Ron Paul talks about secession... in front of the Confederate Flag

Not a good look. The worst part is that it's not surprising.

This speech was apparently made in 2003.

Full credit to Andrew Kaczynski for providing a link to one of the other videos of the speech:
https://twitter.com/#!/AKaczynski1/status/160515906592710656

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ron paul
• secession
• confederate flag
• paultards

[KayBeeEee1983]

@bobdull420 "Remember the Confederacy didn't want to be governed by the Union."

Correct. They wanted to govern the Union.

"It's not so much about slavery but more about their own liberty"

Wrong. Read their declarations of causes for secession. If it wasn't about slavery, they would have freed their slaves so that Britain and France would ally with them. They didn't free their slaves because slavery was the whole reason they were seceding. The south didn't want independence without their slaves

[KayBeeEee1983]

@bobdull420 "Had Abe not intervened the slaves would have rebelled within a few decades"

First, that is completely groundless speculation. Second, even if the slaves rebelled, they probably would have failed.

"Leaving the slaves with their freedom not a lower class citizenship."

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, but I only have the energy to point out one thing wrong. You think the south would have given rebellious ex-slaves citizenship?

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Vrael473 Consent of the governed doesn't mean you need consent of everyone. In 1861, the vast majority of Americans wanted to keep the Union together

The right of revolution is not the same as the right of secession. The colonies seceded from tyranny. In the 1850s, the federal government was tyrannical, but not toward the south. The south controlled the federal government and used that power for their own benefit. Then in 1860 they see that they are losing power and try to secede. Uh, no. Sorry

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (6/6)

And the case has been settled, by the war of course, but also by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, which has stated that unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The idea that a part of the nation can up and leave upon a whim makes the entire notion of this being a nation in the first place a mockery. Upon any dispute one state could hold hostage the entire nation, and that was the South's political strategy until they were called on their bluff and lost.

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (5/6)

When the States ratified the Constitution of 1787, they pledged that they would accept the results of elections conducted according to its rules. In violation of this pledge, the Southern States seceded because they did not like the outcome of the election of 1860. Thus secession is the interruption of the constitutional operation of republican government, substituting the rule of the minority for that of the majority." The Claremont Institute

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (4/6)

While the people never relinquish their right to revolution, in practice, this natural right is replaced by free elections, the outcome of which are determined by majority rule.

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (3/6)

"For the Founders, the purpose of government was to protect the equal natural rights of all. They understood these rights to be antecedent to the creation of political society and government. The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed who possess the equal natural rights that republican government is supposed to protect.

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (2/6)

"Such a principle (secession) is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Government....It was intended to be PERPETUAL, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties...In short, let us look the danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution." James Buchanan

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473 (1/6)

That was a revolution; that was a rebellion: revolution and rebellion are never legal. They may or may not be justified, in the case of the South it was clearly not, as they were just bitching about coming out the losers in a national election and because of that feared for their 'peculiar institution,' but is never legal, or in this case constitutional. If the South was so sure of their right, they should have taken it to the courts and not the battlefield.

[Vrael473]

You guys are missing the entire point. Did not 13 states secede from great Britain. Is it not written that a people have the right to choose their own government and that there shall be government only at the consent of the governed. If a government becomes destructive it is the people right to dissolve it, even their responsibility to do so. This is a Federal vs States power debate, and it is entirely up to interpretation. Its why it is such a big issue and is not settled.

[Rundstedt1]

@Vrael473

It was not the states that accepted the constitution, but the people, as in 'We the People'. The state legislatures had nothing to do with the adoption of the constitution, it was done directly by the people through constitutional conventions, not through the legislatures. There is no right of unilateral secession, secession is inherently unconstitutional as it breaks the constitution and violates the supremacy clause.