General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Patrick Cleburne
Ryan McBeth
comments

Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "Was the American Civil War Fought Over Slavery?" video.

> as they anticipated slavery would be curtailed/abolished Even if the Republican-led North had wanted to, which Lincoln and the Republican party categorically denied, there was no way Republicans could have abolished slavery in the southern states without completely trashing the constitution and the rule of law, and the southern states' reasons for seceding had nothing to do with any constitutionally legitimate (or any other) threat of the North abolishing slavery in the South.
1
@Ben00000 How about some evidence that actually speaks to the points you pretended to address? (1) "Even if the Republican-led North had wanted to [abolish slavery], which Lincoln and the Republican party categorically denied Lincoln: "It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State shall emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing." 1860 Republican platform: "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends..." Lincoln: "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." > "by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion." Yes, Republicans did want to prohibit slavery in the territories (which wouldn't have freed any slaves, but it would have helped Republicans gain and solidify political power for their crony capitalist agenda.) The historically baseless myth is that they were threatening to abolish slavery. > "now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States" But nowhere even approaching strong enough to amend the constitution to abolish slavery, which was never a threat, as evidenced by the fact that none of your quotes say anything of the sort.
1
@Ben00000 > to ban slavery in the Territories where it didn't already exist (which he did have power to do) No, he didn't. Do you even have a theory of how he might have? > and garner significant anti-slavery power Power to do what? Not abolish slavery, in any case, which is the central point I've disputed. Nor the power to do anything else that secession could have in any way protected against. But go on with the vague allusions, trying to suggest things that are either completely false or have nothing to do with the question of whether there was any threat (or perceived threat) of Republicans abolishing slavery.
1
> and thus was fairly motivated by slavery. What do you think seceding offered to do for slavery? In order to be "motivated by slavery" seceding must have offered some hope of doing something for it.
1
@baneofbanes Did the war start with northern soldiers in the South or southern soldiers in the North?
1
@baneofbanes To whatever extent that's even true, do you think that's any excuse for invading and subjugating another people, especially when they never posed any threat to the North?
1
@baneofbanes What do you think seceding was supposed to protect slavery from? There wasn't anything, was there, so your whole argument is revisionist nonsense, isn't it?
1
"And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” ...in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before." -Lysander Spooner "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." -London Spectator
1
"...we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone..." Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861
1
@godfunk Oh, I thought you were talking about the war.
1
@turdferguson9356 > each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Same Long live King Sam! Death to government by the consent of the governed!
1
@jonnie106 It's "connected" to the War of Northern Aggression in much the same way the German invasion of Poland in 1939 is connected to the creation of the state of Israel, which is to say an unforeseen and unintended side effect that proves nothing about what the war was fought over.
1
@jonnie106 > Lincoln would free their slaves (if elected) There's an historically baseless BS revisionist myth! But if you don't care about historical facts and hate freedom, go on repeating lies to yourself in your echo chamber! > Anyone calling this event 'unforeseen' Lincoln recognized that is was already "implied constitutional law" " that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service" and he said he had "no objection to its [those implied constitutional protections of slavery] being made express and irrevocable" by ratifying the amendment Republicans had already helped pass through Congress, even without the support of the states that had already seceded and withdrawn their representatives. Obviously an amendment abolishing slavery wasn't Republicans' intention. It was entirely unforeseen, and there's zero evidence from the beginning of the war (or before) of any such intention. And not only was it unintended, but it was mathematically a practical impossibility. The 13th amendment could never have been ratified unless multiple former Confederate states had voted in support of it. Slavery was abolished because the southern states voted to abolish it, and that's the only way it would have been abolished part from the war.
1
You mean the speech in which Stephens said the following? "...notwithstanding their [Republicans'] professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
1
You might be interested to know that the abolitionist George Bassett said something very similar shortly before Lincoln's call to raise troops to subjugate the states that had already seceded: "...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force. "It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of secession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intenseness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with possible evils. … Nor could so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied."
1
They didn't start the war; the North did when it denied their right to simply be left alone, which was all they demanded when they seceded (which is what secession is.)
1
@gunshotlagoon922 I guess that's a nice myth if you want to make excuses for destroying government by the consent of the governed, but Davis straight up said, "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" and Lincoln said the exact opposite, "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." But you're going to deny the war was over the right of the southern states to independence and self-government when both sides made it unambiguously clear (albeit with different language) what the sticking point was?
1
@gunshotlagoon922 > Except Lincoln said that over a month before the [start of the war] Exactly. Before there was any war, while the southern states were offering to negotiate on practically everything other than their independence (which they continued to do until they were finally completely subjugated), from the very beginning of Lincoln's presidency Lincoln was denying and continued to deny the southern states' right to independence and self-government no matter what terms they might have negotiated for everything else. And yet you want to claim that the war wasn't really fought over the southern states' independence and self-government?
1
@gunshotlagoon922 > They didn't want to negotiate anything regarding secession whatsoever "They" meaning Southerners? Here's what one northern abolitionist said in early 1861, "it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation. "In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows: "'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.' "This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
1
@gunshotlagoon922 That's a nice myth if you want to try to justify beating your partners into submission when they try to leave you -- do you defend that sort of political union because you can't get a woman to stay with you any other way either? -- but when even northern abolitionists completely contradict your myth (like in the quote in my last comment), then you can know you're just repeating historically baseless myths.
1
@jonnie106 > Eight of the eleven secession states referenced slavery in their secession documentation. Declarations of causes of secession weren't declarations of war or war aims or war demands. Neither the Confederacy nor any southern state ever said it was fighting (literally fighting, as in waging war) for slavery or anything about slavery. Only 4 states issued declarations of causes of secession at all, and they clearly weren't representative of the states that voted against seceding at the time all of those other 4 states seceded. And just because those 4 declarations referenced fugitive slaves doesn't mean the war was fought over fugitive slaves. It very clearly wasn't. All you have is a vague disinformation myth.
1
@zenever0 They reference African slavery in the context of fugitive slaves but never in the context of an abolition amendment or anything else of the sort. You're sharing freedom-hating, DC-worshiping disinformation.
1
@K.Pershing And that's how you destroy government by the consent of the governed.
1
"northern bases" like Fort Sumter? Someone needs a geography lesson!
1
Abolitionist George Bassett, 1861: "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
1
> The leaders of the south, in the articles of secession, their personal writings, and in the constitution of the confederacy make no mention of tariffs. That's certainly not true. The declarations of causes of secession, the so-called cornerstone speech, the Confederate constitution (particularly the parts that were additions to the US constitution)... all the documents most commonly cited to prove the war was about slavery (even though none of them mention the war or any slavery-related issues or threats to slavery that independence protected against)... they all mention tariffs. > The fugitive slave law in 1950 showed how little the south cared about states rights States rights are those rights reserved to the states by the constitution. The constitution obligated the northern states to "deliver up" fugitive slaves. That was part of the deal the northern states made when they ratified the constitution, so obviously they didn't have any "states right" not to do it. However, they could have released themselves from that obligation (with respect to the seceding states) if they had allowed them to secede, but they chose rather to fight for political control over the southern states, even with slavery and the constitution's fugitive slave clause.
1
@ultimaterankings1154 > Show me where any of those writings say "we are seceding because of the unfair tariffs" That was never my claim. You said they made "no mention of tariffs." I said that wasn't true. All those documents I listed which you said didn't mention tariffs, did, in fact, mention tariffs. Does the fact that those documents mentioned tariffs prove that they were seceding because of unfair tariffs? No, no more than the fact those documents mentioned slavery prove that they were seceding because the Republican-led North was somehow going to prevent the southern states from continuing to practice slavery. > if that was the case there would be no such thing as state rights, which is obviously not the case. How do you figure that? If states rights are what all the standard definitions say they are, why would there be no such thing? Are you imagining that the constitution doesn't actually reserve any rights to the states?
1
@ultimaterankings1154 > I will correct it to say "nowhere in their writings did they say that they are seceding because of the tariffs But part of your original claim was "the constitution of the confederacy make[s] no mention of tariffs being the reason that they were seceding" and you suggested that was somehow proof that the South's cause in the war was slavery. Nowhere in the Confederate constitution did they say "We're seceding for [any reason at all]," (let alone "we're fighting this war for...") but you seem to think it still somehow proves what the war was about. So you're employing a double standard. Either differences between the US constitution and the Confederate constitution prove what the war was about even though there's no "we're seceding for..." or "we're fighting this war for..." statement in them or they don't. You can't say an additional mention of slavery in the Confederate constitution proves the war was about slavery but an additional clause prohibiting protective tariffs proves nothing about the war. > a war that they fought to keep slavery How do you figure the war was fought to keep slavery? Do you have any explanation or proof for this theory? Why don't you accept exactly what BOTH sides directly said the war was about from the very beginning (as opposed to this indirect and convoluted and ultimately inexplicable myth based on documents that don't even mention the war), namely purely independence and self-government for the southern states versus the precise counterpart that the North euphemistically called "preserving the Union" (as if any union could be preserved by forcibly subjugating the partners of the union or as if any true union could exist on the basis of anything other than voluntary consent)? Official, nearly unanimous declaration of US Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]" Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861: "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind [with regards to slavery or anything else] from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" > As for states rights, the Fugitive Slave Act took away the North's state rights What states right do you think the Fugitive Slave Act took away? You do know the constitution expressly obligated the northern states to "deliver up" fugitive slaves, right? > The South obviously seceded to keep slavery and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. "[S]eceded to keep slavery" as if the northern states had been on the verge of amending the constitution to abolish slavery and the southern states seceded to avoid that amendment applying to them? You know there's no historical basis for that myth, right? And it's complete nonsense to say the southern states seceded to keep something when seceding did nothing to prevent any threat that remaining in the union posed. Sure, the southern states wanted to "keep" slavery in 1861 (as they did when they fought for their independence the first time in 1776 and as did states like Kentucky that fought on the side of the union and even at the end of the war still voted against ratifying the 13th amendment), but if the southern states actually "seceded to keep slavery" tell me what threat remaining in the union posed to the southern states' desire to "keep slavery."
1
@diegoquezada3193 Slavery itself was never mentioned as a grievance. That doesn't even make any sense. What do you think the North was doing or threatening to do about slavery that seceding was supposed to have protected against?
1
@diegoquezada3193 > If I remember correctly the North was not allowing the spread of slavery beyond the already established slave holding states to the new western states. That's more or less true. So yes, Republicans had campaigned on promises to ban slavery in the territories, but the Supreme Court had also already denied that they had any constitutional authority to do so, and slavery had not yet been banned in the territories. But my question was: "What do you think the North was doing or threatening to do about slavery that seceding was supposed to have protected against?" Seceding was never about protecting against Republicans banning slavery in the territories. Seceding was never about protecting slavery from anything. If it had been someone could tell us what seceding was supposed to have protected slavery from (and defend that theory from the historical record.) The North did try to exploit anti-slavery sentiments for its own purposes (and particularly the purposes of the robber baron class that controlled the Republican party), but the war wasn't in any way about slavery. There wasn't even anything that seceding indirectly did for the interests of slaveholders, and of course, the direct issue in the war was southern independence and self-government.
1
@baneofbanes > The south was worried that slavery wouldn’t be allowed to spread to the western territories, which would mean over time they would have less political power, which would mean... ...Republicans would be able to do exactly what Republicans said in their platform that they wanted to do and exactly what the southern states prohibited the federal government from doing in the Confederate constitution, namely exploit the southern economy for the advantage of special interests/robber barons through things like railroad subsidies, protective tariffs, etc., the things for which there's real, direct historical evidence, not your myth which unlike the actual issues was something the federal government very clearly (as both sides very clearly recognized) didn't have constitutional authority to interfere with anyway.
1
@baneofbanes > The South outright said they seceded to defend slavery from being banned. No, they didn't. Surely you know that's a lie. > And the Union was already banning slavery by 1863. Only in those parts of those states not submitting to DC rule. As the London Spectator said at the time, "The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." > And if your economy is based on slavery you deserve to have it ruined. So England had a right to rule over the 13 colonies and they had no right to independence? Or are you just spouting nonsense even you don't believe?
1
@zenever0 > uses the words "slave" and "slavery" 84 times And not once in reference to anything that independence offered any chance of "defending slavery" from. > why would England have a right to independence "If Northerners... had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg... Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." London Times, 1862
1
@zenever0 Why do you defend a cause you know you can only defend with what you know is disinformation?
1
@grandadmiralthrawn8116 > In every war soldiers will fight for their own reasons but at the end of the day you are fighting for your governments goals True. > and the goal of the confederates was to prolong slavery False. Alexander Stephens, for example, said "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it." Independence wasn't about "prolong[ing] slavery."
1
The same thing that's funny about people that fought a war to deny other people the right to self-determination complaining about slavery.
1
@Jason-fm4my > The southern states succeeded due to to a perceived threat to slavery What threat was that? Just an inexplicable myth we're supposed to believe in?
1
Edit for clarity: What do you think seceding offered to do for slavery? It certainly didn't offer any prospect of getting the northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves. It didn't offer to do anything for slavery, did it? So how then could the war over secession have been about slavery? (What I originally wrote: What do you think seceding did for slavery? It certainly didn't do anything to get the northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves. It didn't do anything for slavery, did it? So how then could the war over secession have been about slavery?)
1
@ashcarrier6606 > your argument assumes that a course of action in order to achieve a desired endstate can never have an outcome contrary to what you wanted. But that's not my argument at all. The southern states did not "secede in order to preserve slavery." And that's clear, because... (1) That's not at all what they said. (2) There was nothing that the Republican-led North was doing or threatening to do that seceding offered any hope of protecting slavery from. The issue is not, as you said, that the outcome was contrary to what they wanted; it's that even if they had achieved what they wanted (independence), that wouldn't have "preserved slavery" from any of the things Republicans had been doing or threatening to do. (3) "their stated, WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER reason[s] for seceding" were grievances that seceding never so much as offered any hope of "preserving slavery" from. Southerners never thought, let alone stated, let alone officially declared on paper that seceding would "preserve" their ownership of fugitive slaves that had escaped to the northern states. On the contrary, seceding meant forfeiting their constitutional right not only to those slaves, but most likely also to those slaves that would escape to any slave states that remained in the union. Likewise, Southerners never thought that seceding would "preserve" their right to take slaves to Kansas or any of the other territories. On the contrary, seceding meant forfeiting their rights as members of the union and to the territories where their right to slavery had been disputed.
1
@ashcarrier6606 > Because secession did not in fact "help" slavery... There simply is no other way to interpret your statement. Yes, there is, and that should be perfectly clear in the context of my last comment, but I went back and edited my first comment to also make that more clear.
1
@ashcarrier6606 > Since secession did not help or preserve slavery, slavery cannot therefore be the reason they decided to secede. But that was never my point. Not only did secession not help to preserve slavery, it didn't even, as I said in my first comment (after editing for added clarity) offer to do anything for slavery. Obviously they didn't secede to accomplish something that they didn't even think seceding would or even could accomplish. Do you even have an answer to the question of what you think they seceded to "preserve" slavery from? What would have happened to slavery if they hadn't seceded that seceding offered any hope of "preserving" slavery from? The answer is clearly nothing, right? And if there was nothing that they even thought seceding might "preserve" slavery from, then they obviously didn't secede to "preserve" slavery. > And it is contrary to what basically every governor and state legislator who made a speech prior to the vote to secede was saying. How so? > They openly declared secession to be about preserving an institution they felt was imperiled. They never used this word "preserve" that you're so hung up on, not in any of the declarations of causes, not with respect to slavery. So if you want to impute this word to them that they didn't use themselves, it's on you to be clear about what you mean by it, because it's your word, not theirs. So when you say they "declared secession to be about preserving" slavery, do you mean they declared there was some threat to slavery that they were seceding to try to avoid? If so, what was that threat? Because none of the things they complained about the northern states doing with regards to slavery (at least nothing more directly related to slavery than protectionist tariffs for northern industries) were things that they said (or even thought) seceding might even possibly "preserve" slavery from.
1
@baneofbanes > That doesn’t change the fact that the South seceded to protect slavery. They said as much themselves. No, they didn't. And not only did they not say they believed there was anything that seceding would protect slavery from, but I bet you can't even say what you think they wanted to protect slavery from by seceding, even without any historical evidence to support your non-existent theory of "protection."
1
@baneofbanes > The various articles of secession for the southern states lists slavery Just because some states talked about slavery in their declarations of causes doesn't even begin to prove that they perceived some threat to slavery that they intended to "protect slavery" from by seceding. That's not at all the context in which slavery was discussed in the declarations. There was no such threat and there is therefore, of course, no evidence of a threat that never existed. > to preserve slavery What does that mean? That the South wanted to continue practicing slavery? Sure. That the North posed some threat to slavery that the South wanted to protect slavery from by seceding? First of all, you can't even say what this supposed threat was. And secondly, the same people you try to cite as evidence of your inexplicable myth directly contradict it. Stephens said in the debates over secession that, "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it." And you want to use Stephens to prove that the South seceded to "protect slavery"? Stephens thought secession would make slavery less secure -- the opposite of protecting it -- and yet he helped lead the South's fight for independence anyway. You can lie to yourself and others all you want but it doesn’t change historical facts.
1
@baneofbanes What do you think seceding was supposed to protect slavery from? There wasn't anything, was there, so your whole argument is revisionist nonsense, isn't it?
1
@zenever0 As if there had been some possibility of the Republican-led North forcing abolition on the southern states against their will if they hadn't seceded? BS!
1
@bigmacsauce1953 > stop the federal government from banning slavery The federal government was never trying to ban slavery.
1
@GavinGavinGavinGavinGavinGavin Preserve it from what? From the non-existent threat against it?
1
@GavinGavinGavinGavinGavinGavin So your answer to my question is that South Carolina seceded in order to stop the North from denouncing slavery???
1
@GavinGavinGavinGavinGavinGavin The Age of Robber Barons wasn't built on "laissez-faire economics." It was built on the Republican platform of crony capitalism, special favors for the Robber Baron class, achieved through war. That's standard operating procedure for the rich exploiting the people at large. The same thing is happening now with Ukraine.
1
"...we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone..." Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861
1
@lordpenance7494 I don't know where that quote is supposed to have come from, but curiously the date is the same as Jefferson Davis' first inaugural address, but that quote isn't found anywhere in that address. In any case, what do you take that quote to prove? Do you think it shows that Davis was intent on waging war against the Union whether the Union agreed to "let [the Confederacy] alone" or not? His first inaugural address clearly debunks that interpretation.
1
@lordpenance7494 That Davis quote is pretty much the exact counterpart to the Union's Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, which declared, "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union," i.e. in Davis's words to not allow them "to be let alone." Neither the Confederacy nor the Union was fighting over anything to do with slavery.
1
@lordpenance7494 Because I know the historical facts and judge them fairly? What have you fooled yourself into believing the Confederacy and Union were fighting over? Just a myth you won't let go of but can't begin to explain? You can only pretend that other people have explained the myth? Face the truth, man! If you can't speak it, you should know it's a lie.
1
> It is beyond question that, based on oral and written history, including diaries and interviews, that all four thought they, and their fellow Union soldiers were fighting to end the abomination of slavery. Whatever they thought, they fought for a Union (if a coerced union can even be called a "union") that categorically declared otherwise. And they fought for a Union that denied the right of states to secede apart from any and everything to do with slavery and that continues to deny that right today, over 150 years after the end of slavery. Pretty weak attempts to justify a war of subjugation!
1
@zenever0 Why respond to me if you're not going to respond to anything I said? Did you recognize the evil I exposed in your position and feel the need to deflect?
1
@zenever0 Why respond to you? Because you replied to me first, as if your comments had anything to do with my comment, but obviously you just recognized the evil I exposed in your position and felt the need to deflect.
1
So because Northerners were murdering random Southerners (that weren't even slave owners... one victim wasn't even white...) under abolitionist pretenses you think the North was justified in subjugating the southern states to a government dominated by the North? Is that your point?
1
If a woman tries to leave her boyfriend and he denies her right to leave him and physically beats her back into submission, what's the appropriate "quick answer"? Is the answer: People always have a right to leave? Or is it: physically beating your partners into submission is justified based on "the primary issue and instigator of the conflict" (even if what you're calling "the primary issue" weren't a revisionist propaganda myth)?
1
@Ben00000 And you think that gives the people that said "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]" and "I have no objection to" amending the constitution to make the constitution's implicit protections of slavery "express and irrevocable" a right to rule over them without their consent? You accept pitiful excuses for denying other people their independence, just like the excuses people made for slavery in the 19th century, except you're still making them today.
1
@Ben00000 Was I comparing any treatment to anything else? Or are you just asking questions that have nothing to do with anything I said to avoid the questions I already asked you?
1
@Ben00000 You started responding to me when I said: If a woman tries to leave her boyfriend and he denies her right to leave him and physically beats her back into submission, what's the appropriate "quick answer"? Is the answer: People always have a right to leave? Or is it: physically beating your partners into submission is justified based on "the primary issue and instigator of the conflict" (even if what you're calling "the primary issue" weren't a revisionist propaganda myth)? The original commenter clearly suggested the latter, right? Apparently that's your position, too? But I'm sure you don't want to actually confront the principles you're advancing.
1
@Ben00000 > What isn't up to debate is that the South said they would leave over slavery, they said they were leaving over slavery as they left, and they continued to say they left over slavery after they left. No, they didn't. That's vague nonsense, intentionally vague in order to imply the lie that the South thought the North was going to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery (or something like that) and seceded in order to avoid that. There was no direct threat to slavery like that, and that's not what the southern states said they believed, so summarizing their position as "over slavery" is completely dishonest propaganda and nonsense.
1
@Ben00000 Was there a reference in any of those quotes to a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery (or anything else of the sort)? But go on implying what you know is a lie.
1
Lincoln: "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."
1
@zenever0 Which of those two quotes has even a little bit to do with the claim of whether the right to own slaves was in dispute?
1
 @zenever0 Northern abolitionists were a fringe minority with no direct political power whatsoever.
1
@zenever0 Name one federal level elected or appointed official that you would call an abolitionist, and then show me where he called for abolishing slavery throughout the US. 1860 Republican platform: "That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends..."
1
@zenever0 > the topic isn’t abolition Then why refer to the struggle as a struggle against "abolitionists" if we're not talking about abolition? And, in any case, if "northern abolitionists" weren't trying to abolish slavery how can they be called abolitionists at all?
1
The war obviously wasn't fought over a right the North's political leaders were entirely willing to concede. Lincoln: "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 war was obviously fought over what the North wasn't willing to concede which was the southern states' right to independence and self-government.
1
The Confederacy didn't fight for slavery because no one was trying to take away their right to slavery. Whether they would have fought for slavery if the North had been fighting to take away their right to slavery is a question divorced from historical reality. "Many men have many theories about the struggle that went on from 1861 to 1865. Some say it had for its purpose the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln did not so consider it. There were those in the South who would have been willing to wage war for its continuation, but I very much doubt if the South as a whole could have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. There were those in the North who would have been willing to wage war for its abolition, but the North as a whole could not have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. President Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery if he could save it that way; without slavery if he could save it that way. But he would save the Union. The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States." -President Calvin Coolidge
1
@generalsmite7167 > Why is it important to you that the south fought for slavery. I would respect the South's right to independence and self-government and condemn the North's war, invasion, and subjugation of the South even if the North had had constitutional authority to use the central government to abolish slavery and even if the North had been threatening to do so and even if the South's only reason for wanting independence and self-government was to avoid that threat, but those are all just lies and myths, of course. > The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected because they feared what he would do to slavery. What do you think Lincoln was going to do or what do you think the southern states falsely feared he was going to do to slavery? Nothing that seceding protected against, so the war over secession clearly wasn't even indirectly over anything to do with slavery. > And you used a quote from a politician after the fact who had no expertise on the issue. The point is that whether the South would have fought for slavery if the North had been fighting to take away their right to slavery is a question divorced from historical reality, and even US presidents from New England have recognized that simple fact. Whatever Southerners would have done in some alternate hypothetical scenario is just a deflection from historical reality and no justification for what the North and South actually did. > The vice president of the confederacy alexander Stevens said that the confederacy was fighting for slavery He never said anything remotely of the sort. In fact, he said the exact opposite. He said, "slavery was much more secure in the Union than out of it." > to use the federal government to infringe on northern states rights States rights are the rights reserved to the states under the constitution. The constitution explicitly obligated the northern states to "deliver up" fugitive slaves, so the northern states obviously didn't have a "states right" to refuse to do what they were constitutionally obligated to. But whether they respected other states' or other people's rights certainly doesn't prove anything about whether they fought for their own right to independence and self-government. They undeniably did.
1
@generalsmite7167 > Independence why? Does it really matter? If a slave wants independence from his master do you ask, "independence why"? Do you defend the master's right to beat his slave back into submission depending on the slave's reasons for wanting independence? I don't place conditions on the right to independence, and I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone else's reasons for wanting independence and then violently subjugate him if his reasons are bad (all the more when those claims of "bad reasons" only come after the fact and the people making claims about "bad reasons" really want to justify violence against people that want independence for any and all reasons.) Speaking of which... > To believe that the confederacy was justified is to believe that the United States should not exist. That's like saying to believe men don't have a right to beat their wives into submission is to believe marriage should not exist. The United States should exist among the states that consent to the union and no further, just like marriage should exist between couples that consent to the union and no further. A union based on violence and subjugation can no longer truly be called a union. Unions cannot be maintained but are destroyed by violence against one's partners. > The north in the beginning only fought for the preservation of the union In the sense that a man physically beating his girlfriend into submission is "only fighting for the preservation of the union". That's a sick, twisted euphemism for domestic violence. > The southern states feared Lincoln was going to prevent the expansion of slavery They believed Lincoln wanted to prohibit slavery in US territories (which was part of the Republican platform), and they believed that was a violation of the constitution. And the Supreme Court had already declared, "Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind." So there had been a constitutional dispute relating to the rights of citizens of the states of the union, but the war, of course, wasn't in any way fought over those rights. Southerners fought for independence which is the opposite of fighting for their rights as citizens of the union. > You have yet to state a reason why the southern states seceded besides for independence which is the definition of secession. Because they didn't want to be ruled by Northerners that had already evidenced their willingness to rule in disregard of constitutional limits and the rule of law, especially when those Northerners (Republicans) were so hostile to them that they had widely celebrated and even violated the constitution in order protect terrorists that had murdered random Southerners. But their right to independence and self-government didn't in any way depend on their reasons. Those rights are inalienable. > as secession was illegal (as the founding fathers intended with the constitution) The constitution was founded on the right of states to abandon the existing government and establish a new government for themselves and other states choosing to join with them on their own sovereign authority. Otherwise the constitution could never have replaced the Articles of Confederation. But where do you get your crazy idea about the founding fathers? James Madison: "It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." > but they would change the goal to slavery The North never deviated from its goal at all. What makes you think that? Just because they tried different things to achieve their goal you think they changed their goal? > 2 million Americans fought for the preservation of my country and so that he country would be free By "free" you mean not allowing them to leave (while declaring "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]")? That's an awfully strange definition of "free."
1
@generalsmite7167 > to vilify those who fought and died for their freedom You mean those mythical people that never existed?
1
@generalsmite7167 Sure, huge numbers of Union soldiers died. Did some of them fight because they thought helping DC subjugate the southern states would indirectly help slaves? Maybe some of the black soldiers and a tiny handful of others. But to say the Union therefore fought and died for slaves' freedom is as absurd as summarizing US involvement in WWII as fighting for communism because US involvement in WWII indirectly benefited the USSR. Whatever the reasons individual soldiers enlisted, they fought and died for the cause DC sent them to fight and die for, and that was officially "not... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but to... preserve the Union [i.e. deny freedom to the southern states]".
1
@generalsmite7167 > you’re forgetting the emancipation proclamation which made ending slavery a war aim No, it didn't. Lincoln made explicitly clear that his emancipation plan wasn't about changing his war aims at all. He explicitly said in his first announcement of the emancipation plan that, "hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for" the same aims as before, which were "not... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but to... preserve the Union [i.e. deny freedom to the southern states]" > the south in the fact that it held slaves was tyrannical of the highest order. Then the Union in the fact that it held slaves throughout the entire war was tyrannical of the highest order. > The southern people did not secede from the union, the white plantation class in control of state legislatures did. By that logic the American people in 1776 didn't declare their independence from Great Britain either. But it wasn't just the plantation class that supported secession. The citizens of the southern states broadly and overwhelmingly supported secession, especially after Lincoln called for war to deny independence to the states that had already seceded. North Carolina, for example, despite having previously narrowly voted 47,323 to 46,672 to remain in the union, elected delegates to a secession convention that voted unanimously to secede after Lincoln's call to war. And, of course, secessionist sentiment was only stronger in the states that had voted to secede earlier. > Note the fact that Lincoln did not appear on the ballots of several southern states. And the Dixiecrats didn't appear on the ballots of several northern states. So what? You're not suggesting that Lincoln would have come remotely close to winning even a single one of the southern states if he had been on the ballot, are you?
1
@generalsmite7167 > Most of them [black soldiers] if not all of them fought for... Ultimately every single Union soldier fought for what their government sent them to fight for, namely "not... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but to... preserve the Union [i.e. deny freedom to the southern states]". > And seeing as how by the end of the war brought the end of slavery in the United States it’s weird to argue that the war was not fought for it. Because you're such a simpleton that you can't imagine a war ever having unintended and unforeseen consequences? > Also seeing as how reconstruction was fairly tame and only last eight years it hard to say the south was truly oppressed by the north. That's like saying, "Also seeing as how slaves were mostly treated very gently (so long as they followed all their masters' orders and renounced any right to self-determination) it's hard to say slaves were truly oppressed by their masters." But the oppression didn't primarily consist in how gentle or hard their masters were when they submitted to their masters; the central oppression consisted of their masters denying them the right to independence and self-government and using violence and threats of violence to do so.
1
@generalsmite7167 > the south wanted the FREEDOM TO OWN SLAVES The South wanted lots of different sorts of things, but what's significant with regards to the war is what the Confederacy wanted that the Union wasn't willing to concede, and there was nothing about slavery that the Confederacy wanted that the Union wasn't willing to concede. If there had been, you could say what that was, but there wasn't anything, so you can't. "we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone" Jefferson Davis, April 29, 1861
1
@generalsmite7167 > not worthy of continuation So if you're going to try to justify a war to deny the Confederacy the right to "continuation," including (if not just another way of saying) denying its right to independence and self-government, shouldn't the government denying its "continuation" not share in the same guilt that you say made the Confederacy "not worthy of continuation" (because the Union practiced and legally sanctioned slavery throughout the entire war and even after the Confederacy was completely defeated and ceased to exist), and shouldn't the government denying its "continuation" not declare when it goes to war that its purposes in waging war have nothing to do with "overthrowing or interfering with" the thing that supposedly made the Confederacy "not worthy of continuation"? Or will you just accept any sorry excuse for denying other people the right to independence and self-determination? > The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected because they feared what he would do to slavery. You still haven't told me what you think Lincoln was going to do to slavery. What do you think he would have done if the southern states hadn't chosen to secede but had simply remained in the union? I can understand, though, why you'd avoid answering that question if you aim to try to make excuses for subjugating other people.
1
> Within that framework it's not difficult to see why slavery was such a key point of disagreement. What was there to disagree about? One state chooses to allow slavery. Another state doesn't. Sure, they disagree, but where's the conflict?
1