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

@zay7905 Your whole argument rests on your point #2 that Lincoln was threatening "to take their slaves." He certainly never said any such thing, and he explicitly denied it. But even supposing he was a complete liar and scoundrel, how are you suggesting he would have taken their slaves anyway? By completely destroying the constitution and ruling apart from any constitutional legitimacy/authority?
2
> So under pretense of freeing slaves they headed to the south, actually seeking new economical opportunities Actually there wasn't so much as a pretense of freeing slaves. > Anyway being free and beeing able to make your own free choices is the fundamental right every human being must have. And that would include the right the North actually fought to destroy, the right of peoples to alter or abolish their form of government and declare independence on their own authority and institute a new government for themselves.
2
@codeman260 As one abolitionist, George Bassett, warned right before the start of the war: “In this unnatural attempt to subdue the seceding States and literally put them under tribute, your most formidable enemy will be... the great principles of popular liberty which you challenge to mortal combat. You will war against the principle of your own immortal Revolution, viz.: the right of any people to choose their own government. All the glorious reminiscences of revolutionary valor will swarm around your armies and haunt your council chambers.”
1
Why government (at any level) shouldn't have anything to do with schooling or education!
1
@codynelson7575 > the declaration is not a legal document, and cannot be the justification for an illegal act It was a declaration of inalienable rights, and inalienable rights, foremost among them the right of a people to declare independence and establish a new government of their own choosing for themselves, trump any laws to the contrary.
1
To self-govern. What else?
1
@rn6312 Government by the consent of the governed. Are you imagining there was something else they needed self-government to "preserve"? If so, what are you imagining could have happened that would have prevented them from "preserving" whatever that other thing was? Or are you alluding to a revisionist myth that you know is just inexplicable nonsense?
1
@Em3ga First of all, there was nothing in the Confederate constitution to prevent states from abolishing slavery for themselves, but even if there had been it wouldn't have been "against states rights." States rights are 10th amendment rights, in other words rights not expressly delegated to the federal government in the constitution. If the Confederate constitution had expressly prohibited states from abolishing slavery -- it didn't, but if it had... -- then it would no longer have been a states right. By the way, if you think you can defend your initial premise, please try, and I'll prove that it's false.
1
@bruvlord1133 If slavery was the only reason the South would ever have seceded, do you have any excuse for denying the right of states to secede today?
1
@waterboyyyyy9523 It's nonsense to say the war was about the right of states to own slaves unless you can explain what threat there was to slavery if they had remained in the Union that seceding offered any chance of avoiding, and that's something no one making your argument can ever explain, because it's a nonsense argument.
1
@cornellhoward3757 "They don't threaten to leave the Union there wouldn't have been any war!" So would you also say: "They don't try to leave the plantation there wouldn't have been any lashings!"?
1
@davidtop8989 New Jersey passed a law to gradually end slavery earlier, but there were still slaves in New Jersey as of the 1860 census. There were still slaves in most of the original northern states into the 1840's.
1
@williamjeffries3557 "More like 'the rights of the southern states the force slavery on the whole nation.'" So you think the northern states were justified in simply trashing the constitution? If the northern states didn't want to uphold the constitution's protections of slavery, they should have seceded as abolitionists broadly advocated in the years before the war. The truth is the northern states didn't really care about southern slaves except as an excuse for exploiting the southern states (together with their slaves) for their own gain.
1
@brittneybrisbin744 "someone else notices how wrong it is and decides to do something to help the people doing the forced labor get out" Of course, that in no way describes the North, but it's historically baseless nonsense that I'm sure makes Northerners and other South-haters feel good.
1
@bruvlord1133 So as regards the War of Northern Aggression, the talk of slavery is really just a false pretense.
1
@waterboyyyyy9523 It was about the rights claimed in the Declaration of Independence obviously, particularly the right of peoples to alter or abolish and institute new governments whenever and in such fashion as to them should seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. The South asserted those rights, and the North fought to destroy those rights, and even abolitionists decried the attack on America's founding principles.
1
@bruvlord1133 And if you think states shouldn't be allowed to secede from the union, do you think the USSR would have been justified in preventing its former states from seceding and that Serbia was justified in preventing Kosovo from seceding (even though we went to war to defend Kosovo's right to secede)? If there were any valid reason for denying states' rights to secede, that right wouldn't just randomly and selectively apply, would it?
1
@bruvlord1133 Why is that significant? Are you suggesting that secession is justifiable so long as it's racially or ethnically motivated but if there isn't a clear enough racial or ethnic division military suppression of secession is justified?
1
So you're saying the First American Independence War (1776) wasn't about slavery? It was about preserving the American economy. But the American economy relied on slavery, yes? Yep. So in order to preserve the American economy, they needed to preserve slavery, yes? Yep. In that case the First American Independence War was, in fact, about slavery.
1
@allergy5634 So what was it "due to" then?
1
@allergy5634 Americans listed 27 grievances in the Declaration of Independence. Taxation without representation isn't mentioned at all. Taxation without Americans' consent is the 17th of the 27 grievances. Even if that's what you're trying to refer to, one random point in the middle of 27 can't come close to summarizing all their grievances. And even if it could, taxation can't be separated from economic questions. And even if it could be separated and summarize the full list of grievances, the premise to the original argument that the war was fought to preserve the economy is as false when applied to the second American independence war as the first.
1
@vehx9316 > in relation to the Civil War As if those views had any relation to the war! But those are the lies you have to push when you want to defend the evil principles the North actually fought for, namely invading and subjugating neighboring states in order to rule over them without their consent.
1
There's no bigger lie than that the war was fought to free the slaves or because either side was trying to force the other side to do or to concede anything at all about slavery.
1
@TheBobbybbc Georgia was the state that put the 13th amendment abolishing slavery over the ratification threshold. Some Union states that fought against the South and still had slaves even after the end of the war voted against it.
1
@rn6312 > Anyway being free and beeing able to make your own free choices is the fundamental right every human being must have. Did you never learn how the USA was established? > Celebrating people who wanted to keep the institution of slavery is wrong. Did you never learn who established the USA?
1
Should America really follow North Korea's lead and ban all private schools?
1
It's pretty normal to build war memorials about the time that the men that fought in the war are getting old and dying off, especially if you were broke and under Reconstruction in the years right after the war.
1
And they had every right to do so. And the North had no right to govern the southern states without their consent.
1