Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dennis-nc3vw "over human rights" as if human rights had anything to do with it!
Lysander Spooner: "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,” ... 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheEnderCycloneEnd Lincoln didn't want to and never said he wanted to free the slaves. He said he wished that they would be freed, but he recognized there was no constitutional means for him or the federal government to abolish slavery in the slave states. (I can share quotes from Lincoln proving those points if you want to see those.)
You ask why else would southern states secede after Lincoln's election. The Republicans were the first ever entirely sectional political party. They represented the interests of the North (especially the Northeast) as particularly opposed to the interests of the South. They were so anti-Southern that they had even celebrated a terrorist attack where random southern civilians had been murdered, so random that the first victim was a free black Southerner. For the South to be governed by the North was almost like the Taliban governing the US after 9/11. Republican governors had even refused to fulfill their constitutional obligation to extradite the escaped participants in the attack to serve justice.
And the main plank of the Republican platform had been to prohibit slavery in the territories, despite the fact that the southern states believed the constitution gave the federal government no such authority, and despite the fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that "the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind [slaves] in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void..." But the Republicans' platform was to simply challenge the Supreme Court. As Lincoln said, “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.” And Lincoln also said, "A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…"
I don't think southern Democrats or Republicans actually cared much about slavery in the territories one way or the other, but what they did care about was political power in DC, and slavery largely determined whether states would align with the Democrats or the Republicans (although there were plenty of Democrats in the North, too, especially the Midwest: Douglas won over 47% of the vote in Illinois, effectively 46% in New York, and around 42-43% of the vote in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan... and the Republicans only won California and Oregon with 32-36% of the vote because the opposition split their vote.)
So the issue of slavery in the territories mattered mainly because of its impact on political power in DC, but what was at stake with political power wasn't anything to do with slavery but rather issues like railroad subsidies, a national bank, protective tariffs, etc. Those are the things that were at stake, and it's similar to the way abortion plays prominently in elections but then what Congress does about abortion barely changes no matter which party controls DC. Balancing power, like you say, was very much the issue, but politicians didn't want power for the sake of slaves; they wanted power (as politicians almost always do) for the sake of the economic interests they represented. Republicans were just exploiting slavery as a wedge issue for political advantages, very much like they exploit the abortion issue today.
When I referred to Kansas, I was referring to the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the territories. Kansas was just the most disputed territory immediately prior to secession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@plno2443 "But the slaver states argued Northern states did not have the sovereign right to permit fugitive slaves to remain free under protection of the laws of the Northern states."
Certainly that's what the constitution said. And if the northern states had said they wanted to secede and be done with that deal, I would defend their right to have done so. Would you?
And how else would you respond to a constitutional clause that you didn't have any hope of having the votes to amend in the foreseeable future but that you couldn't bring yourself to honor? Would you even take an oath to uphold such a deal?
In any case, the North's position was clear. As Lincoln said of the fugitive slave clause, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?...
"I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules..."
"And, you’d personally argue the slave had no right to seek to “secede” from his slave master because the slave was property of its master."
Where do you get that idea?
"Most southerners learned their lesson."
And what lesson was that? According to a couple prominent Northerners:
"The state is indeed divine, as being the great incarnation of a nation’s rights, privileges, honor, and life." -Henry Bellows (1866), on the meaning of the North’s victory
"The war... has tended, more than any other event in the history of the country to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that 'the best government is that which governs least.' The war has not only, of necessity, given more power to, but has led to a more intimate prevision of the government over every material interest of society." -Republican Governor Richard Yates of Illinois, 1865
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ben00000 And whether Lincoln was willing to backtrack from a tactic he employed to deny independence and self-government to the southern states, the fact remains that the primary purpose of the emancipation proclamation was to aid the cause of denying independence and self-government to the southern states.
Lincoln: "What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union [i.e. maintain control over and deny independence and self-government to the southern states]; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
"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 in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner: "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."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid That's not what Confederate leaders said about what Republicans wanted. As Alexander Stephens said, "The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, 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."
And that comports with what abolitionists said, too, "...these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, *were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future*, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future – that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South – that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These – and not any love of liberty or justice – were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may." Spooner
Why don't you believe what Confederate leaders and abolitionists both said about what Republicans wanted? For that matter, why don't you believe what Republicans themselves said? 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
-
1
-
1
-
1