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

thats right. Just for context though, Rockwell and Paul are, to me both brilliant but not to the extent their mentor Murray Rothbard was. it was Rothbards idea to have this southern strategy if you will, to help form a right wing sort of libertarian movement. while he was a great historian and economist he as severaly misguided on this sort of strategy. as i think Reason pointed out, Ron's eventual message of peace and liberty was morally superior and also more popular.

There is so much bullshit in this post it's unbelievable.

Firstly, no, that is not how other nations did it. The British, for instance, just outright banned the practice of it and said if they caught anyone doing it on the high seas, their navy would attack them.

No one, anywhere, ended slavery by compensating the fucking slave owners. And only a complete asshole would see that as justice.

Furthermore, the South not only seceded pre-emptively, they attacked Fort Sumter unprovoked.

To pretend like the Southern states just wanted to go peacefully on their way is so grossly naive I have to invoke Godwin's law and say it's comparable to thinking Hitler would have stopped after Czechoslovakia.

They literally gave speeches about how they wanted to create a slave empire that stretched to South America.

Moreover, all their leaders were unelected, none of their citizens gave a vote on secession and there was no voting rights in the South anyway. The majority of non-slave people couldn't even fucking vote.

It was a fucking oligarchy if ever there was one. And Lincoln, in the middle of a fucking insurrection, *still held a general fucking election*. That's right, he kept democracy alive in the middle of a civil war in which Confederate apologists were allowed to vote him out of office.

So which of these two groups hated freedom again? The slave-owning oligarchs or the country that held an election during a civil war?

And considering that Paul basically would take us back to the era that came after the Civil War, also known as the Gilded Age, one of the worst times to be an American in history, the fact you consider him a Libertarian is really an insult to that label more than anything else.

Yeah, he wants to take us back to the days when children died in coal mines and average life expectancy for industrial workers was worse than those for medieval peasants. What a stand-up guy.

what can I say i totally disagree with your characterization of the civil war and the so called gilded age but then again this is the internet so not hard to believe two people would have different interprettations of history. In your version the state comes and rescues everyone from evil independence and capitalism and it's just a coincidence this happens to be the version taught at the states schools. if the gilded age was so awful why did people come from all over the world to take part in it? including most of our ancestors.

It was, demonstrably, the worst time to be alive. That life expectancy thing I just said was a fact. It also had the most, and the largest, riots in American history. As well as the most unrest during any time since the Civil War.

Most people who came here were trying to make money, and most *did not stay*. That's also a fact.

The ones who did were often fleeing war-torn countries or poverty hellholes and a lot of the ones who came here were very much not happy with their decision.

Moreover, thinking it was a time of independence or even "Capitalism" is just dumb. Not unless you think the legacy of Capitalism should be the Robber Barons or the Pinkertons shooting protesters. Not if you think independence means the greatest growth in state fascism in American history, from Jim Crow to Victorian oppression.

Yeah, it isn't surprising that, on the internet people would support anything. Anyone here has a voice, including people that don't know anything about anything.

Although it is surprising you didn't flinch at dead children in coal mines. That should be Ron Paul's campaign slogan.

If the children hadn't been working in coal mines they would have been starving. You are talking about the era that built this country and yes people stayed here how do you think we have 300 million people! They don't come here en masse for union benefits in the 1940's. "
"The ones who did were often fleeing war-torn countries or poverty hellholes"

yeah exactly. they found opportunity and no wars here. till the bankers took over and gave us the bloody 20th century. surprise!

We have 300 million people because we've had centuries of population growth. It was 50 million in 1880.

Yes, it was the era that "built" this country. What the fuck is your point? We fucked up that era, badly. We could have made a wonderful country, instead it was a shithole for 60 years until equality, regulation and basic government services made it livable again.

For instance, the 1950's were the greatest economic expansion this country has ever seen, no child labor or other totally evil shit required.

Children starved because we paid shit wages and didn't take care of ourselves. For the same reason disease ran rampant and trash piled up in the streets.

And you'd be wrong if you don't think people came here for union benefits in the 40's. Immigration didn't suddenly halt in the post-WWII era, it boomed like crazy. Because we had, had being the operative word here, the greatest standard of living on the planet at the time.

You're so totally ignorant of history it's incredible. You think that asshole bankers or wars are an invention of the 20th century? Are you out of your mind? Firstly, the Gilded Age was the age of Imperialism in which we subdued all our neighboring countries, culminating in the Spanish American war in which we colonized Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines, massacring tens of thousands. And the Gilded Age is the time of the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. The fortunes they piled up in this era would be the basis for banking power in the next. They didn't just come out of nowhere.

I don't even know how to continue this conversation, you don't know anything about the era you're talking about.

"We could have made a wonderful country, instead it was a shithole for 60 years until equality, regulation and basic government services made it livable again."

that's a self serving delusion. we had the highest standard of living in the 50's AND in the late 1800's. the the standard of living across the world was lower but we were still the best game in town. People eventually had better conditions and better jobs because the economy was better. children didn't go to school because of regulations, they went to school because their families could now afford to not have them work because the economy was so much stronger.

if this recession were to get worse you would see children going back to work.asshole bankers have been around forever but we didn't fight wars for them till ww1 and they didn't run the economy till the Fed in 1913. bottom line things got better because we got wealthier.

From a northern's pov, many southerns are still fighting the Civil War. One southern school teacher I know, refers to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." Unreal.

technically speaking it was. the south wasn't trying to take over the north they wanted to secede.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you're just making shit up because you haven't actually studied this era.

Children didn't really start going to school regularly and graduating until it became mandatory and much better funded. It was a success of the 20th century to provide free public education for all and it all but wiped out illiteracy and other problems and our economy boomed because of it post-WWII as the number of engineers, doctors, lawyers and scientists exploded.

Compare that to the Gilded Age, in which it wasn't uncommon to have seasonal unemployment of 25% and essentially no middle class to speak of. It's why all the scientific advancements of that era were coming out of Britain and Germany and it wouldn't be until later in the 20th century that we caught up.

And you're totally wrong about banks not running the economy until the Fed. That was the primary reason bimetalism was such a core issue in the election of 1896. Because currency was so scarce that bankers were choking the countryside with credit because money was too damn valuable to circulate. Those same bankers backed McKinley with unregulated campaign contributions (sound familiar?) and stomped William Jennings Bryant out of the race. Then McKinley would go on to start the Spanish-American war.

The argument that things got better because we got wealthier is a no-brainer. Duh, everytime a country gets wealthier their standard of living improves. The point is that wealth creation, when properly distributed through the economy with good policy and decent wages stimulates growth way more than just letting sociopaths run amok and pretending like that will create a good result. And when you compare growth from 1940-1965 to growth from 1860-1910 that's so obviously apparent you'd have to be blind not to see it.

Moreover, the fact that you see it as meritorious that fucking children have to go to work to support themselves is god damn atrocious. You must think China is just a wonderful country then huh? Because that's the kind of society you're advocating for.

The ignorance about that war is astounding. You have to ignore essentially everything about it to believe something that dumb.

What's frustrating is that the beliefs are becoming popular in the North as well, where hipsters, Libertarians and other morons franchise the beliefs because they're unusual and conspiratorial, never realizing that they're totally fucking wrong.

""Economic miracles wrought during the decades after the Civil War enormously increased the wealth of the Republic. The standard of living rose sharply, and well-fed American workers enjoyed more physical comforts than their counterparts in any other industrial nation. Urban centers mushroomed as the insatiable factories demanded more American labor and as immigrants swarmed like honeybees to the new jobs."

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/Indust~1.htm

seems like it was a very good time to be alive. the bessemer process!

I certainly think China is alot better off than they were under Mao. Again, children work all over the world, they work on farms, they work in sweatshops in some places. they do it because they have to. making laws saying its not allowed won't create wealth that will make it possible for them to go to school. I'm not advocating child labor, I'm saying some peoples standard of living is so low they rely on it.

I'd buy one :-)!

Pwr 2 the 99%! GUILLOTINE the 1% and ALL repteatards!

Perhaps you can enlighten me. if slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war, how come there wasn't a single non slave state that wanted to secede?

Amazing representation for Ron Paul. Now, I just can't wait for the opportunity to vote for him, hoping I can place a group of people with your measured and contemplative temperament into power.

The ones who just read the headline and see the Confederate flag and start hyperventilating about slavery are retarded.

The race-hustling blogger who wrote the article knows with 100% certainty that Ron Paul never said anything about racism. He is just betting on people's pavlovian response whenever they see a Confederate flag.

See my response posting above.

Yes, Lincoln thought slavery was soooooo abhorrent that he emancipated the slaves in 1863 instead of 1861 when the war started.

And yeah actually the Constitution does prohibit slavery in that whole 'bill of rights thing'. Btw Ron Paul never ever said that. So I guess we'll just chalk it up to another misquote from Unimatrix.

Would slavery be defined as not being able to do with your own body anything you want to it? Because under our current laws we're all slaves to our government and corporations if that's the case.

For a country that touts itself as the freest nation on Earth we don't seem to have a lot of say when it comes to free will with regard to our own bodies or consenting adults bodies.

"Think I might just go to Cuba next year for vacation.... ohhhh wait, nevermind. That's right. I forgot."

US Freedom, what a joke. And the fact that they say we're fighting wars to keep our freedom is an even BIGGER joke.

Would you have had any problem with Ron in front of the Swastika. The Confederacy and the Nazis both believed in slavery and a master race. If not explain the difference to me. If its fine with you , why don't you explain to to the World War II veterans and their families why its appropriate for an American Congressman to express himself in front of a swastika?

There is nothing wrong with allowing it as there is nothing wrong with others who disagree or even hold his opinions in contempt.

As far as I'm concerned, the Swastika and Confederate flag are equally offensive.

People have a right to fly these bloody stupid flags if they like, but as an elected leader, Ron Paul should have the common sense not to be affiliated with those symbols.

I didn't expect you to change your narrative; But can you at least understand why many people are offended by Ron Paul's actions and statements? My experience has been the more I learn about the complete Ron Paul, the more I'm convinced that he's a true product of his region and generation. Most of us on the Progressive side, have no desire to return to the good old days, the golden age of social and economic injustice.

The year is 2012. Politics should rightfully deal with government actions that affect people in the here and now. Ron Paul and his ilk, are spooks from the past. You're are correct in your assertion that any asshole can express any opinion he wishes (just about) under US rules.( in Germany you can be arrested and imprisoned for Nazi activities). but the question here is about Ron Paul's suitability for NATIONAL public office. Thats why he is being vetted. That's why he is being criticized. I have no doubt that he's perfectly suited to represent his Evangelical Texan congressional district. He is them, they are him. If he wasn't running for President, no one would care much (other than his dedicated band of community college headbanging drug addicts) what he did or said.

Have you ever watched Ron Paul work with other legislators on CSPAN? When its his turn to weigh in he always loses focus and goes off on some tangent about the gold standard, or some isolationist babble. He's never specific about his reservations about entering World War 2 to intervene in genocide, or his near refusal to support the resolution to enter Afghanistan. He is cognizant that if he criticizes Israel out loud--his Evangelical support, who believe in Biblical prophecies, will desert him. He's all for drug use by YOUR children. If he ever said out loud that abortion should be legal in his own district--they's turn him out. So"Uncle Dodders" mumbles about some pre-mercantile gold standard and currency theory from the Austrians. His legislative scorecard is abysmal. The only thing I can say that I admire about him is his opposition and actual legislative initiative to imprisonment without Habeas Corpus. The Republicans have cynically inflicted "Uncle Dodders" on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Financial Services, and on the Joint Economic Committee, as well as chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. So now "Uncle Dodders" just like Abe Simpson will waste everybody's time with endless irrelevancies. Nothing will get done.

We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Do you know where zebras buy their stripped suits?

I would like to get one.

Wow! ^^^^^

We each live with our own narrative. Thank-you for expressing your point of view so eloquently. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But let me add I'm not satisfied with the Congress and the way things are going. I'd like to get rid of Cantor and his band of merry obstructionists and all the members who are taking bribes to protect the banksters from the consequences of their crime spree. In my opinion Ron Paul is not contributing much, if anything, and may be a part of the problem.

People's actions should include "common sense" NOT to be in fear of his supporters.

This on-going fear is very Republican-like. No thanks.

Lol!

What if said congressman was a Hindu??? lol sorry just trying to fuck with you.

But yes Swastikas like all symbols have more than one meaning. Worth pointing out. I welcome you to look it up.

Look up the history of the Swastika. The Nazis weren't the only people to use it. You can say the Nazi flag has a negative connotation but you're really being insensitive to a lot of religious groups who use the swastika.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Agreed. This is like the shit that FoxNews does when trying to slander a Democrat. Going wayyyyy out of their way to just flat out make stuff up and vehemently try to make it true by saying it over and over again. It's just plain annoying when people resort to this kind of thing in politics.

I'm aware of that. But in the Western World, that symbol has one dominant meaning and it has had one dominant meaning for more than 60 years. It was coopted by the Nazis and has been adopted by neo-Nazis for more than 60 years. At one time, the Confederate flag was simply the battle flag the South carried into battle. The meaning of that flag changed when the KKK adopted it. I'm not being insensitive to it. The Nazis are the one who tarnished the meaning of that symbol.

Good point. That's *exactly* who they remind me of: FoxNews
I've also noticed that their obsession about this is constant.
They're VERY obsessive (neurotic) about it. Downright creepy.

I agree. That is one powerful image. Perhapse they will claim that it was photo shopped.

Aren't you assuming everyone feels the same way about the image of that flag as you do?

Keep in mind, flags don't have the same meaning for everyone.

If Ron Paul was supported by the Koch Bros he'd have a lot better chance of winning. They don't like him because he doesn't share their values or views.

And We elected their Happy Asses.... FFS!!!

THANK YOU!

Well said my friend, that party is a mess. I said earlier today, the circus now has an elephant stampede! :)

The Republican party had 4 years to try and come up with something good and they said what so many bad Hollywood directors have said before them "What was that one thing we already did years ago? Let's do that again!"

He'll be 81 in 2016!

Yes, do it again by all means, please do it again!

Exactly!

He'll never be President, so WHY all this constant fear about a man who will never be President?

Paul is a doddering old fool at 76. I can just imagine the geriatric campaign he will run at 80.
He's simply paving the way for sonny boy, who is crazier than a bed bug sprayed with DDT.

I know that Ron Paul has never matter and never will, but I'm am sick to death of the acolytes of his cult.

I'm joining your club.

Oh? So, Ron Paul doesn't matter and this isn't about Ron Paul, after all.
Hmm.....So, this is about going after his supporters.
Well, I'm sick to death of people "going after people" just because they don't agree with them or want to promote hating them, too.
No thank you. I think for myself and I don't let others try and do my thinking for me.

I disagree with you regarding their fear that he will achieve office. I believe there are still some people who *really* fear he WILL be elected President.

I do enjoy the utter despiration of the anti-Paul crowd. It makes me even more certain that he is the answer to our problems. After all, if people who profit from the status quo are this desperate to stop him he must be on the right track.

Exactly. If and when Unimatrix finds the video she wants so badly to exist then CNN will have a field day. But guess what, it doesn't exist cus he isn't a racist or at least has never been caught on camera doing so.

Anyone who knows a REAL racist, and in Oklahoma I know many, knows they can't hide it. If Ron Paul is a racist then he is DAMN good at hiding it. Real racists are proud of being racist, real racists want to tell you how they really feel about the other races.

Just link the video Unimatrix. Not some conspiracy website with undated quotes from him. A video of him being racist, saying the most fucked up shit you could ever imagine. I WANT TO SEE IT IF IT EXISTS! I WANT YOU TO POST IT! Do you hear that? I want to see the video. PIX OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

That's what I ask of you OR quit smearing this misleading titled nonsense on Current's Community page ONCE AND FOR ALL. Give it up already. It's time for you to give this up. You are as crazily determined about something that's not true AS A RACIST IS about their stereotyping views of other races. And you don't even see it... lol

Hey there's no dot on that i it could be an L for all you know. ioi

the day ron paul takes responsibility for racism in HIS newsletters
i will take responsibility for the racism of my fowl mouthed feathered friend.

until that day just treat me like Ron Paul -
i'm not responsible for things posted under my own name

I will Totally agree with you that -
"it's a fact that financial interests, and control were in fact a/the primary issue in the Civil War.... "

If you agree that it's a fact that at the time of the civil war the only
"Finacial Interest" the south was fighting to "Control" was in fact Slavery.

When a candidate's platform issues are ending the wars and coming up with a sound monetary solution, the media is going to try and force you out of the picture and make you come in last place.

Newt Gincrich who just won South Carolina was cancelling events because no one showed up while Ron Paul was speaking to standing room only audiences.

Also, Ron Paul sadly supports the 19 Muslims armed with magical boxcutters and indestructible passports and blowback theory of 9/11. He's not a spokesperson for 9/11 truth like your picture suggests.

When did he ever say 9/11 was an inside job? I believe he said that putting military bases in Saudi Arabia is why Al Qaeda declared war on America.

Which is why bin Laden said they declared war on America in 1997...

Media schmedia. Paul has had more press than he's ever had in his life. Those people who were rushing his events obviously did not show up at the polls where they would count , now did they? Or he would have finished better than fourth, which , by the way ,is dead last.
Now he's not even competing in Florida. Paul is nothing more than a prima donna and an attention whore who has already indicated he has no intention of running as a third party candidate. He's irrelevent and his candidacy is a pointless exercise in futility.

That sounds like you are agreeing with Osama Bin Laden.

Is that really where you are?

Maybe he holds events in small venues?

Maybe everyone at his events did vote.

Didn't help him much, did it?