PDA

View Full Version : How would/should Ron Paul have answered the conferate flag question?




adpierce
11-29-2007, 01:19 AM
I know this is completely hypothetical unless one of you have read up on Dr. Paul's stance on this but what do you think that Dr. Paul would have said about this question. I would imagine he would have said something similar to Fred Thompson's response. Also what does Dr. Paul think about the Civil War. I've heard some Libertarians think that the South ought to have been allowed to separate from the Union. I talked with one of my friends for a while about this and he was of the opinion that the civil war was the pivotal point in our history which defined where we started straying from federalist principles and truly becoming a highly centralized government. It makes sense from what I know about what Lincoln did during the Civil War and what happened in our nation subsequent to the Civil War that it was the pivotal event in our history which sent us on the path we're still on. What do you think... how would Dr. Paul respond? Should the South been allowed to stay an independent confederate nation?

runderwo
11-29-2007, 01:20 AM
1st Amendment.

I'm surprised the question wasn't actually about flag burning, honestly.

justinc.1089
11-29-2007, 01:28 AM
I think Paul would have responded mostly the same as Thompson did.

Personally I think states did at that point in time have the constitutional authority and right to leave and become their own nation, but I must say I am glad Lincoln did what he did and held the country together because of several reasons. The main ones are that slavery would have lasted longer, and been even more of a negative thing on the South, and secondly seperation would have increased tension between the north and south instead of relieving it.

I do however think SC should be able to fly the confederate flag. It shows the union and loyalty the southern states have to each other above other states, and shows we once stood against the entire United States for what we believed in. I don't find it to represent slavery like the KKK or something. I mean if the confederate flag represents slavery, then so does all early American flags that slavery existed under.

So overall I think Lincoln lacked authority to fight with the South and that they had the right to leave the U.S, but thats one time I'm glad that the constitution was disobeyed because it unified the country ultimately and sped up the freeing of slaves. And I think SC has the right to fly the confederate flag too.

ThomasJ
11-29-2007, 01:29 AM
I have lived in the south I have lived in the north and out west.

There are alot of people out west and up north who see the confederate flag as basicly a big flag with KKK on it. In the south it is not so much about racism as much as it is about remebering history and not being in denial. I know a good amount of people who are racist in the south. By people who are racist that means black and white people.

My point is the people in the south deal with the flag. The people who really complain about it are the ones who's acestors had been neither slave owner or slave. On top of that the civil war was not actually just about slavery. Even though that is the way it is portrayed all the time now days.

As for Ron Paul's stance.
He is not a racist. He is a believer in Ayn Rand's version of philosophy which is totally against colectivism of any form. Including segragation and racism in general.
As for the flag it is the right of any individual to fly any flag they want on their own property. If the people of a state want to fly the flag on the state capital that is the choice of the people of that state.

The flag is not just racist it is historical. It is a part of our history for better or worse. Denying that is not the correction of that error. We should not deny history for those who do are doomed to repeat it.

work2win
11-29-2007, 01:45 AM
Also what does Dr. Paul think about the Civil War.

Watch and listen for yourself. I just looked this up to confirm, as I'd heard his response second-hand before: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/ron_paul_talks.php

As usual, he makes a lot of sense!

adpierce
11-29-2007, 01:58 AM
Watch and listen for yourself. I just looked this up to confirm, as I'd heard his response second-hand before: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/ron_paul_talks.php

As usual, he makes a lot of sense!

I watched it and I've gotta be honest I agree with Dr. Paul that slavery could have been dealt with in a different way than having a civil war about it, that's true. His assertion that the civil war was about having a centralized government intrigues me however. He doesn't really go into here, but does that mean in order to allow for a republican system of government that we ought to have allowed the South to secede? Eh... I'm too tired to think about history on this level of depth right now I'll wake up tomorrow and discuss this, but it is an intriguing issue.

work2win
11-29-2007, 02:15 AM
His assertion that the civil war was about having a centralized government intrigues me however.

I've read analysis that puts the roots of the civil war way back at the beginning of the country, and it sure seems true. Merchants and Industry in the North, agriculture in the South. Both areas had very different cultures and political beliefs. The south was much more into more small government and local control(Jefferson), and the North was much more into central government (Hamilton). You still see these differences today, which is amazing considering the time elapsed and movement of people, etc.

Tn...Andy
11-29-2007, 05:18 AM
I watched it and I've gotta be honest I agree with Dr. Paul that slavery could have been dealt with in a different way than having a civil war about it, that's true. His assertion that the civil war was about having a centralized government intrigues me however. He doesn't really go into here, but does that mean in order to allow for a republican system of government that we ought to have allowed the South to secede?.


You either believe in the Declaration of Independence, that people have the right to self determination of government, or you don't.

If you do, then the South had as much right to set up their own government as the colonies had to split from Great Britain.

If you don't, then we are still British subjects.

The South had the right, under the Constitution, to split away, under the 9th and 10th amendments......as it, or ANY State still does today.


As to slavery, it was a dying institution and as Ron Paul said, could have been handled in a much better way than causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men on both sides......not that the war had ANYTHING to do with slavery anyway.....Lincoln once said "IF I could hold the Union together without freeing one slave, I would do so"......go read the "emancipation proclamation".......Lincoln "freed" slaves in States in 'rebellion', over which you could argue he had NO control, yet did NOT FREE slaves in Union States, over which one might argue he did have some control.


I fly the Confederate Battle Flag at my house, along with the Bonnie Blue Flag. I am NOT a racist.....and anyone who is a racist is a fool in my book.

BUT those flags are a symbol of our history...and some of us still feel like we are an occupied country......that still believes in the Declaration of Independence.

I wish people outside the South could understand WHAT the flag is about and why many of us feel the way we do. It is truly a symbol of freedom lost, and the rise of the Imperial Federal Government.

THIS SAME THING IS BEING DONE TO THE UNITED STATES TODAY, minus the armed conflict ( so far ), TO MOVE US UNDER A "NORTH AMERICAN UNION", and eventually, one world government.

AlexMerced
11-29-2007, 05:29 AM
Yeah, Judge Napolitano had a great interview on the John Edwards show where he talked about this, John Edwards seemed pissed

Hawkwing
11-29-2007, 05:36 AM
There are two really interesting books by Thomas Dilorenzo named "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked". They deal primarily with the myth that Lincoln was an american hero that never dit anything wrong. That he was the mesias like man of the people who wanted nothing more than fairness and to free the slaves.

The books main points are that the war wasn't fought over slavery but because of state rights. Lincoln said repetedly that he didn't believe slavery was wrong and that the only reason for the amanicpation proclamation was to put more pressure on the south wich makes sense if one looks at what was actually was written in it.

Furthermore the author points out that the north comitted the majority of "war crimes" during the civil war. Imprisoning political enemies, attacking civilian targets like the bombing of atlanta and burning of thousands of homes in Virginia, the closing down of opositional newspapers and much more.

The authors main point is that Lincoln did not save the union bud destroyed the voluntary and free capitalist union created by the founders and replaced it with a highly centralised mercanilistic union where the republican party was free to waste tax money on all kinds of worthless projects.

Sorry for my bad English, Im Swedish and rarely writes in English. :o

adpierce
11-29-2007, 11:17 AM
There are two really interesting books by Thomas Dilorenzo named "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked". They deal primarily with the myth that Lincoln was an american hero that never dit anything wrong. That he was the mesias like man of the people who wanted nothing more than fairness and to free the slaves.

The books main points are that the war wasn't fought over slavery but because of state rights. Lincoln said repetedly that he didn't believe slavery was wrong and that the only reason for the amanicpation proclamation was to put more pressure on the south wich makes sense if one looks at what was actually was written in it.

Furthermore the author points out that the north comitted the majority of "war crimes" during the civil war. Imprisoning political enemies, attacking civilian targets like the bombing of atlanta and burning of thousands of homes in Virginia, the closing down of opositional newspapers and much more.

The authors main point is that Lincoln did not save the union bud destroyed the voluntary and free capitalist union created by the founders and replaced it with a highly centralised mercanilistic union where the republican party was free to waste tax money on all kinds of worthless projects.

Sorry for my bad English, Im Swedish and rarely writes in English. :o

No your English is fantastic, if I were to write my Swedish on the page it would probably take a week because I don't know any of it and I'd have to ask people who know how to write Swedish to help me.

I might check out those books if possible. History can often be rewritten by the victors, if this is one example of revisionist history I'd like to know. I hate when people are told distorted truths when it comes to history. History is a huge part of how people formulate their political, economic, and even moral beliefs. It's a shame if we've all been told lies about the Civil War since we were children.

SovereignMN
11-29-2007, 11:24 AM
You either believe in the Declaration of Independence, that people have the right to self determination of government, or you don't.

If you do, then the South had as much right to set up their own government as the colonies had to split from Great Britain.

If you don't, then we are still British subjects.

The South had the right, under the Constitution, to split away, under the 9th and 10th amendments......as it, or ANY State still does today.


As to slavery, it was a dying institution and as Ron Paul said, could have been handled in a much better way than causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men on both sides......not that the war had ANYTHING to do with slavery anyway.....Lincoln once said "IF I could hold the Union together without freeing one slave, I would do so"......go read the "emancipation proclamation".......Lincoln "freed" slaves in States in 'rebellion', over which you could argue he had NO control, yet did NOT FREE slaves in Union States, over which one might argue he did have some control.


I fly the Confederate Battle Flag at my house, along with the Bonnie Blue Flag. I am NOT a racist.....and anyone who is a racist is a fool in my book.

BUT those flags are a symbol of our history...and some of us still feel like we are an occupied country......that still believes in the Declaration of Independence.

I wish people outside the South could understand WHAT the flag is about and why many of us feel the way we do. It is truly a symbol of freedom lost, and the rise of the Imperial Federal Government.

THIS SAME THING IS BEING DONE TO THE UNITED STATES TODAY, minus the armed conflict ( so far ), TO MOVE US UNDER A "NORTH AMERICAN UNION", and eventually, one world government.

Here Here Andy!