To argue that war was to cancel out individual choices ignores the choices of the slaves.
To argue that the consent of the governed should limit the federal government in this case argues that slaves don't get this right.
There is a tremendous amount of incredibly wacky logic, dog-whistle racism, or just pandering to racists in this speech. It's amazing that Ron Paul supporters think it says something good about their preferred candidate.
Of course the political leadership in the south preached the war WAS fought to protect slavery. South Carolina was trying to enact a ban on out of state mail to stop anti-slavery newspapers from being read in South Carolina when it became obvious that they were not going to be allowed to ban the free press. The south was against liberty and freedom. The CSA flag is anti American and RP should be embarrass to be send standing in front of it.
@Anghellik9 He's a voluntarist, says taxation is theft, advocates non aggression axiom, I'd say that largely supports the bill of rights. The thing that confuses people is there is a difference between what he desires ultimately and how to get there gradually. He has been using the transition approach.
@BIackOp Its important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with “Congress shall make no law…” This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts.
@BIackOp The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business. -Ron Paul, "What does the First Amendment really mean?" July 1, 2002
@BIackOp uh, no. He just says "let the states decide what they want to do". If a state wants to be anarchic, so be it. if they want to be a theocracy with the death penalty for stealing a candy bar, they'll do that too.
This proves that Ron Paul doesn't understand the Civil War either, or just lies about it. Read the Ordinances of Secession and the accompanying Declarations of Causes... the men in the secession conventions SAID the war was about slavery in their official documents.
Oh, and Jefferson didn't get rid of the First Bank of the US -- Paul is wrong again. Madison got rid of it in 1811 and, recognizing his mistake, signed off on its recharter a few years later.
And those reasons are all equally IRRELEVANT, since each state is a SOVEREIGN NATION.
You are a typical useful-idiot for the state who feels powerful by advocating the destruction of freedom by the Leviathan juggernaut, thinking yourself so wise as to do what you will with other people and what is theirs-- but you are just a worthless little worm compensating for your inadequacy by trying to dominate others.
That's what freedom is all about, being able to buy and whip slaves and rape women
We are soo horrible for taking away the souths freedom to rape slave women. That's just detrimental to liberty....as if the liberty of the slaves fucking mattered!
BALONEY, RON - the Civil War was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY. From the Mississippi Declaration 1861 - 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... black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
I cannot see what is so "racist" about his speech? He made a really good point in my mind. Considering the incredible cost of war, it would have been much cheaper for the north to just pay off the south and essentially "buy-out" slavery.
OK, he's standing behind a confederate flag. That is part of the scenery of where he is and if you understand the culture of the people he is communicating with.
Do you call someone a terrorist because they voted against the "patriotic act"???
Of course, this dogma covers the REAL reason for the war-- i.e. CONQUEST OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS out of SHEER GREED AND EMPIRE.
And of course since that was illegal, they had to CLAIM that it was about slavery in order to serve as their pious cause in their holy war of moral crusade.
Of course, the war only happened because the south REFUSED Lincoln's offer of a amendment that would make slavery legal FOREVER in their states.
@TheJaggedyer He's a racist for suggesting the liberty to own other human beings is more important than those humans freedom and taking away the right to own slaves was tyranny.
@dffykvn Well, firstly that doesn't make him a "racist", what if the slaves had been white? (in the case of indentured servants who were white slaves in Europe and the US). There is however a conflicting libertarian dilemma that you pointed out. That is should the liberty of one individual succeed the others liberty? AND is it tyranny for the government to take your "property" even if it happens to persons. That is not a easily solved questioned. I agree with your second point but not your first
Wealthy people love libertarianism when it's protecting their interests (private property)
They love to play a modern day lord of the manor
Naturally in the courts a poor person rarely beats a rich man or megacorporation thanks to the rich having veritable armies of lawyers that can bury the poor in red tape until whatever condition the rich man inflicted on the poor one kills him.
I just see libertarianism as modern day feudalism.
@dffykvn Oh no, you are confusing ideologies. In true libertarians, slavery would never be permitted in the first place because the liberties of the people would be protected by the government. Libertarianism does not equal corporatism (the mainstream republican party is an example of "corporatism") and it does not mean anarchism or "no government" either. The unbreakable red tape you speak of is a result of the compounding effect of corrupt government bills used to benefit the lawyers.
@dffykvn Why do you think the mainstream republican media is so afraid of him? Because they know Ron Paul can't be bought out and they know that libertarian ideologies won't allow them to keep making trillions of dollars off our goverment by supplying unneeded military weapons. After Ron Paul stated "no bailouts, ever!", the mainstream media did pretty much everything they could to pretend he didn't exist (especially FOX).
@dffykvn At any rate, I don't think that the speech should be classified as "racist", and I do not believe he is racist but I believe Dr. Paul was conflicted about his own views at the time of this speech perhaps? (cuz I am now...)
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"
"The power confided to me will be used to hold\ the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
There's a very convenient definition of "slavery" by the haters and hypocrites in the Church of Lincoln.
They condemn chattel slavery as the ultimate evil, but they introduced and applaud slavery to the STATE via the draft, compulsory education and income-taxes-- all of which were introduced with the murderous conquest of the states., and which enslaved far more than chattel-slavery ever did.
They are also hypocritical since they only wanted to TAX slavery, but it backfired and they got away!
@SovereignStatesman Funny, the Confederacy introduced conscription more than a year before the US. Also rejected the notion of self-determination for breakaway sections of southern states.
Oh, and as for taxing slavery, the federal government never proposed a national property tax on slaves. I assume this is where you reply by misinterpreting tariff law.
But frankly, when you call compulsory education a form of state slavery, it tells us all we need to know about you.
Ok, I'm not going to quibble with you. The states are SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
Are you retarded?
And dumbass-- there's no "misintterpretation" on tariff law, you're misinterpretign REALITY by thinking it somes from someplace else just because the tax is on IMPORTS.
Dumbaass.
Yeah, and your saying compulsory education is NOT a form of slavery, tells me all I ever need to know about you-- as well as your referring to your self as "we."
well if you can look at this and still wonder who wrote ron pauls newsletter. you have your head stuck up your ass. the man is trying to make a compelling argument talking about freedom of states to chose but ignores the fast that other men were not free. individual chose? these men help people in chains. so fuck you ron paul.
Texas. The state that was created with the intent on expanding slavery west, so that it did not die as an economic model in the country. Even the Mexicans disapproved of that model and forbade Texans to bring them. White Texans were the first wetbacks, before the term was turned back onto the Mexicans. When asked to stop settling, they kept swimming across the Red river into MEXICO, and invading illegally. The place where Kennedy died; you know, that civil rights president. Texas. Wrong Paul.
@raisin212k You dumb ass - The whites came to Texas through CONTRACT. You know ZERO about Texas and her history. The Texas Rev was cuz the Mex Gov't Broke the CONTRACT after they got here and cleared out a lot of the Indians. The Mex Gov't could never get full control over Texas cuz the Indians kicked there ass time and time again. Go pound sand.
@Makkabee I do not mean the Sabine River. I mean the Red River. In fact, one of the reasons Mexico originally invited white American settlers was to populate the northern most areas of Mexico as a buffer from those very tribes you speak of. And a side note, think of American history as a whole, did the fact that a region was populated with indians ultimately stop whites from traversing the area? You're correct about the indians, but it was indeed the Red River. Spanish did centuries before that.
Wow Ron. Not about slavery? Is that why all there were so many supreme court developments, several compromises, amendments, etc. on the issue of slavery? I wonder if Paul can explain then, what led to secession if it wasn't the election of a republican president. I wonder if Paul can explain why so many southerners like himself wrote so many letters voicing their amazement as to why northerners would fight for slaves.
@raisin212k The war was over TAXES and tariffs - NOT slaves. Pres Lincoln himself said it was NOT over slaves. That he did NOT want to free the slaves. That he did NOT want them to live with and among whites. Many Northern States passed laws that said blacks could never be in there State - even passing through was a no no... your again WRONG.
@GlenRoSSe69 "Pres Lincoln himself said it was NOT over slaves."
And he said it WAS over taxes.And I QUOTE:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
--Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
Federal property was just an expense, so it was over TAXES.
@raisin212k "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"
"The power confided to me will be used to hold\ the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
I guess everyone is going to make there irrational argument now about how ron paul is a pro slavery racist, even though they fail to listen to him to understand hes actually made a damn good point.
@LAXCRUIZIN Of course. The shallow mentality of the average American cannot see past what is mildly intellectually challenging. What I would like to know is that if RP is such a racist, why did he ever save a black man's wife from death and they pay the medical bills?
God dammit I liked him but clearly the old white man from the south isn't for universal freedom like he says he is. I'm just not voting this year. Fuck it!
@JDMarine89 ---that is whole point of the monied 1% ers to discouraged people from exercising our right to participate in the politcial process in our beautiful country. Do you OWN research to discern the truth... and VOTE based on facts.... NOT manipulation and distortions of the truth.
When Mexico outlawed slavery,Texas went to war with Mexico. Texas, like the rest of the Southern states, had given up on Jeffersonian democracy and had hopes of forming a plutocracy based on some classical Greek writings along with biblical views on slavery.
@337noname The Whites of Texas had a CONTRACT with the Gov't of Mex. This gov't broke the CONTRACT. Did you know that many Northern States would not allow blacks in there State? They could not even pass through - did they "give up on Jeffersonian democracy"? Pres Lincoln was NOT for freeing the slaves. Or for blacks being in white society. In fact when the war was over he wanted the Army/Navy to go and bring all the blacks back to Africa. Now what?
@GlenRoSSe69 Texas was just fine with being part of Mexico until Mexico outlawed slavery. That is a fact. The history of Texas is not about northern states or Lincoln.
@337noname The Mex Gov't broke MANY of the points in there CONTRACT - The contract stated that the whites that were ASKED to come in were not under Mex law but only the contract. They did not have to become Catholic under Mex law. They could bring slaves outside the law. They broke the contract and Texas sent down Reps to talk about it - they were put in jail - till they were paid to be let out - The Mex ASKED FOR IT - THEY GOT IT! BANG.
@GlenRoSSe69 Sorry. You are wrong. Texas broke away from Mexico because Mexico outlawed slavery. That is a fact of history. Read the words of the leaders of Texas and other southern states. They believed in a class system not in a free Republic where ALL are equal.
Freed slaves were equal, dummy. Plenty of blacks owned slaves, over 2000 black slave-owners were stripped of their investments along with everyone else by the 13th Amendment, which was wholly illegal but so was the war.
Yankees have their own version of truth, similar to Al Queda's; with both supported solely by violence.
You and I may know that both Lincoln and Mohammed were demented lunatics who waged holy war on those who didn't surrender to their claims of Divine Right, but they got their Jihad and they're stickin' to it, for the reward of 40 acres and 72 virgins in paradise.
"Boy, it sure is hot here in Heaven-- HEY KOOL-AID!"
So he's saying it would have been better to let slavery continue until it was abolished by legislation? It shouldn't have continued another minute. Some libertarian, Dr. Paul! Many white people in the SOUTH opposed slavery including the 300,000 white people who came up north and fought for the union. Also, the SOUTH seceded, if I'm not mistaken. They didn't try to change things democratically. The confederate leaders were a traitorous, cowardly insurgency that was rightfully crushed.
This is the barbarism of the Confederacy that Ron Paul defends: WANTED: RUNAWAY SLAVE A negro man who says his name is Josiah, that he belongs to Mr. John Martin, living in Louisiana, twenty miles below Nathchez. Josiah is five feet eight inches high, heavy built, copper colour; his back very much scarred with the whip, and branded on the thigh and hips in three or four places thus:'J.M.' The rim of his right ear has been bitten or cut off.
@Somai82 Idiot, you obviously dont understand english, there wasnt a racist thing in this speech. Fuck, are people really this stupidly senstive and poltically correct that they turned into whinning pussies without checking facts? So much easier to just yell racist, I guess.
@ADoseofReality1 The fact that he profited, lied and back peddled about the racist newsletters, his close ties with Lew Rockwell, who wrote them..the fact that he did not supported the civil rights movement and now this, speaks volumes. I won't even get into his kooky rants on Alex Jones. And I'd rather be a pussy than a lapdog.
He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which forces states to recognize life at birth and completely exposes him as a hypocritical libertarian.
@Somai82 What about Obama's affliation with Preacher Wright who damned America and called the white house officials the KKK of America? Does that say anything to you since Obama claimed that Wright inspired his book the Audacity of Hope? Should we assume that because he has affiliattions and connections to someone who is blatantly preaching hate that Obama is a racist? Just wondering.
@Somai82 Guess there is a double standard huh? I think a preacher who is suppose to preach the words of the lord and instead calls Condaliza Rice Condaskeezer rice is no leader to be respected or followed yet our current president has no intention of cutting the guy off and instead calls him "an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." If we can accept Obama on his word when he says he doesn't support that mentality, then why can't we accept RP's word? Just sayin..
@GIOJL Obama distanced himself from wright's bigotry while Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell campaign for him and still is very good friends with him. He even tried to defend him in a retarded way when in a tv interview he said "It's literally impossible for a libertarian to be racist" which is enough to make cat laugh and Mr. Rockwell's newsletter rants clearly disproves.
@Somai82 You are an idiot. Do more research and find where he actually stands on issues before subjecting your dumb uninformed opinions on to everyone.
@globalchaos1984 The fact that you call me uninformed based on your own useless assumptions without even a response to the facts I gave about Paul in the previous post clearly shows your colors. And whatever you do, do not look up the Sanctity of Life Act. That must be just a "dumb uninformed opinion" lol
Why would you make a speech in front a giant confederate swastika dr paul? i was 100% behind even after hearing about those letters written under your name.
Of course he doesn't think he's a racist. Of course he thinks he has people's best interests at heart, but when your concern for the perpetrators of one of the most horrific injustices in this nation's history seemingly places higher than that of their victims, I'm sorry, but you don't have your priorities straight.
The South was in direct opposition to the liberty of millions of slaves, but whose freedom does he care about, does he make the impassioned argument for? The South's, of course. He is dangerously blind, his lack of identification with the slaves a telling marker of his empathy with the oppressed other.
He is right that the Civil War was not fought over the institution of slavery, but for someone who apparently cares so much about the consent of the governed and individual choice, he sure doesn't seem to give much thought to what the slaves wanted. It doesn't seem to occur to him that slaves should have had the same amount of say in the control of their lives as the Southern whites should have.
When Mexico outlawed slavery,Texas went to war with Mexico. Texas had given up on Jeffersonian democracy and had hopes of forming a plutocracy based on some classical Greek writings along with what they called a biblical view of slavery. Ron Paul doesn't know his own history.
The Civil War was fought over slavery. The other issues people try to argue (for instance, states' rights) were directly related to slavery. The Confederacy knew this very well. It's in their founding documents. To say that slavery was not the main issue that led to the war is historical revisionism of a kind that seeks to absolve white slaveowners of their racism. Ron Paul cares about individual rights, provided the individual is not a slave. There is a higher morality. Find it.
But it was over slavery not states rights. The Confederate Constitution protects slavery under federal law, not state law. States could not outlaw slavery. Tey dropped foregin tarriffs in favor of domestic tariffs. Before the war the federal government had not treaded on their states rights. The South was merely upset they lost the election of 1860. Then in 1869 it was ruled by the Supreme Court that secession is unconstitutional. Read your history Ron Paul!
Ron Paul's not racist. He's just a very strong proponent of states' rights, for better or for worse. In fact, almost every single president post-civil war until Obama was around a Confederate flag at least once, and not all of them were racist. I don't agree w/him on the civil war but thankfully it's a trivial issue today: the North won! Get over it. I'll still vote for Paul in a primary because we have 300 million people in this country, and the rest are the best field we can come up with?
Ron Paul isn't a libertarian - he is a Confederate. He isn't interested in freedom from government - he wants freedom from the FEDERAL government but STATE governments can oppress you any way they want to.
I mean, the South threatened that if Lincoln was elected without the support of a single Southern state, they'd revolt, and then it happened, and they did. Paul is speaking in hypotheticals that never existed anywhere but in fantasy. What an unbelievable liar!
@Ouroboroz Okay to ANY one of you who want to twist what Ron said into a "pro-white supremacist" reenvisioning of history you are not listening clearly. He reads the line from the Declaration of Independence which said that the Union existed only with the consent of the States and it's authority to govern was derived entirely from the people.... Make no mistake! The confederacy was not FIGHTING FOR STATES RIGHTS, nor does Ron ever make that statement or even infer it.
@Ouroboroz The point he was trying to make is that Lincoln used the slavery issue as a means of advancing the expansion of FEDERAL POWER. If you read his quotes and memoirs he was nothing short of a racist. The south is not being made out to be some innocent victim, scholars may agree or disagree on exactly why the civil war was fought, but nearly everyone agrees you can draw a line to the civil war as the starting point of A)the republican party, and B) the unchecked expansion of the fed gov't
@cueech Dont argue facts with morons that didnt even understand what Paul was saying. It went right over their heads. Nothing racist in this speech at all.
The "Union" army marching down south and engaging (according to their states constitution, and the original Federal constitution which is the only one which the southern states had given the authority to be governed by) law abiding citizens in combat, established a precedent of the Federal government being able to do literally whatever it wants.
Ron Paul is a despicable liar and a representative of the White Power movement, sticking up for the values of the Confederacy by lying about what it was and what happened, praying upon the under-educated with straight up fairy tales and using those same lies as coded shout-outs to legitimate racists. Shame on this country's pervasive ignorance and any ignoramus who buys into the deceit of Ron Paul. When I see his face, I see a swastika.
And how could the North have offered to buy the slaves' freedom when The South wrote slavery into their constitution, stating that as more states were made part of the Confederacy, they too would HAVE to be slave states? ("States Rights" indeed.)
Very easy easy way to prove Ron Paul is a misguided racist fraud who perpetuates lies about history. Answer this question: aside from awarding Jefferson Davis with the "rights" of a dictator, which "States Rights" besides SLAVERY were the South defending when they STARTED the Civil War in South Carolina?
He's speaking in front of the equivalent of an Al Quaeda flag, or a NAZI flag; while trying to justifying thee US being the last of these countries to end slavery. The cost of the war was ENTIRELY because slaveowners would not give up slavery, the Federal Govt could not "buy" the freedom of African Americans without reinforcing the idea of buying humans, and the equivalent of Corporate Welfare. He's a hypocrite & bigot of the lowest form.
He is so reasonable about how to solve problems without war and murder! Real men use their heads and Godly principles to make their decisions and solve problems, any 3rd grader can sick their Big Brother on someone and have him beat people up! Also don't forget that only 3 states wanted slavery...Georgia, NC and SC...It was much more despised than embraced by most.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South" by Clint Johnson. Everyone should read it. Of COURSE the Civil War wasn't as simple as black and white. And it's not fair really for us today to look back on that era and judge the people and events by our set of beliefs and standards today. What's scary to me is, people who have racism handed down to them, and they're racist just because they think they're supposed to be; and people ASSUMING that others are racist is also racism!
Wikipedia explains the fact that it was the African Tribal Leaders are the ones that Sold Their Black Slaves, Criminals and Prisoners to the highest bidder... 12 Million of them... Egypt had slaves 2,000 years ago... How do you like being a Debt Slave? It's the Exact same as being a Real Slave...
The money I have is exchanged for goods and services as I see fit. It doesn't matter what you think it's worth, or if it's backed by gold or pond scum. It's value is derived from what it is exchanged for.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the Federal Reserve, it's not the best system, but it's not some sort of slave handler pulling the puppet strings of the population.
@malagaent I'm just saying, your money is debt. It's being inflated and is losing purchasing power as we speak. The more money "created" and injected into the system, the less purchasing power each dollar holds. Supply and demand. It may not be a slave handler but the Fed is pulling the strings of your monetary system.
@wesleyburkhart Bad policy does not equal slavery as stated before by someone else, which prompted my first comment. Of course it pulls the dstrings, that is what it's for, always has been.
And the idea that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional is also a joke. Ron Paul states it often, but it simply isn't true. There is an argument to be made against the FR, but it's is on policy not constitutionality. Anything other than policy will lose, always.
@malagaent I did. Why didn't you message me back? I figured we could continue our discussion in a more appropriate setting without involving everyone who watches this video. I don't claim a monopoly on knowledge and if you and I disagree, one or both of us is probably wrong. If I didn't value your opinion I wouldn't have asked for it.
@wesleyburkhart Try again, the message I received was addressed from me to me, whether a glitch or whatever. I tried to reply, thinking it may have been just a display error. When I did it came back to me.
If you send me another message I will reply to it with the answer to the first.
The problem with the Yankees is that they can't mind their own fucking business. 700,000 people died because they couldn't leave the south well enough alone. That's why northerners are in favor of bigger government. Because they want to stick their noses in on peoples lives, what they say, what they eat, where their children go to school, etc, etc.
@ydms14 that was a pretty ignorant comment. you are mad at the federal government...not northerners. get a grip.
it takes a pretty small-minded person to be a flaming nationalist, but it takes a teenie-weenie-minded person to be a flaming nationalist AND regionalist. maybe it's true what northerners say about southerners...
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address
Dr. Paul is talking about how people, and states, rights were taken away in the civil war.
Also, its not the Confederate flag, he's probably speaking in front of the Mississippi flag and the other 2/3rds of the flag are crumpled on the floor.
Whoever thinks the civil war was just about slavery really needs to examine history. Stop being so ignorant and understand that all wars are about money and money only.
The only revisionist history is the one we read in the high school and college history textbooks. The war was not about slavery it was about Lincoln forcing his tyrannical agenda of centralized power on the entire nation down the barrel of a gun. Slavery was on its way out even without the war and we were the ONLY nation that had to resort to war to end slavery (Britain, France and rest of the colonial powers ended it through buybacks and gradual purchasing of slaves' freedom).
@MrMoBidnizz everyone is entitles to their own opinions and beliefs, but talk like that is just as bad. you can only hate what you hate in yourself and in your case that would be intolerance.
I've always thought that the Civil War seemed like an unjust War. Clearly if half the country wanted to leave than that was well within their rights. Yes, slavery was wrong, but throwing out the right to succeed always seemed, well, dicey.
I noticed that video too. I thought the up loader was being ignorant by not allowing comments. Of course Ron Paul's speech is dead on as there was a trade war occurring between Europe and America which was causing some hardships for all the people. Lincoln even had made a request to African American leaders to leave to other countries. Go Ron,!
Where does he say that he supports succession? He might support the concept that the war Civil Was fought over succession, but nowhere does he, himself, say that he supports succession.
If you see this clip as a racial slam then you are not smart enough to vote. If you are black and having trouble understanding whats happening in this country and why the race issues keep taking up so much of our valuable time, then look around. Dr. Paul is your only hope. Things like this blow the minds of the smart white and black people. We know you wont vote for Paul because he's white and that you will vote for the black half of Obama. Sorry for you again. The war is over by the way.
I am a supporter of Ron Paul but I don't agree with him on certain issues. This is one of them. The other issue is Birthright citizenship and the Civil Rights Act. But my differences with him are far out weighed by the issues we agree on. I don't understand for the life of me why these philosophical differences would keep someone from voting for
Dr. Paul and why some feel the need to defend every stance he has.
This is just an alternative historical view of the Civil War and what being a confederate in that context really meant. The Civil War is open to critique. The war cost at least 600,000 lives, and the government committed war crimes (like Sherman's march) that left lasting scars. And the Civil War in any case was tragic as it didn't solve our racial problems as much as it reinforced them for over a century. Perhaps there was a better way.
"... there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ..." - Abraham Lincoln (1858)
@PatriotReview Those newsletters weren't written by Lincoln. In fact Lincoln said he never read them. Lincoln did things to help black people too, like issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and using the military under his command to free blacks from slavery. So stop playing the race card because he's clearly not a racist. Lincoln '64!
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together..." - Abraham Lincoln
@PatriotReview A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction
@PatriotReview I'm sure you're aware of Lincoln's House Divided Speech? Perhaps you need to do more research before you claim Lincoln supported slavery
@CelticAngloPress Don't forget that 99% of people fighting for the South were not slave-holders. They were the common people fighting for the freedom of their "country". Only the 1% at most had slaves. Neither Northern soldiers or Southern ones, if you could talk to them today, would say the war was fought over slavery. Lincoln specifically said it wasn't about slavery.
@PatriotReview Oh shut up with your class warfare bull shit. If capitalism's evil, then why are American poor so much better off than foreign ones? Because they have opportunity. If 1% of people really controlled 99% of all wealth, then why don't we look like Zaire?
Before you comment, please read the description. It shows how Lincoln was a true racist.
jstewart9356 2 weeks ago
All other countries got rid of slavery by peaceful means. The states should continue to have the right to secede.
AutomatedForexRobots 2 weeks ago
Very wrong....
stifler4041 3 weeks ago
wRONg Paul
SirHappyThe1st 3 weeks ago
To argue that war was to cancel out individual choices ignores the choices of the slaves.
To argue that the consent of the governed should limit the federal government in this case argues that slaves don't get this right.
There is a tremendous amount of incredibly wacky logic, dog-whistle racism, or just pandering to racists in this speech. It's amazing that Ron Paul supporters think it says something good about their preferred candidate.
JoeCLarkin 3 weeks ago 2
Ron Paul 2012 Great speech.
futer3669 3 weeks ago
It was about States Rights but the rights in question were the right of the states to keep slavery going.
CzechAvailabilitie 3 weeks ago
Of course the political leadership in the south preached the war WAS fought to protect slavery. South Carolina was trying to enact a ban on out of state mail to stop anti-slavery newspapers from being read in South Carolina when it became obvious that they were not going to be allowed to ban the free press. The south was against liberty and freedom. The CSA flag is anti American and RP should be embarrass to be send standing in front of it.
337noname 3 weeks ago
Lysander Spooner is my favorite anarchist tinker.
voluntaryist1 3 weeks ago
@voluntaryist1 thinker*
voluntaryist1 3 weeks ago
But here's a question: If the state under "states rights" wanted to institute slavery, should they be allowed to do so?
Anghellik9 3 weeks ago
@Anghellik9 State Constitutions? Bill of Rights?
BIackOp 2 weeks ago
@BIackOp well for one thing, Ron Paul doesn't believe in the incorporation of the bill of rights.
Anghellik9 2 weeks ago
@Anghellik9 He's a voluntarist, says taxation is theft, advocates non aggression axiom, I'd say that largely supports the bill of rights. The thing that confuses people is there is a difference between what he desires ultimately and how to get there gradually. He has been using the transition approach.
BIackOp 2 weeks ago
@BIackOp Its important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with “Congress shall make no law…” This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts.
Anghellik9 1 week ago
@BIackOp The First amendment acts as a simple check on federal power, ensuring that the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever over religious issues. The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally was none of its business. -Ron Paul, "What does the First Amendment really mean?" July 1, 2002
Anghellik9 1 week ago
@Anghellik9 /watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs
BIackOp 1 week ago
@BIackOp uh, no. He just says "let the states decide what they want to do". If a state wants to be anarchic, so be it. if they want to be a theocracy with the death penalty for stealing a candy bar, they'll do that too.
Anghellik9 1 week ago
Well, we know history can be re-written. Besides, I didn't hear any racist rhetoric in RP speech.
spoony2112 3 weeks ago
So we should have given money to slaveowners so they could import more slaves which we'd have to buy to free?
Fuck this evil bigot
We northerners are horrible for taking away southerners rights to choose to own black people
I'll repeat myself, FUCK HIM!
dffykvn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn "so they could import more slaves"
Yeah, that was illegal in 1806.... but why be silent and thought a fool, when you can open your mouth and REMOVE ALL DOUBT?
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Secession =/= war.
The North made war by invading and occupying the south with the stated intention of taxing them against their will-- NOT freeing slaves.
It comes down to a question of national sovereignty-- and my channel video PROVES that the states were SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
Watch the video, and you'll see.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This proves that Ron Paul doesn't understand the Civil War either, or just lies about it. Read the Ordinances of Secession and the accompanying Declarations of Causes... the men in the secession conventions SAID the war was about slavery in their official documents.
Oh, and Jefferson didn't get rid of the First Bank of the US -- Paul is wrong again. Madison got rid of it in 1811 and, recognizing his mistake, signed off on its recharter a few years later.
Makkabee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Makkabee
Yeah asshole, EACH STATE had its own reasons.
And those reasons are all equally IRRELEVANT, since each state is a SOVEREIGN NATION.
You are a typical useful-idiot for the state who feels powerful by advocating the destruction of freedom by the Leviathan juggernaut, thinking yourself so wise as to do what you will with other people and what is theirs-- but you are just a worthless little worm compensating for your inadequacy by trying to dominate others.
FAIL.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman Yea, why would anyone oppose the freedom to own people
That's what freedom is all about, being able to buy and whip slaves and rape women
We are soo horrible for taking away the souths freedom to rape slave women. That's just detrimental to liberty....as if the liberty of the slaves fucking mattered!
dffykvn 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dffykvn
NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, dumbass.
Look into it... you're too dumb to pick your own nose.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
I like how the guy who made the video color corrected it so Ron Paul is even more white.
saverivers 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
Facebook Movement -
facebookcom/pages/Ron-Paul-Movement/364329273577110
Put in the . for (dotcom)
Heat5465 3 weeks ago
BALONEY, RON - the Civil War was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY. From the Mississippi Declaration 1861 - 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... black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
Ralphdraw3 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ralphdraw3 - "the Civil War was ALL ABOUT SLAVERY. "
My channel-video proves otherwise. Watch it and I'll answer any questions.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
I cannot see what is so "racist" about his speech? He made a really good point in my mind. Considering the incredible cost of war, it would have been much cheaper for the north to just pay off the south and essentially "buy-out" slavery.
OK, he's standing behind a confederate flag. That is part of the scenery of where he is and if you understand the culture of the people he is communicating with.
Do you call someone a terrorist because they voted against the "patriotic act"???
TheJaggedyer 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJaggedyer "I cannot see what is so "racist" about his speech?"
Because the northern cause was a racial strawman-argument that they were bringing racial equality by freeing blacks from slavery.
And since this IS a strawman, it must be protected by dogma from being analyzed.
Dogma, as you know, is an arbitrary declaration by a creed which is above question, like Al Queda and the Koran.
So if ANYONE questions the north in the war, they're AUTOMATICALLY a racist infidel.
Get it?
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont'd)
Of course, this dogma covers the REAL reason for the war-- i.e. CONQUEST OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS out of SHEER GREED AND EMPIRE.
And of course since that was illegal, they had to CLAIM that it was about slavery in order to serve as their pious cause in their holy war of moral crusade.
Of course, the war only happened because the south REFUSED Lincoln's offer of a amendment that would make slavery legal FOREVER in their states.
So it COULDN'T have been about slavery!
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@TheJaggedyer He's a racist for suggesting the liberty to own other human beings is more important than those humans freedom and taking away the right to own slaves was tyranny.
That's so fucking backwards.
dffykvn 3 weeks ago
@dffykvn Well, firstly that doesn't make him a "racist", what if the slaves had been white? (in the case of indentured servants who were white slaves in Europe and the US). There is however a conflicting libertarian dilemma that you pointed out. That is should the liberty of one individual succeed the others liberty? AND is it tyranny for the government to take your "property" even if it happens to persons. That is not a easily solved questioned. I agree with your second point but not your first
TheJaggedyer 1 week ago
@TheJaggedyer It is easily solved.
Wealthy people love libertarianism when it's protecting their interests (private property)
They love to play a modern day lord of the manor
Naturally in the courts a poor person rarely beats a rich man or megacorporation thanks to the rich having veritable armies of lawyers that can bury the poor in red tape until whatever condition the rich man inflicted on the poor one kills him.
I just see libertarianism as modern day feudalism.
dffykvn 1 week ago
@dffykvn Oh no, you are confusing ideologies. In true libertarians, slavery would never be permitted in the first place because the liberties of the people would be protected by the government. Libertarianism does not equal corporatism (the mainstream republican party is an example of "corporatism") and it does not mean anarchism or "no government" either. The unbreakable red tape you speak of is a result of the compounding effect of corrupt government bills used to benefit the lawyers.
TheJaggedyer 6 days ago
@dffykvn Why do you think the mainstream republican media is so afraid of him? Because they know Ron Paul can't be bought out and they know that libertarian ideologies won't allow them to keep making trillions of dollars off our goverment by supplying unneeded military weapons. After Ron Paul stated "no bailouts, ever!", the mainstream media did pretty much everything they could to pretend he didn't exist (especially FOX).
TheJaggedyer 6 days ago
@dffykvn At any rate, I don't think that the speech should be classified as "racist", and I do not believe he is racist but I believe Dr. Paul was conflicted about his own views at the time of this speech perhaps? (cuz I am now...)
TheJaggedyer 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"
"The power confided to me will be used to hold\ the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
Lincoln's 1st Inaugural
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont'd)
So here we see that it was NOT about slavery, but TAXATION AGAINST THEIR WILL.
The federal properties were just a brute-squad to COLLECT those taxes, otherwise they were a dollar-drain.
So anyone who says that Lincoln invaded to free slaves, is ILLITERATE AND RETARDED.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
There's a very convenient definition of "slavery" by the haters and hypocrites in the Church of Lincoln.
They condemn chattel slavery as the ultimate evil, but they introduced and applaud slavery to the STATE via the draft, compulsory education and income-taxes-- all of which were introduced with the murderous conquest of the states., and which enslaved far more than chattel-slavery ever did.
They are also hypocritical since they only wanted to TAX slavery, but it backfired and they got away!
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman Funny, the Confederacy introduced conscription more than a year before the US. Also rejected the notion of self-determination for breakaway sections of southern states.
Oh, and as for taxing slavery, the federal government never proposed a national property tax on slaves. I assume this is where you reply by misinterpreting tariff law.
But frankly, when you call compulsory education a form of state slavery, it tells us all we need to know about you.
Makkabee 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Makkabee
Ok, I'm not going to quibble with you. The states are SOVEREIGN NATIONS.
Are you retarded?
And dumbass-- there's no "misintterpretation" on tariff law, you're misinterpretign REALITY by thinking it somes from someplace else just because the tax is on IMPORTS.
Dumbaass.
Yeah, and your saying compulsory education is NOT a form of slavery, tells me all I ever need to know about you-- as well as your referring to your self as "we."
You are a pathetic, arrogant, self-deluded ant.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman You don't plan on addressing "Also rejected the notion of self-determination for breakaway sections of southern states." do you.
dffykvn 3 weeks ago
well if you can look at this and still wonder who wrote ron pauls newsletter. you have your head stuck up your ass. the man is trying to make a compelling argument talking about freedom of states to chose but ignores the fast that other men were not free. individual chose? these men help people in chains. so fuck you ron paul.
power823 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@power823
So you never heard of national sovereignty? Or do you simply not care about it?
Geez, no wonder you're so stupid.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
Texas. The state that was created with the intent on expanding slavery west, so that it did not die as an economic model in the country. Even the Mexicans disapproved of that model and forbade Texans to bring them. White Texans were the first wetbacks, before the term was turned back onto the Mexicans. When asked to stop settling, they kept swimming across the Red river into MEXICO, and invading illegally. The place where Kennedy died; you know, that civil rights president. Texas. Wrong Paul.
raisin212k 4 weeks ago
@raisin212k You dumb ass - The whites came to Texas through CONTRACT. You know ZERO about Texas and her history. The Texas Rev was cuz the Mex Gov't Broke the CONTRACT after they got here and cleared out a lot of the Indians. The Mex Gov't could never get full control over Texas cuz the Indians kicked there ass time and time again. Go pound sand.
GlenRoSSe69 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raisin212k
Mexico only disallowed slaves because they had PLENTY of slave-labor-- i.e. EVERYONE NOT IN THE 37 RULING FAMILIES.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@raisin212k I think you mean the Sabine River. The US side of the Red River was still Indian country in the 1830s.
Makkabee 3 weeks ago
@Makkabee I do not mean the Sabine River. I mean the Red River. In fact, one of the reasons Mexico originally invited white American settlers was to populate the northern most areas of Mexico as a buffer from those very tribes you speak of. And a side note, think of American history as a whole, did the fact that a region was populated with indians ultimately stop whites from traversing the area? You're correct about the indians, but it was indeed the Red River. Spanish did centuries before that.
raisin212k 2 weeks ago
Wow Ron. Not about slavery? Is that why all there were so many supreme court developments, several compromises, amendments, etc. on the issue of slavery? I wonder if Paul can explain then, what led to secession if it wasn't the election of a republican president. I wonder if Paul can explain why so many southerners like himself wrote so many letters voicing their amazement as to why northerners would fight for slaves.
raisin212k 4 weeks ago
@raisin212k The war was over TAXES and tariffs - NOT slaves. Pres Lincoln himself said it was NOT over slaves. That he did NOT want to free the slaves. That he did NOT want them to live with and among whites. Many Northern States passed laws that said blacks could never be in there State - even passing through was a no no... your again WRONG.
GlenRoSSe69 4 weeks ago
@GlenRoSSe69 "Pres Lincoln himself said it was NOT over slaves."
And he said it WAS over taxes.And I QUOTE:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
--Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
Federal property was just an expense, so it was over TAXES.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raisin212k "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so"
"The power confided to me will be used to hold\ the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
--Ape Lincoln
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"psst---this is the part where you RUN AWAY!"
--Shrek
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
I don't care what anyone says. LOOK HOW MOTHER FUCKING CUTE THIS MAN IS!! He's like an old kitten!!!
GRIEF1712 4 weeks ago
I guess everyone is going to make there irrational argument now about how ron paul is a pro slavery racist, even though they fail to listen to him to understand hes actually made a damn good point.
LAXCRUIZIN 4 weeks ago
@LAXCRUIZIN Of course. The shallow mentality of the average American cannot see past what is mildly intellectually challenging. What I would like to know is that if RP is such a racist, why did he ever save a black man's wife from death and they pay the medical bills?
ReachDeep1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReachDeep1
The "racist" argument just proves that the RP-haters are drowning, since they're clearly grasping at straws.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
God dammit I liked him but clearly the old white man from the south isn't for universal freedom like he says he is. I'm just not voting this year. Fuck it!
JDMarine89 4 weeks ago
@JDMarine89 ---that is whole point of the monied 1% ers to discouraged people from exercising our right to participate in the politcial process in our beautiful country. Do you OWN research to discern the truth... and VOTE based on facts.... NOT manipulation and distortions of the truth.
feathersandhearts 4 weeks ago
When Mexico outlawed slavery,Texas went to war with Mexico. Texas, like the rest of the Southern states, had given up on Jeffersonian democracy and had hopes of forming a plutocracy based on some classical Greek writings along with biblical views on slavery.
337noname 1 month ago
@337noname The Whites of Texas had a CONTRACT with the Gov't of Mex. This gov't broke the CONTRACT. Did you know that many Northern States would not allow blacks in there State? They could not even pass through - did they "give up on Jeffersonian democracy"? Pres Lincoln was NOT for freeing the slaves. Or for blacks being in white society. In fact when the war was over he wanted the Army/Navy to go and bring all the blacks back to Africa. Now what?
GlenRoSSe69 3 weeks ago
@GlenRoSSe69 Texas was just fine with being part of Mexico until Mexico outlawed slavery. That is a fact. The history of Texas is not about northern states or Lincoln.
337noname 3 weeks ago
@337noname The Mex Gov't broke MANY of the points in there CONTRACT - The contract stated that the whites that were ASKED to come in were not under Mex law but only the contract. They did not have to become Catholic under Mex law. They could bring slaves outside the law. They broke the contract and Texas sent down Reps to talk about it - they were put in jail - till they were paid to be let out - The Mex ASKED FOR IT - THEY GOT IT! BANG.
GlenRoSSe69 3 weeks ago
@GlenRoSSe69 Sorry. You are wrong. Texas broke away from Mexico because Mexico outlawed slavery. That is a fact of history. Read the words of the leaders of Texas and other southern states. They believed in a class system not in a free Republic where ALL are equal.
337noname 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@337noname
Freed slaves were equal, dummy. Plenty of blacks owned slaves, over 2000 black slave-owners were stripped of their investments along with everyone else by the 13th Amendment, which was wholly illegal but so was the war.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@337noname
Texas was recognized as a separate sovereign nation unto itself, that's ALL that matters.
So were the other American states.
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@GlenRoSSe69
Yankees have their own version of truth, similar to Al Queda's; with both supported solely by violence.
You and I may know that both Lincoln and Mohammed were demented lunatics who waged holy war on those who didn't surrender to their claims of Divine Right, but they got their Jihad and they're stickin' to it, for the reward of 40 acres and 72 virgins in paradise.
"Boy, it sure is hot here in Heaven-- HEY KOOL-AID!"
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
So he's saying it would have been better to let slavery continue until it was abolished by legislation? It shouldn't have continued another minute. Some libertarian, Dr. Paul! Many white people in the SOUTH opposed slavery including the 300,000 white people who came up north and fought for the union. Also, the SOUTH seceded, if I'm not mistaken. They didn't try to change things democratically. The confederate leaders were a traitorous, cowardly insurgency that was rightfully crushed.
HowardFair 1 month ago
Comment removed
ADoseofReality1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the barbarism of the Confederacy that Ron Paul defends: WANTED: RUNAWAY SLAVE A negro man who says his name is Josiah, that he belongs to Mr. John Martin, living in Louisiana, twenty miles below Nathchez. Josiah is five feet eight inches high, heavy built, copper colour; his back very much scarred with the whip, and branded on the thigh and hips in three or four places thus:'J.M.' The rim of his right ear has been bitten or cut off.
tjtube65 1 month ago
Paul is clearly a racist minute man and a conspiracy kook, just like his son.
Somai82 1 month ago
@Somai82 Idiot, you obviously dont understand english, there wasnt a racist thing in this speech. Fuck, are people really this stupidly senstive and poltically correct that they turned into whinning pussies without checking facts? So much easier to just yell racist, I guess.
ADoseofReality1 1 month ago
@ADoseofReality1 The fact that he profited, lied and back peddled about the racist newsletters, his close ties with Lew Rockwell, who wrote them..the fact that he did not supported the civil rights movement and now this, speaks volumes. I won't even get into his kooky rants on Alex Jones. And I'd rather be a pussy than a lapdog.
He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which forces states to recognize life at birth and completely exposes him as a hypocritical libertarian.
Somai82 1 month ago 2
@Somai82 What about Obama's affliation with Preacher Wright who damned America and called the white house officials the KKK of America? Does that say anything to you since Obama claimed that Wright inspired his book the Audacity of Hope? Should we assume that because he has affiliattions and connections to someone who is blatantly preaching hate that Obama is a racist? Just wondering.
GIOJL 4 weeks ago
@Somai82 Guess there is a double standard huh? I think a preacher who is suppose to preach the words of the lord and instead calls Condaliza Rice Condaskeezer rice is no leader to be respected or followed yet our current president has no intention of cutting the guy off and instead calls him "an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." If we can accept Obama on his word when he says he doesn't support that mentality, then why can't we accept RP's word? Just sayin..
GIOJL 4 weeks ago
@GIOJL Obama distanced himself from wright's bigotry while Ron Paul let Lew Rockwell campaign for him and still is very good friends with him. He even tried to defend him in a retarded way when in a tv interview he said "It's literally impossible for a libertarian to be racist" which is enough to make cat laugh and Mr. Rockwell's newsletter rants clearly disproves.
Somai82 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Somai82 "Obama distanced himself from wright's bigotry"
Yeah what did he do, sit a few pews back?
He kept on attending attending his bigoted sermons for 20 years you lying asshole!
"Not God Bless America, God DAMN America!"
Gimme a fucking break, even YOU can't be that stupid... can you?
SovereignStatesman 3 weeks ago
@Somai82 You are an idiot. Do more research and find where he actually stands on issues before subjecting your dumb uninformed opinions on to everyone.
globalchaos1984 1 month ago
@globalchaos1984 The fact that you call me uninformed based on your own useless assumptions without even a response to the facts I gave about Paul in the previous post clearly shows your colors. And whatever you do, do not look up the Sanctity of Life Act. That must be just a "dumb uninformed opinion" lol
Somai82 1 month ago 2
Why would you make a speech in front a giant confederate swastika dr paul? i was 100% behind even after hearing about those letters written under your name.
Steadno 1 month ago
(cont.)
Of course he doesn't think he's a racist. Of course he thinks he has people's best interests at heart, but when your concern for the perpetrators of one of the most horrific injustices in this nation's history seemingly places higher than that of their victims, I'm sorry, but you don't have your priorities straight.
Webcomicjunkie 1 month ago 2
@Webcomicjunkie Well said.
tjtube65 1 month ago
(cont.)
The South was in direct opposition to the liberty of millions of slaves, but whose freedom does he care about, does he make the impassioned argument for? The South's, of course. He is dangerously blind, his lack of identification with the slaves a telling marker of his empathy with the oppressed other.
Webcomicjunkie 1 month ago 3
@Webcomicjunkie Reread history and stop regurgitating the same old lines.
ADoseofReality1 1 month ago
He is right that the Civil War was not fought over the institution of slavery, but for someone who apparently cares so much about the consent of the governed and individual choice, he sure doesn't seem to give much thought to what the slaves wanted. It doesn't seem to occur to him that slaves should have had the same amount of say in the control of their lives as the Southern whites should have.
Webcomicjunkie 1 month ago
When Mexico outlawed slavery,Texas went to war with Mexico. Texas had given up on Jeffersonian democracy and had hopes of forming a plutocracy based on some classical Greek writings along with what they called a biblical view of slavery. Ron Paul doesn't know his own history.
337noname 1 month ago
The Civil War was fought over slavery. The other issues people try to argue (for instance, states' rights) were directly related to slavery. The Confederacy knew this very well. It's in their founding documents. To say that slavery was not the main issue that led to the war is historical revisionism of a kind that seeks to absolve white slaveowners of their racism. Ron Paul cares about individual rights, provided the individual is not a slave. There is a higher morality. Find it.
nannerface 1 month ago 3
But it was over slavery not states rights. The Confederate Constitution protects slavery under federal law, not state law. States could not outlaw slavery. Tey dropped foregin tarriffs in favor of domestic tariffs. Before the war the federal government had not treaded on their states rights. The South was merely upset they lost the election of 1860. Then in 1869 it was ruled by the Supreme Court that secession is unconstitutional. Read your history Ron Paul!
GProduct 1 month ago
Ron Paul's not racist. He's just a very strong proponent of states' rights, for better or for worse. In fact, almost every single president post-civil war until Obama was around a Confederate flag at least once, and not all of them were racist. I don't agree w/him on the civil war but thankfully it's a trivial issue today: the North won! Get over it. I'll still vote for Paul in a primary because we have 300 million people in this country, and the rest are the best field we can come up with?
martymcfett 1 month ago
Ron Paul isn't a libertarian - he is a Confederate. He isn't interested in freedom from government - he wants freedom from the FEDERAL government but STATE governments can oppress you any way they want to.
tiponeill2 1 month ago 3
@tiponeill2 is hard to reach communist utopia huh? i mean capitalist utopia....
diegoscp 1 month ago
I mean, the South threatened that if Lincoln was elected without the support of a single Southern state, they'd revolt, and then it happened, and they did. Paul is speaking in hypotheticals that never existed anywhere but in fantasy. What an unbelievable liar!
Ouroboroz 1 month ago
@Ouroboroz Okay to ANY one of you who want to twist what Ron said into a "pro-white supremacist" reenvisioning of history you are not listening clearly. He reads the line from the Declaration of Independence which said that the Union existed only with the consent of the States and it's authority to govern was derived entirely from the people.... Make no mistake! The confederacy was not FIGHTING FOR STATES RIGHTS, nor does Ron ever make that statement or even infer it.
cueech 1 month ago
@Ouroboroz The point he was trying to make is that Lincoln used the slavery issue as a means of advancing the expansion of FEDERAL POWER. If you read his quotes and memoirs he was nothing short of a racist. The south is not being made out to be some innocent victim, scholars may agree or disagree on exactly why the civil war was fought, but nearly everyone agrees you can draw a line to the civil war as the starting point of A)the republican party, and B) the unchecked expansion of the fed gov't
cueech 1 month ago 2
@cueech Dont argue facts with morons that didnt even understand what Paul was saying. It went right over their heads. Nothing racist in this speech at all.
ADoseofReality1 1 month ago
The "Union" army marching down south and engaging (according to their states constitution, and the original Federal constitution which is the only one which the southern states had given the authority to be governed by) law abiding citizens in combat, established a precedent of the Federal government being able to do literally whatever it wants.
cueech 1 month ago
Ron Paul is a despicable liar and a representative of the White Power movement, sticking up for the values of the Confederacy by lying about what it was and what happened, praying upon the under-educated with straight up fairy tales and using those same lies as coded shout-outs to legitimate racists. Shame on this country's pervasive ignorance and any ignoramus who buys into the deceit of Ron Paul. When I see his face, I see a swastika.
Ouroboroz 1 month ago
And how could the North have offered to buy the slaves' freedom when The South wrote slavery into their constitution, stating that as more states were made part of the Confederacy, they too would HAVE to be slave states? ("States Rights" indeed.)
Ouroboroz 1 month ago
Very easy easy way to prove Ron Paul is a misguided racist fraud who perpetuates lies about history. Answer this question: aside from awarding Jefferson Davis with the "rights" of a dictator, which "States Rights" besides SLAVERY were the South defending when they STARTED the Civil War in South Carolina?
Ouroboroz 1 month ago
Apparently, Ron Paul thinks slavery is a state's rights issue.
nkelly1432 1 month ago
This video title is Double Talk. Oh "Ron Paul supports states rights, not slavery."... he just supports State's Rights to have Slavery....
jaikwillis 1 month ago
the consent of the governed??? the slaves had no consent, this guy is a disgusting hypocrite and this is racist apologetics.
jaikwillis 1 month ago
He's speaking in front of the equivalent of an Al Quaeda flag, or a NAZI flag; while trying to justifying thee US being the last of these countries to end slavery. The cost of the war was ENTIRELY because slaveowners would not give up slavery, the Federal Govt could not "buy" the freedom of African Americans without reinforcing the idea of buying humans, and the equivalent of Corporate Welfare. He's a hypocrite & bigot of the lowest form.
jaikwillis 1 month ago
i hope this man is our next president form the love of the SCV
StormTrooperTK1337 1 month ago
He is so reasonable about how to solve problems without war and murder! Real men use their heads and Godly principles to make their decisions and solve problems, any 3rd grader can sick their Big Brother on someone and have him beat people up! Also don't forget that only 3 states wanted slavery...Georgia, NC and SC...It was much more despised than embraced by most.
BeckeyGirard 1 month ago
Hey PatriotReview...where was Ron Paul speaking? Was this a Sons of Confederate Veterans event?
Defcon458 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is a old Nazi piece of shit. I ever see him I will have to fight the urge kick his old cooky wrinkled ass.
bryanfury512 1 month ago
As James Carville said during the Clinton campaign, "It's the economy Stupid."
Secession would have CRIPPLED the "Union's" economy.
'Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.' Otherwise known as "Federalists" and "anti-Federalists."
TheGenseric 1 month ago
Heritage, not hate. Good job Ron Paul.
balancedbudget2012 1 month ago
@balancedbudget2012 Hell yeah man took the words right outta my mouth
DUKESUX44 1 month ago
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South" by Clint Johnson. Everyone should read it. Of COURSE the Civil War wasn't as simple as black and white. And it's not fair really for us today to look back on that era and judge the people and events by our set of beliefs and standards today. What's scary to me is, people who have racism handed down to them, and they're racist just because they think they're supposed to be; and people ASSUMING that others are racist is also racism!
SuperSkyster 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia explains the fact that it was the African Tribal Leaders are the ones that Sold Their Black Slaves, Criminals and Prisoners to the highest bidder... 12 Million of them... Egypt had slaves 2,000 years ago... How do you like being a Debt Slave? It's the Exact same as being a Real Slave...
disney9139 1 month ago
@disney9139 Debt slave huh? I have no debt and I don't rely on the government for anything. How exactly am I a slave then?
malagaent 1 month ago
@malagaent The very money you think you own is actually on loan from the Federal Bank. It's owed back, with interest...
wesleyburkhart 1 month ago
@wesleyburkhart Sure it is. Whatever you say.
The money I have is exchanged for goods and services as I see fit. It doesn't matter what you think it's worth, or if it's backed by gold or pond scum. It's value is derived from what it is exchanged for.
I'm not going to argue the merits of the Federal Reserve, it's not the best system, but it's not some sort of slave handler pulling the puppet strings of the population.
malagaent 1 month ago
@malagaent I'm just saying, your money is debt. It's being inflated and is losing purchasing power as we speak. The more money "created" and injected into the system, the less purchasing power each dollar holds. Supply and demand. It may not be a slave handler but the Fed is pulling the strings of your monetary system.
wesleyburkhart 1 month ago
@wesleyburkhart Bad policy does not equal slavery as stated before by someone else, which prompted my first comment. Of course it pulls the dstrings, that is what it's for, always has been.
And the idea that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional is also a joke. Ron Paul states it often, but it simply isn't true. There is an argument to be made against the FR, but it's is on policy not constitutionality. Anything other than policy will lose, always.
malagaent 1 month ago
@wesleyburkhart Did you send me a personal message bout this?
malagaent 1 month ago
@malagaent I did. Why didn't you message me back? I figured we could continue our discussion in a more appropriate setting without involving everyone who watches this video. I don't claim a monopoly on knowledge and if you and I disagree, one or both of us is probably wrong. If I didn't value your opinion I wouldn't have asked for it.
wesleyburkhart 1 month ago
@wesleyburkhart Try again, the message I received was addressed from me to me, whether a glitch or whatever. I tried to reply, thinking it may have been just a display error. When I did it came back to me.
If you send me another message I will reply to it with the answer to the first.
malagaent 1 month ago
Somebody needs to wake up Southern voters. I don't think South Carolinians know about this.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
The problem with the Yankees is that they can't mind their own fucking business. 700,000 people died because they couldn't leave the south well enough alone. That's why northerners are in favor of bigger government. Because they want to stick their noses in on peoples lives, what they say, what they eat, where their children go to school, etc, etc.
ydms14 1 month ago
@ydms14 Jeebus keerist you are one ignorant piece of shit. Fuck you and you small minded intolerance.
crybabysnivelphuck 1 month ago
@ydms14 that was a pretty ignorant comment. you are mad at the federal government...not northerners. get a grip.
it takes a pretty small-minded person to be a flaming nationalist, but it takes a teenie-weenie-minded person to be a flaming nationalist AND regionalist. maybe it's true what northerners say about southerners...
i live in s. alabama, by the way.
donHooligan 1 month ago
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address
thestuff314 1 month ago
Hmm, anyone know of any good reading material (web articles?) where I can read more about these things?
dratsabREVIEWS 1 month ago
Ron Paul has been old FOREVER
Esuna 1 month ago
@Esuna Wow what an intelligent comment. You fail.
JungleListSoldier 1 month ago
105 people have no concept of history, or appreciation for the fact that the "victors" wrote it.....
PostModernAnarchism 1 month ago
Dr. Paul is talking about how people, and states, rights were taken away in the civil war.
Also, its not the Confederate flag, he's probably speaking in front of the Mississippi flag and the other 2/3rds of the flag are crumpled on the floor.
Siblan 1 month ago
GOD BLESS DIXIE....AND RON PAUL!
DIXIECONFEDERATEDAWG 1 month ago
Whoever thinks the civil war was just about slavery really needs to examine history. Stop being so ignorant and understand that all wars are about money and money only.
JoeyR9669 1 month ago 2
The only revisionist history is the one we read in the high school and college history textbooks. The war was not about slavery it was about Lincoln forcing his tyrannical agenda of centralized power on the entire nation down the barrel of a gun. Slavery was on its way out even without the war and we were the ONLY nation that had to resort to war to end slavery (Britain, France and rest of the colonial powers ended it through buybacks and gradual purchasing of slaves' freedom).
miker2008 1 month ago
Fuck the south...Cant we just kill all the racist southern hillbillys. They are a waste of life.
MrMoBidnizz 1 month ago
@MrMoBidnizz everyone is entitles to their own opinions and beliefs, but talk like that is just as bad. you can only hate what you hate in yourself and in your case that would be intolerance.
LoganHolloway 1 month ago
I've always thought that the Civil War seemed like an unjust War. Clearly if half the country wanted to leave than that was well within their rights. Yes, slavery was wrong, but throwing out the right to succeed always seemed, well, dicey.
Good to see other people also feel that way.
TheMasterDS 1 month ago
@TheMasterDS
I guess you supper Germany in WWII .
Joeybsmooth 1 month ago
This is awesome, why so many thumbs down?!???
amanuscar 1 month ago
I noticed that video too. I thought the up loader was being ignorant by not allowing comments. Of course Ron Paul's speech is dead on as there was a trade war occurring between Europe and America which was causing some hardships for all the people. Lincoln even had made a request to African American leaders to leave to other countries. Go Ron,!
Letemdangle 1 month ago
Where does he say that he supports succession? He might support the concept that the war Civil Was fought over succession, but nowhere does he, himself, say that he supports succession.
Crystallas 1 month ago
He is stating facts... and he is 100% right, check your history. Funny how people skew things they do not agree with.
cheezomlet 1 month ago
If you see this clip as a racial slam then you are not smart enough to vote. If you are black and having trouble understanding whats happening in this country and why the race issues keep taking up so much of our valuable time, then look around. Dr. Paul is your only hope. Things like this blow the minds of the smart white and black people. We know you wont vote for Paul because he's white and that you will vote for the black half of Obama. Sorry for you again. The war is over by the way.
Hodaka90 1 month ago
I am a supporter of Ron Paul but I don't agree with him on certain issues. This is one of them. The other issue is Birthright citizenship and the Civil Rights Act. But my differences with him are far out weighed by the issues we agree on. I don't understand for the life of me why these philosophical differences would keep someone from voting for
Dr. Paul and why some feel the need to defend every stance he has.
bjolivas 1 month ago
If you watch this video, and the message you take away this is, "ron paul is a racist."
You are moron.
joshua1auhsoj 1 month ago
that's a point of view that makes sense, as always. RON PAUL 2012
joinProfusionEx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is just an alternative historical view of the Civil War and what being a confederate in that context really meant. The Civil War is open to critique. The war cost at least 600,000 lives, and the government committed war crimes (like Sherman's march) that left lasting scars. And the Civil War in any case was tragic as it didn't solve our racial problems as much as it reinforced them for over a century. Perhaps there was a better way.
MrGeorgeMora 1 month ago
"... there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ..." - Abraham Lincoln (1858)
PatriotReview 1 month ago
@PatriotReview Those newsletters weren't written by Lincoln. In fact Lincoln said he never read them. Lincoln did things to help black people too, like issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and using the military under his command to free blacks from slavery. So stop playing the race card because he's clearly not a racist. Lincoln '64!
CartCollector 1 month ago 2
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together..." - Abraham Lincoln
PatriotReview 1 month ago
@PatriotReview A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction
nkelly1432 1 month ago
@PatriotReview I'm sure you're aware of Lincoln's House Divided Speech? Perhaps you need to do more research before you claim Lincoln supported slavery
nkelly1432 1 month ago
Also some fighting for the North were also slave-holders.
PatriotReview 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatriotReview says "Also some fighting for the North were also slave-holders.
"
yes... but even they were fighting to end slavery & save their country from bigoted conservative terrorist traitors.
jaikwillis 1 month ago
Hundreds of thousands of Blacks fought for the confederates.
Also history is written by the victors.
CelticAngloPress 1 month ago
@CelticAngloPress Don't forget that 99% of people fighting for the South were not slave-holders. They were the common people fighting for the freedom of their "country". Only the 1% at most had slaves. Neither Northern soldiers or Southern ones, if you could talk to them today, would say the war was fought over slavery. Lincoln specifically said it wasn't about slavery.
PatriotReview 1 month ago
@PatriotReview Oh shut up with your class warfare bull shit. If capitalism's evil, then why are American poor so much better off than foreign ones? Because they have opportunity. If 1% of people really controlled 99% of all wealth, then why don't we look like Zaire?
martymcfett 1 month ago
@PatriotReview That whole statistic doesn't make any sense.
martymcfett 1 month ago