignty debate, , the Fugitive slave laws, and Bleeding Kansas, among other things. And most Confederate soldiers didn't wear lovely grey uniforms, they wore home dyed butternut.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 You obviously think your history classes were teeming with credulity, but they were only serving the agenda's of the Bankers! Check the publishers names: Ford, Rockfeller, etc.The Missouri Compromise was 40 years earlier, and in 1850 - it was slaverly's last gasp. Utah, N.Mex, & Ariz, could have but never did become slave states. As I said, it was dying. Only politicians working for the Bankers pushed it in the house, but the people at large were growing sick of it. Word!
TroddinSod 6 days ago
@Tro
Yes slavery had been dividing he nation for quite some time and the reason for the Missouri compromise was.... wait for it.... slavery. And again slavery was growing and going strong and whether slavery could actually be successful there the South didn't care, they just wanted the ability for slavery to be there, and they also had designs on Cuba and parts of Mexico, and hoped that through the expansion of the Fugitive slave laws they could bring and keep their slaves in non slave states.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (1/2)
Slavery was NOT dying in the South, you can show no laws that were passed in the South that would indicate that slavery was dying, instead they protected slavery and made it even harder for slaves to be manumitted. The number of slaves had grown for the past decade, you have NO support to say slavery was ending in the South, you're just making crap up that historians would laugh at. Here's what Virginia said before seceding, it sound like they're about to end slavery?
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Troddin (2/2)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
Just Because there is a Flag that appears to be Confederate dose not mean that it is! The Cherokee Nation Fought and died in numbers for the Confederacy as Confederate soldiers. If you think that the Union was better you need to go back to elementary school idiot and read up on the removal of the Native Americans and the trail of tears. There were bad Slave owners in the North as well as the south, That war was fought over bankers stealing land. the Yankee army was fighting for the Banks!
TheWolfzilla 6 days ago
@TheWolfzill
Exactly what banks stole land; provide proof. And slavery had ended in the North by the war, indeed by 1820 there will be only about 3000 slaves left in the North and falling, (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era") And the trail of tears happened in the South, and because those states like Georgia wanted the Indians removed and were willing to allow the use of federal power any federal power to do so, if the CSA was had been around they would have removed them also
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TheWolfzilla Man, your way off! Both the South and North were fighting for the bankers. That's all wars are ever fought for! Lincoln detested the Banks & hence made printed 600 million greenbacks, interest free, fiat paper! The Bankers wanted control over the U.S. Currency, so they fueled both sides of the war to in debt us to them. Where do you think the South got all the money for it's it's weaponry & costume? Same as the North,THE BANKERS! Follow the money for the answer.
TroddinSod 6 days ago
@TroddinSod
Hey, your tin-foil hat fell off. There was this little thing called slavery that everyone at the time recognized was behind the war, including the South itself.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 U b funny! Ha ha! But while I dawn my tin hat, I pray ye don't re-write history for yourself, only the way, 'YOU BABY', like IT!! U C wut I'm saying? LOL!! Slavery only became an agenda for the war LATE in the war. The negroes that fought so hard, for both sides deserved it!! But the bankers fueled the resentment of a few politicians in the South to keep the fight going. Alexander Stephens was one of them!! He made himself & the bankers a lot of money using free labor.
TroddinSod 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (1/6)
You are just deluded and not worth dealing with, you have no evidence for your conspiracy crap and prove your delusion by trying to say that there were so called 'black confederates.' It is just a sad joke and anti-historical to try and make the claim that there were 'black confederates'. As the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities states, the idea of there being these so called 'black confederates' is: "not only untrue; it’s complete nonsense."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (2/5)
And this myth, states David W. Blight, professor of history at Yale University, editor of Passages to Freedom: The Underground Railroad in History and Memory, and author of Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. "is driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (3/5)
And he goes on to say: "What could better buttress the claims of "color-blind conservatism" in our own time than the suppositions that the slaveholding leaders of the Confederacy were themselves the true emancipators, and that many slaves were devoted to the southern rebellion? George Orwell warned us: who needs real history when you can control public language and political debate?
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (4/5)
The Confederate President himself in a "Message to the Confederate Congress" on Jan 12, 1863 (which I can post if necessary) recommended the immediate execution of all black soldiers and virtually all union officers that were captured.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@TroddinSod (5/5)
However in an act of generosity in the obvious recognition of reprisals, the "Response of the Confederate Congress to Message From Jefferson Davis on the Emancipation Proclamation" May 1, 1863, only prescribed death for any black soldiers and the specific officers who commanded them and spared the rest of the Union officer corps. Sorry your delusions like there being so called 'black confederates' break upon the rock solid ground of reality
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rundstedt1 : Secession in the 1860's was a direct and predictable outcome of the great internal contradictions that existed in the hastily ratified United States Constitution.
It is history's lesson that a republic cannot be held together peacefully over such an extensive territory. The dissimilitude of interests and outlooks only guarantee internal conflict over access and influence over an increasingly powerful central government. The US was founded as an empire and not a republic.
absolute1984 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@absolute1984 I should like to ad that secession is the end product of imperial exhaustion.
absolute1984 6 days ago
"Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery. And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the [US], that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery." - Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard
Rundstedt1 6 days ago