Ron Paul on "The Civil War"

Ron Paul explains the truth behind the so called "Civil War" in one minute.

For more on The South and the War for Southern Independence go to:

http://therisingseed.blogspot.com/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Civil
• War
• Ron
• Paul
• Bill
• Maher
• Slavery
• States
• Rights
• Freedom
• Truth
• Northern
• Aggression
• Lincoln

[2ezee2011]

Obviously Ron has not read the articles of secession (easily availible online) by each state. Most include lines that say the US govermenment was upending the laws of GOD by suggesting that the black man was equivilent to the white man. There were offers by Lincoln and others to not only buy the slaves but to ship them off to various places around the globe, southern states and some nothern would have none of it.

[TheCommonMan101]

Ron Paul seems to forget that it was the confederate states that declared war on the Union, not the other way around. His position that the war was not fought over slavery is not supported by documented fact. It is a fact that the declaration of war stated that the reason was to preserve the institution of slavery. The Union never declared war and simply issued the Crightenton Resolution stating that the government wished to preserve the Union. Ron Paul's knowlege of history is lacking.

[Podaboba]

@2ezee2011 AND that is also NOT THE SOLE issue addressed in the articles of secession.

[stroberts11]

Is a such a sensitive subject, I wish people would focus more on the future and not reopen old wounds.

[nkelly1432]

He's so arrogant! Just like his cult worshipers.

[Rundstedt1]

(5/5)

So Paul is absolutely incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair

[Rundstedt1]

(4/5)

And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.

Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.

[Rundstedt1]

(3/5)

"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]

(2/5)

"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

Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:

[Rundstedt1]

(1/5)

Paul is incredibly ignorant. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it: