Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "Washington Post" channel.

I was pretty much with you until the last sentence. Why are you glad we reunited (if forcibly subjugating other people can even be called "uniting")?
2
@Deadener Neither did secession, bucko. Want to try again?
1
@callmeconvay7977 > The war was about slavery... Specifically, the Confederate states wanted to preserve the institution of slavery where it already existed The Republican-led North was fully conceding the right of the southern states to continue practicing slavery however long they wanted to, so it's complete nonsense to suggest that the North and South fought over what they agreed on. Wars are fought over disagreements, not agreements. > as well as to expand the institution into the territories What territories did the Confederacy invade that led to the war with the North? Do you not recognize how obviously stupid these lies are? Or do you think if you just repeat these obvious lies enough time that you can obscure the truth? > By attempting to take a federal military base they were attacking the United States of America, the same as if The same as when Americans attacked English forts in the First American Independence War. And how else do you think a people would exercise their right to declare independence? If you split up with your husband would you allow him to maintain armed guards in your house and allow those guards to determine who could come and go from your house? > I'd consider... to be somewhat less evil than... So your argument boils down to making moral judgments about peoples and on that basis justifying the morally superior race subjugating the morally inferior race?
1
> He made some comments about In other words, yes, all the historical evidence contradicts your myth, but... > However, he was an abolitionist. In other words, despite the fact that Lincoln categorically denied any interest in abolishing slavery and despite the fact that Lincoln said he had no objections to ratifying an irrevocable constitutional amendment to permanently protect against any move by the northern states to abolish slavery in the slave states, you're going to continue making your historically baseless assertion. > The confederacy left the union for a reason. And it had nothing to do with Lincoln or the northern states abolishing slavery. That's pure, historically baseless myth.
1
@JamesTopTier Neocons like Prager are as stupid on this issue as you are.
1
@jonathandudley6250 The South was willing to forfeit all claims to the western territories in exchange merely for the right to be left alone, but the North wouldn't give up its control over the South, and that and only that is what the war was fought over.
1
@callmeconvay7977 > that's demonstrably false. If that were true you would have evidence to back up your lie. About "the rule of voluntary association" Jefferson Davis said, "...never was there a people whose interests and principles committed them so fully to a peaceful policy as those of the Confederate States. By the character of their productions they are too deeply interested in foreign commerce wantonly to disturb it. War of conquest they cannot wage, because the Constitution of their Confederacy admits of no coerced association. Civil war there cannot be between States held together by their volition only." > the North didn't have "control" over the South > they merely happened to control the federal government Which had controlled the South and which the Republican-led North wasn't willing to give up. > and made overtures about expanding slavery What complete BS are you making up? > the fight to preserve the Union You can no more "preserve the Union" by violently subjugating other states than you can "preserve the union" with your wife by violently subjugating her. A union is by definition a relationship based on consent. If you wage war against consent as the basis of the relationship as the North did, then you're waging war against the union, not preserving it. > fight... eventually, to end slavery More complete BS you're just making up!
1
That's what northern abolitionists said: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... 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. ... "All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” ...are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war..." -Lysander Spooner
1
The 13 colonies were deeply "connected to slavery," too, but that didn't give England any right to rule over Americans forever without their consent, especially not when England (as with the North in 1861) was totally recognizing their right to continue keeping slaves if they remained under English control.
1
> fighting to end slavery was a noble cause Maybe invading other countries to force your morality on them (which normally is accompanied by economic benefits for special interests in your own country) is noble and maybe it's not... ...but the Union (1) never even claimed any such justifications -- in fact, the North explicitly and categorically denied any purpose of even interfering with, let alone abolishing slavery, (2) states fighting on the side of the Union continued practicing slavery themselves throughout the entire war, and (3) the North very clearly said the exact opposite of, "we won't recognize your right to independence unless your free your slaves." The North went to war with Lincoln declaring that he was totally willing to let the slave states continue practicing slavery as long as they wanted to so long as they remained in the Union.
1
@NoName-hg6cc > by attacking North forts As if a fort in Charleston's harbor somehow belonged exclusively to the North, just because they were able to win a majority in the electoral college with the support of only thirty-some percent of the electorate!
1
@NoName-hg6cc > the fort was own by tge union, that's a fact. Whatever had belonged to "the union" belonged to the American people, and when the people of the southern states separated from the people of the northern states they had every right to their fair share of their previously jointly held property, especially property like forts on their own border that served absolutely no purpose other than their own defense (or limiting their ability to defend themselves.) > Attacking it meant war. If I decide you're not welcome in the entryway to my house any more, you refuse to leave, and I finally forcibly evict you, do you think that gives you a right to bring an army and take control of my entire house? No, of course, it doesn't. But if you're a complete tyrant maybe me deciding I don't want you ruling over me "means war."
1