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

Patrick Cleburne
PragerU
comments

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

Previous
11
Next
...
All

@jimbobcutter849 Don't know what baseless means, do you? What do you do with the fact that large majorities of abolitionists advocated seceding from the slave states prior to the Confederate States' secession from the US? What do you do with strongly pro-slavery rulings by the Supreme Court? I'm not the one saying they should have been helplessly accepted. But I realize asking you to think is probably more than you can handle.
1
@jimbobcutter849 I figured your response to inconvenient facts would be to call someone a racist.
1
@TheStapleGunKid "It simply meant slaves were not property. Why is this so hard for you to understand?" The definition of slave is "One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude." You might as well say property is not property as to say a slave is not property. Sure, say it's wrong, refuse to go along with it, but if someone is a slave, then he's property. If no slaves were property then no slaves existed.
1
@TheStapleGunKid So, according to you, a slave can't be a person? What kind of nonsense is that? Were slaves not property "under the laws thereof [of the state under the laws of which persons were "held to service or labour," which is the constitutional standard (one which was defined by the laws of the states where slaves "service or labour" was "due")? Is your argument really so weak that you have to argue that slaves weren't property, when being property is central to the very definition of being a slave? Apparently so. And, according to you, who should have had the final say on interpreting the constitution? Because the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property under the constitution.
1
@TheStapleGunKid So, according to your crazy definitions is it possible for there to be any other kind of person besides a free person? Or are you saying that if a person is no longer free, if he becomes property, then he ceases to be a person? And what the hell is a slave if not a person held as property (as per the dictionary definition)? "Is your position that the Supreme Court never gets anything wrong?" Are you just completely making this shht up? Are you arguing entirely with a straw man? If not, quote what I said that could possibly have suggested any such thing.
1
@TheStapleGunKid And what, in your crazy little world, is the difference between a person held to service or labor and a person held as property? I don't accept the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes, so it doesn't ultimately matter to me what they say. Does it to you? Are you ever going to tell me what alternative to that laid out by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions you believe in? Or do you, like Lincoln (and, to be fair, most politicians) just believe in espousing whatever sham principles suit your fancy in any given moment?
1
@TheStapleGunKid tl;dr What other crazy conspiracy theories do you believe in?
1
@TheStapleGunKid But let's say I were to accept your argument that under the US constitution water isn't wet (even though by definition it is, and even though nothing in the constitution suggests any inconsistency with calling water wet -- but let's say I get over all that and accept your argument.) Where does that get us? Are you saying that the people of the states that ratified the constitution in 1787-90 meant to say that water wasn't wet? In any case, it's clear that the Supreme Court didn't deny that water was wet. And the seceding states still believed water was wet. So what does it matter what you or I think about what the constitution ought to mean 150 years later? Where are you going with this?
1
@TheStapleGunKid Your conspiracy theory reminds me a lot of people I've heard of that think they don't have to pay income taxes because their real name isn't spelled in capital letters like it is on tax forms, as if that mattered to anyone but them. But even if I accept your conspiracy theory, you didn't answer any of my questions about why that matters or where it gets us: But let's say I were to accept your argument that under the US constitution water isn't wet (even though by definition it is, and even though nothing in the constitution suggests any inconsistency with calling water wet -- but let's say I get over all that and accept your argument.) Where does that get us? Are you saying that the people of the states that ratified the constitution in 1787-90 meant to say that water wasn't wet? In any case, it's clear that the Supreme Court didn't deny that water was wet. And the seceding states still believed water was wet. So what does it matter what you or I think about what the constitution ought to mean 150 years later? Where are you going with this?
1
@TheStapleGunKid The Supreme Court had already ruled they had the right to take slaves to the territories and that any federal action to the contrary would be a violation of the constitution. What do you think they should have sued over? Meanwhile, Lincoln and the Republicans weren't taking their disagreement with the Supreme Court's ruling to the courts. They were denying the authority of the courts to be the ultimate arbiters of such questions and promising to move ahead despite the Supreme Court already having clearly declared such action unconstitutional. Are you fine with Congress and/or the president defying the Supreme Court? Under all conditions ? Or under which particular conditions? Or do you, like Lincoln (and, to be fair, most politicians) just believe in espousing whatever sham principles suit your fancy in any given moment with no coherency or consistency whatsoever?
1
@TheStapleGunKid So if a few years after Roe v Wade Republicans had campaigned on a promise to ban abortion in the territories, you think it would be fine if they just went ahead and did so, clearly recognizing that the Supreme Court had already said it was unconstitutional, but doing it anyway and waiting to see if the courts could find a way to stop them? And you wouldn't call that defying the Supreme Court? If that's not defying the Supreme Court, what could Congress or a president do that you would consider defying the Supreme Court?
1
@TheStapleGunKid So is there anything at all that Congressmen could do in your view that would violate their oaths?
1
@TheStapleGunKid You said before, "It only counts as defying the courts if an administration refuses to stop enforcing a law AFTER [emphasis added] the courts strike it down." So why then, according to your standard, do you count anything the seceding states did BEFORE the courts ruled on any such question (even if I were to grant your likely nonsense argument about Texas v. White) as unconstitutional? (And, in any case, I reject your ideas -- not that you've presented a coherent summary yet -- of how constitutional disputes should ultimately be decided. Instead, I agree with what Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions.)
1
@TheStapleGunKid That's simply an absurd double standard, which is to say not a coherent standard for resolving constitutional disputes at all. And your absurdities don't stop at the constitutional questions. Federal property? Would you say the equivalent thing about everything the 13 states did with property of the crown after they declared independence? Did the king have any rightful claim to the border defenses of the 13 states (or any other real property in the 13 states) apart from their consent to his government for their sake of their protection? And what's this about a civilian ship? If a South Korean civilian ship sails into North Korean waters or vice versa, would you expect that ship to be able to sail where it wants in peace? And as for your nonsense claim that "they did lose when the courts finally did take up a case on secession after the war," the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas in Texas v. White.
1
@TheStapleGunKid It's nonsense to describe Texas winning a Supreme Court case as the "rebels lost the legal war for their cause," and if you insist otherwise you're either trolling or too mentally messed up to be worth talking to (and, of course, trolls aren't worth talking to either.) You double standard -- and this ought to be obvious from what I already said -- doesn't consist in the specifics of what anyone did but rather in the process you suggest should be used to resolve constitutional disputes. You're fine with Lincoln and the Republicans doing what the Supreme Court had already clearly ruled was unconstitutional and then waiting to see if the Court can try to stop them (all in the midst of an unconstitutional war and with people that might have argued the point being thrown in jail without access to the courts.) In other words, you're fine with Lincoln and the Republicans acting FIRST and leaving the constitutional questions for the courts to resolve after the fact (even though they had already ruled on them.) But in the case of secession, you condemn the southern states for seceding before going to the courts and say that a case that Texas won years later proves that Texas (and the other southern states) were wrong. Again, you're either trolling or too mentally messed up to be worth talking to. And then you act like opening fire on a foreign ship in a country's territorial waters that refuses to turn around should require a declaration of war. You obviously have no honest case to make.
1
@TheStapleGunKid "South Carolina was still part of the United States." Can you make an argument that doesn't depend on begging the question? Apparently not. "All the parties involved are simply going to the courts to resolve the issue. If only the rebels had done the same." According to your stupid theory of how constitutional disputes should be settled, why did the South need to go to the courts? You've advocated acting first and then waiting to see if anyone can get the courts to stop you (even when the courts have already said what you're doing is unconstitutional, which certainly wasn't the case with the South's secession -- not that the South didn't have an inalienable right to choose its own government regardless.) And acting first is what the South did. If you don't like it, according to your stupid theory, the North could have gone to the courts to resolve the issue if they objected. Total double standard, which is inevitable given how stupid your theory is to start with. It's nonsense to describe Texas winning a Supreme Court case as the "rebels lost the legal war for their cause," and if you insist otherwise you're either trolling or too mentally messed up to be worth talking to (and, of course, trolls aren't worth talking to either.)
1
@TheStapleGunKid According to the legal ideas that Jefferson asserted in the Kentucky Resolutions (which I believe), it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court said, and according to what you've said, constitutionality is only a concern once the Supreme Court has ruled on a question (even if they've explicitly declared that thing unconstitutional in a previous dispute), so the seceding states acted within their constitutional limits by either of our standards (excepting your double standards.) In any case, anything the Supreme Court said about secession in Texas v. White certainly wouldn't be binding on any state that wanted to secede today 150+/- years later if the Republicans were acting within their constitutional authority when they did what the Supreme Court had explicitly and unmistakably ruled unconstitutional just 3-4 years prior. “When a government becomes so corrupt as to forfeit the respect and support of the citizens in whose name it is exercised, and for whose protection and benefit it professes to act, it is very apt to resent disloyalty with the charge of treason and rebellion. … “The secession of South Carolina has been called in Congress 'a revolt,' and 'rebellion.' But this charge could come only from a total misapprehension of the nature and object of free government. Revolt is resistance to the supreme authority. But the true idea of free government is, that the people themselves are this supreme authority. How, then, can a whole united people be chargeable with this crime? Can they 'revolt' against themselves? The idea is absurd.” George Bassett Of course, the whole basis of your opposition to the South is your fundamental disdain for the idea of free government, so it makes sense that you would categorize free government as "insurrection." As Bassett said, "The most arrogant pretensions of ancient royalty, are not more preposterous."
1
@TheStapleGunKid I'm not calling anything free government. I'm saying your disdain for the very idea of free government is the whole basis of your opposition to secession, including specifically and especially the South's secession.
1
@TheStapleGunKid Of course it's the basis of your opposition to free government. That's made abundantly clear by the fact that the principles by which you defend the North (your absurd interpretations of the Articles of Confederation which you still consider binding, your denial of the principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence, etc.) aren't conditioned on anything to do with slavery but unconditionally asserted.
1
@TheStapleGunKid For further proof, I asked you earlier, "does your rejection of secession run to the core of your beliefs about government and the Constitution or does it have anything particularly to do with slavery?" And you answered, "It is about government and the constitution." Your talk of antebellum slavery has always been misleading cover for your defense of modern day slavery.
1
@TheStapleGunKid It's certainly misleading when, as you confirmed, "your rejection of secesionn" does not "have anything particularly to do with slavery" but rather "run[s] to the core of your beliefs about government and the Constitution." If this were actually in any way about slavery (which you yourself have denied) you would recognize the right of states to secede today for whatever reasons states might want to secede today. But you deny any such modern day or hypothetical example having absolutely zero connection to slavery. Will you even admit that? Or are you so aware of how indefensible your position is that you'll try to hide behind "slavery" even today?
1
@TheStapleGunKid "Again, your position assumes some sort of 'right of states to secede today for whatever reasons states might want to secede'. But this is a position so ridiculous that even the Confederates didn't believe it." What evidence do you have of that? And before you go off on some stupid irrelevant tangent, the question is about the "right of STATES to secede," not parts of states, which is another question. Personally, I think the principle ought to apply as much to parts of states as to states, but plenty of people in American history have defended one but not the other. If you're arguing that they were inconsistent to defend principles on behalf of states but not parts of states, then I agree as to the principle (even if perhaps not with regards to specific examples in history.) But the point I was making was about the right of STATES to secede for whatever reasons they might want to. Can you actually address that specific question? Is there any basis for your claim that Confederates didn't believe in the right of states to secede for whatever reasons states might want to secede (which is what you said)? Can you defend what you actually said about STATES? "Preserving and expanding slavery is a bad reason. It's not the only possible bad reason. But it certainly is a bad one." Yes, hypothetically that would be a bad reason, but first of all, that wasn't the reason any of the Confederate states seceded. The Confederate states had made no attempt or demands to expand anywhere when the war started. Had some Southerners advocated expansion? Sure, but so did Northerners both before and after slavery. Trump was talking about buying Greenland from Denmark just a few years ago. Does that justify any hypothetical war in your view? Are you really arguing that the possibility that the Confederacy might have expanded its territory in the future (even peaceably, as with the Louisiana or Alaska purchases) justified a war against it? And as for your claim that the Confederate states seceded to "preserve" slavery, I understand your argument, based on what you've said before, to be that the threat to the "preservation" of slavery that they seceded to protect against was the threat that not expanding posed to the continuation of slavery, so I think you therefore agree that your "preserve" claim rests on your "expand" argument, which is to say if your "expand" argument falls, so does your "preserve" argument. But if there's an independent foundation for your "preserve" argument, we can discuss that separate would-be BS of yours, too (although my understanding is that you're not claiming a separate foundation.) But secondly, and the point I'd be more interested in hearing what you'd have to say about, what do you think it matters if reasons for seceding are good or bad? You're not suggesting that we should deny peoples their rights (either natural, inalienable rights or legal/constitutional rights) if their reasons for exercising them are bad, are you? I think the right to free speech, if it means anything at all, has to apply to the person who wants to say something stupid and evil as much as to the person that wants to use his right to free speech for good reasons. And I would apply the same principle to secession. It definitely seems like we disagree about whether particular rights exist at all, but to the extent they do, you're not suggesting that the right to exercise them should be limited by whether people judge them good or bad, are you? "But whether or not secession happens for good reasons or bad reasons, I agree with James Madison that even under the most justified of circumstances, unilateral secession without any form of national agreement is 'another name only for revolution.'" There are plenty of positions that Madison took that I wouldn't defend (and I don't think he was very consistent, so I think he may very well have contradicted both of us and himself), but I don't believe Madison said anything about "any form of national agreement" about secession, not in those words that you used, nor in any other words. If there's any basis for reading that into what Madison did say, as you did in your comment, you'll have to show me what that is. Nothing like those words are in his letter to Webster where he said the other words of his that you quoted. Regardless, Madison also said, "It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. 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." So Madison's answer to the question of who should have the ultimate authority to judge whether a cause of secession is justified or not is clearly the individual state, right? In other words, Madison clearly recognized the ultimate sovereignty of states in these questions to act without any necessary requirement of "national agreement," as you said, right? And that's precisely what Madison did when he helped draft, signed, and pushed for the ratification of the constitution. He didn't allege any sort of "intolerable oppression" (as he spoke of in his letter to Webster) when he supported the right of 9 of the 13 states to form a government without the consent of the other 4, even though they had bound themselves in a "perpetual union" under the Articles that required unanimity for any amendments. So he obviously (at least at that point) supported the right of states to leave an existing union on their own authority simply for the sake of establishing a government they thought would serve their needs better, even apart from any allegations of oppression or any allegations of violations by the other parties of the existing compact.
1
@jxc1640 What's most telling about the declarations of causes of secession is that nowhere in them is any hint of the northern states forcing an abolition amendment on the slave states. So what do you think the declarations prove? They completely contradict the Righteous Cause Myth that the northern states were going to use their victory in the 1860 election to abolish slavery according to the rule of law. There was no constitutionally legitimate threat of the slave states losing their right to practice slavery. As for Stephens and racial inequality, first a quote from Stephens' March 1961 speech, then a quote from Lincoln: "...notwithstanding their 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." Lincoln: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races …there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
1
@TheStapleGunKid That has nothing to do with all your and the other commenter's reasons for despising free government. That's obvious because it's no longer any sort of issue today. You obviously continue to care about the issue so much because you despise the kind of free government the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard described in 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
@jaranarm Abolition really wasn't any more illegal in the Confederacy than it was in the Union. But neither that nor any of the other things you mentioned (most of which defined the Confederacy even less than jailing of and deporting political opponents defined the Union) were at stake in the war. You don't despise the Confederacy because of random things that weren't unique to the Confederacy and that weren't at stake in the war. You despise the Confederacy because of what was at stake, because the Confederacy fought for government by the consent of the governed, and you're a sheep that hates the idea of freedom.
1
@jaranarm "Dictatorship that allows no opposition"? What are you talking about? What opposition newspaper was ever shut down by the Confederate government? What elected congressman was ever deported from the Confederacy? What representative was ever imprisoned for his political speech? If you cared about historical facts, you could consider the reasons the Cherokee people gave for joining the Confederacy on Oct 28, 1861, "Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power... "But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. "The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. "Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed..."
1
@TheStapleGunKid You really put a beating on that straw man!
1
 @TheStapleGunKid You're the one disregarding what I actually said and attacking the straw man.
1
@TheStapleGunKid What question do you think I'm trying to evade? The question you're evading with your straw man arguments is the question of what the Confederacy actually fought for, what was actually at stake in the war. As I said above -- and it certainly applies to you, too: You don't despise the Confederacy because of random things that weren't unique to the Confederacy and that weren't at stake in the war. You despise the Confederacy because of what was at stake, because the Confederacy fought for government by the consent of the governed, and you're a sheep that hates the idea of freedom.
1
@TheStapleGunKid The US Congress made it perfectly clear that the war wasn't about slavery, thus slavery wasn't what the war was about. US congressmen know what they own cause was. You obviously do not.
1
@TheStapleGunKid That inexplicable myth of what Republicans were going to do is "exactly" the reason... I got it now. 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
There wasn't anything the southern states wanted to do with regards to slavery that Lincoln and the Republican-led North weren't entirely willing to concede to the southern states so long as they remained in the Union, so the war clearly wasn't fought over any such thing.
1
@matthewmccoyd2578 If you believe there was any such thing, tell us what you think it was, and I'll prove what an historically baseless myth it is you believe.
1
@ No, I would do exactly what I said I'd do: prove what an historically baseless myth it is you believe. But apparently you're not fooled and instead you're fostering lies that you know are lies, lies that you know can't stand the light of day, so you won't even say what you want us to believe you believe. Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... 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,” of having “preserved the union,” ... 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..."
1
Lincoln in his 1st inaugural, 1861: "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 Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, which was a declaration of the Union's war aims, and which Congress passed by a practically unanimous vote shortly after the first major battle of the war, declared, "this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..."
1
@SovereignStatesman How does that explain why the North went to war rather than let the southern states peacefully secede?
1
@SovereignStatesman But the North's motives for making the southern states colonies of their empire (or however anyone wants to view it) is a separate question. One could argue, for example, that the war "was fought due to slavery," and that in order for the North to achieve its anti-slavery purpose in the war, it had to make the southern states colonies of their empire.
1
@SovereignStatesman The law certainly wasn't the end of the story for Lincoln.
1
@Dennis-nc3vw It sounds like you think real Americans believe in a heritage of individuality. Prominent Unitarian Minister Henry Bellows (1866), on the meaning of the North’s victory: "The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life." Abolitionist Joshua Blanchard, writing in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper in March of 1861: "The doctrine that the prerogatives of government are more sacred and inviolable than the rights, liberties, and welfare and even lives of individual men, is now openly maintained by the advocates of an enforced union, in direction opposition to the principle of popular sovereignty.... The success of this compulsory measure, establishing the character of our national government as one maintained by coercion, and not by consent, would be an awful apostacy, a retrogression into the barbarous maxims of European domination, cemented in blood; an utter failure of the first magnificent experiment of popular government, the the exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
@tubularfrog "The Civil War was clearly an aggression of the Northern abolitionist States..." Except it (1) wasn't a civil war; it was an independence war, and (2) the Republican-led North wasn't "abolitionist." Republicans, including Lincoln, had a clearly stated policy of not interfering with the constitutional right of the slave states to continue practicing slavery as long as they wanted to. Sure, they were willing to use opposition to slavery as an excuse to abuse the rights of Southerners, foment anti-Southern hatred that they could exploit for political gains, and economically exploit the South, but none of that is remotely equivalent to trying to abolish slavery.
1
@tubularfrog You remind me of something one northern abolitionist said in early 1861, "Strictly speaking, government has no rights. It has duties to perform simply. Its whole object is to protect men in their rights. … And surely it is equally absurd and improper for the people of one section of the country to advance a claim of right to the political allegiance of those of another section. The most arrogant pretensions of ancient royalty, are not more preposterous." Obviously we've discarded that democratic view of government and replaced it with one even more extreme than than that of the relationship of ancient royalty and subject.
1
@Ben00000 Bassett: “The true strength of a free government—and they are the strongest of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be forfeited, and the government falls. “A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism.”
1
@Ben00000 Do you mean slaveowner defender in the same sense that one might defend the founding fathers right to independence against England? In any case, here's another quote from Bassett from the same 1861 booklet: "I will not say that the civilized world should not unite to wipe out chattel slavery, as too inhuman to be tolerated; that they should not unitedly proscribe it, as they do the African slave trade, and inaugurate true popular supremacy in its place. But this is not the question between the United States and South Carolina. With us [the North] it is not a question of philanthropy, but of aggrandizement."
1
@Dennis-nc3vw Someone with the user account UCz6... is impersonating me. Hover over the user name and you'll see the account ID. Defenders of the Union's part in the war love lies.
1
@amazingbait26 Sample
1
@Dennis-nc3vw I think the @xxxx only appears when you reply to a reply, not to the original comment. Try it yourself. Start to reply to the original comment and see if the @xxxx appears. But in any case, I've now replied to Runstedt's or Ben's new account with a sample reply, where the @xxxx did appear. It makes sense that lovers of socialism and lies (like Runstedt) celebrate the Union cause so much. Does that not ring any alarms for you, being that you claim to oppose socialism (if I understand correctly.)
1
@Dennis-nc3vw You realize there are two accounts, right? If you hover over my user name in this comment and look at the URL that appears you'll see that my user ID begins with UCzJ... and ends with ...FlaA. If you hover over the user name of the opening comment in this thread you'll see that the person impersonating me has a user ID that begins with UCz6... and ends with ...0x8g. So when I replied to one of his comments in this thread with just the word "sample" the @xxxx with my own user name (but his account) did appear. That @xxxx doesn't appear if you reply to yourself, but it does appear if you reply to another account that's impersonating you.
1
So what did the famous historian Lord Acton lack in your view then?
1
@TheStapleGunKid You seriously think Lord Acton lacked knowledge or understanding? And you think this fool in a uniform has greater knowledge and understanding?
1
@TheStapleGunKid And everyone that said anything contrary to your myth can only be understood as lacking knowledge and understanding? Even the most brilliant historians of the era?
1

Previous
11
Next
...
All