Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The question isn't whether Lincoln was in favor of racial equity or not. The question is why Lincoln wanted the federal government to prohibit the practice of slavery in the territories. It obviously wasn't to free any slaves or prevent anyone else from becoming enslaved, because prohibiting slavery in the territories simply meant that slaves would remain in the slave states. The Lincoln quotes I shared show that Lincoln wanted to prohibit slavery in the territories because he (and lots of other Northerners and Republicans in particular) didn't want blacks, free or slave, in their space. When Lincoln 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," and that was specifically in reference to what at the time was a US territory, he was explaining a leading reason of his for opposing the "expansion of slavery." White supremacy, not any kind of abolition, was his stated reason for opposing the "expansion of slavery."
But his other reason, of course, was political control. If new states could be aligned economically and culturally with the Northeast/South, then they would be much more likely to vote with the Northeast/South, and this was nothing new. Even before New York had even begun the gradual process of abolition for itself it had been playing political games for control of power in DC, as all the states had in one direction or another. Lincoln was just ready to make a power play (like the Democrats talking of giving DC statehood now -- whatever the reasons for or against making DC a state, it's no coincidence that the political party pushing for DC statehood is the party that would gain politically from it).
So those were the Republicans reasons for opposing the "expansion of slavery": #1 white supremacy, and #2 partisan political advantage (which the Republicans wanted to use for crony capitalist purposes, not anything to do with slavery.)
Did Lincoln oppose slavery morally, etc.? He certainly railed against the evils of slavery in his speeches, but Republicans do the same with abortion today. That serves political purposes. Besides supporting a white supremacist North free of all blacks and seeking political advantages for the Republican party, what did he do, support, or credibly advocate doing prior to secession that related to slavery?
"Or are you taking the position that Republican words and actions against slavery don't matter?"
People have said things against abortion and then bombed abortion clinics. Were those bombers "anti-abortion"? Does it matter that they spoke out and then acted out against a great evil? For a lot of questions, not really. I definitely don't think being anti-abortion is an excuse for murder (or for trashing the rule of law, or for waging a war to deny your neighbors the right to self-government.) Do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I said, "So is your position that the war was about slavery because it was about the Confederacy seceding in order to invade Cuba or Mexico or some other place." You responded, in part, "Why is it written into multiple Confederate State declarations of secession?" That's an easy answer: it's not, not even close.
As to the Mosby quote, he didn't say the South seceded in order to invade Cuba or some other place, and it's ridiculous to suggest that's what he meant by "on account of slavery." What's the earliest quote you can find of anyone clearly saying any such thing? I'm guessing not within 100 years of the war.
And people on your side accuse the other side of historical revisionism, ha! With regards to secession and slavery, there's not a thing I'm arguing that wasn't clearly said by abolitionists in the 1860's (and before), and with regards to constitutional issues, my position was clearly set forward by multiple founding fathers but probably best by Thomas Jefferson in his original draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (as well as the Declaration of Independence.) You should just own up to your historical revisionism. Just because no one made your argument until recently doesn't necessarily mean it's false (although, of course, it is.)
"They wouldn't have done anything if some other country invaded Mexico either."
You seem to be recognizing that stopping the Confederacy from being able to invade another country in the future had nothing to do with the North's reasons for refusing to allow the South to secede, and, of course, neither that nor anything else even that indirectly related to slavery did. But my main point was to answer your question of why some Southerners talked about Cuba, etc. Talk of territorial expansion and even going to war at least in part for the sake of territorial expansion were pretty much a constant in American history, from even before American independence from England to long after Lincoln's war to destroy our founding principle of government by the consent of the governed, so it's absurd to explain all such talk in terms of slavery, when slavery mostly had nothing at all to do with it (as with the invasion of Canada in 1812 or the invasion of Cuba long after the end of slavery in the US.) The reasons Southerners talked about Cuba are overwhelmingly the same reasons Americans talked about conquering Canada or Spain's colonies in the Caribbean.
And Cuba, the place that was most talked about by Southerners, already had a large slave population anyway -- Cuba didn't abolish slavery until decades later -- so if the US had gone to war to take Cuba from Spain before the end of slavery in the US it wouldn't have involved any spread of slavery anyway.
"If the Confederate States stayed in the Union, then slavery was doomed."
Slavery was doomed regardless.
"So they seceded and started the war to preserve it. Lincoln said this. The Confederate leaders said this."
Right before the start of the war Lincoln said, "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 Union Congress officially declared at the start of the war by a practically unanimous vote, "That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of... nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states..." Jefferson Davis as clearly and simply as possible, "We are not fighting for slavery." There was universal agreement from the leaders on both sides of the conflict on this point, yet you still try to deny it. And you ignore what all sides at the time said in favor of your revisionist Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba theory. You have to outright ignore with no explanation whatsoever what countless Southerners, Northerners, foreigners, abolitionists... said. There's not a single quote from before 1870 you've provided that challenges anything I've said (but I can discuss any of them in more detail if you like.)
You cited:
""It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union..." --Misssissippi declaration
""The prohibition of slavery in the Territories..." Georgia declaration
"...to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States..." Texas declaration
No mention of any foreign country in any of those declarations, is there? Especially not any mention of any foreign country where slavery wasn't already being practiced and wouldn't continue to be practiced for decades longer (i.e. Cuba.) Nor is there any claim in any of the declarations of causes of secession to any of the US territories. The war obviously wasn't about any invasion at all except by the North of the South. Tell me more about your Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else theory!
"They [the states that seceded only after Lincoln's call to destroy the union by military force] chose to join with seven states who were in an active rebellion [sic], for the same reason the first seven states seceded and started [sic] the war: slavery."
So you're saying VA, NC, TN, and AR seceded in order to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else after Lincoln called for the military subjugation of the states that had already seceded even though they had voted to remain in the union prior to Lincoln's call for war? How do you figure Lincoln's war against the self-government of the first seven states made those four states want to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba-or-anywhere-else when they hadn't wanted to before? Lincoln's call to war obviously changed their mind (and by the votes, dramatically so), but you want to pretend that Lincoln suddenly made them want to invade Cuba-but-not-really-Cuba? How ridiculous can you get?
"What they did would be the equivalent of California deciding to secede and join Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Geography lesson for you: Pearl Harbor wasn't (and isn't) in Japan, not in any way, shape, or form.
If Poland decided to withdraw from NATO and then wanted the foreign NATO troops to leave Poland, but the US refused to remove American troops from NATO bases in Poland, and Hungary then left NATO in opposition to the US violation of the NATO treaty and of Poland's rights (and by implication Hungary's own rights), then you would have an equivalent situation.
"The problem with this claim is that it is contradicted by what Lincoln actually said as to why he wanted to ban slavery in the territories:"
I'll repeat what Lincoln actually said about why he wanted to exclude slavery from the territories:
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … 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…”
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Everyone that swore an oath to uphold the constitution swore an oath that fugitive slaves "shall be delivered up." Obviously that requires, as Lincoln himself said, "a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath." But the northern states refused to honor the law passed by Congress, refused to allow the courts to settle any of their disagreements with that law -- as the Georgia declaration of causes said about the federal fugitive slave law, "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions." -- and did nothing (with the temporary exception of New Jersey) on the state level to honor that constitutional obligation. If that's not simply trashing the constitution's fugitive slave clause, what would it take?
Nonetheless, I'll modify my repeated question to appease your BS: What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution (e.g. the fugitive slave clause prior to the 13th amendment), then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths, then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states, what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states whose constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
"This shows that the Northern states did not have enough power in DC to prevent the federal government from using force against them."
What force did the courts use against the northern states? As the Georgia declaration said (lengthening the quote I already shared above): "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union." If the law stood a dead letter -- and you seem to recognize that fact yourself when you list your excuses for why they didn't enforce, excuses that the courts, in any case, hadn't accepted -- force obviously wasn't being used against them to carry the law (or any other means of effecting the constitution's guarantee) into effect, was it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Again, the notion that the South had insufficient control of DC leading up to secession is absurd. Almost every federal court ruling and law from 1850-1860 went in their favor. They got the lopsided compromise of 1850. They got their ridiculously tyrannical fugitive slave law. They got the Dredd Scott verdict. Everything was going their way up until Lincoln was elected."
I think we agree that the federal courts sided strongly with the South, especially in those issues that had time to reach the Supreme Court, throughout the decade leading up to secession. And I think it's fair to say, as you're suggesting, that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, in the words of the Georgia declaration of causes, "provid[ed] for the complete execution of this duty [from the fugitive slave clause of the constitution] by Federal officers." So I'm not disputing that the Fugitive Slave Act, had it been enforced, would have fulfilled the northern states' constitutional duties, but I am asserting precisely what the southern states asserted (which is basically the same thing you're saying) that the Fugitive Slave Act "stands to-day [at the time of Georgia's secession] a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union." You seem to want to deny that it was a dead letter, but at the same time you defend the North's arguments (due process arguments, etc.) for preventing its enforcement, which I can only take as recognition of the fact that it wasn't being fully enforced (which is why I say you seem to be saying the same thing.) But regardless of whether it was or wasn't being enforced in a way that could accurately be described as "everything was going their [the slave states'] way", as you said, the southern states clearly alleged that it was a dead letter, which is to say that it wasn't going their way at all, even though the letter of the by then decade old law was on their side and the Supreme Court had upheld it.
As for your lame excuse for continuing to ignore my question and challenge to you, how can you say that if there's a constitutional dispute over the relevance and proper application of the due process clause, that that trumps consideration of how to resolve constitutional disputes? That's what my question is about: how to resolve constitutional disputes. Whatever parts of the constitution were involved in that dispute are part of my question.
I would repeat my question again, but you can scroll up. Read it again. You don't seem to be saying the Supreme Court agreed with the northern states' assertion of the due process rights of black people in their states, because you've said, "Almost every federal court ruling and law from 1850-1860 went in their favor." So are you saying that you would have decided the cases relating to fugitive slaves differently and that you reject the Supreme Court's rulings? Okay, you can reject the authority of the Supremes as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional disputes -- I do -- but then what? How should constitutional disputes ultimately be resolved? That's my question. That's what you continue to ignore with your lame excuses.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid “However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.” James Madison
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid I don't quote Madison as any sort of authority and definitely not as a founder I hold in high regard, but I agree with what he said in the quote I shared, and it was an answer to your question of whether your assumption that I disagree with your distortion of the Supreme Court ruling in Texas V. White means I also reject their authority.
But, as an aside about Madison personally, I think what Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Philadelphia convention said is probably true of Madison: "One party [of the delegates at Philadelphia], whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all state governments, and to bring forward one general government over this extensive continent, of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, sir, that there was a considerable number who did not openly avow it, who were, by myself and many others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment, and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished." That description might not be fully as applicable to Madison as to Hamilton, for example, but even Hamilton said lots of good and true things in the process of "covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
In any case, the relevance of the Madison quote to our discussion is its content, not its source, and I hope you've recognized that the content is a full and valid answer to your challenge to me.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And since you've avoided my question and challenge to you so long now that it might be a mild hindrance to scroll up to where I last repeated it (for about the 6th time, not counting the times I pressed you to answer it without repeating it), I'll repeat it again now:
What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I just shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Yes, in response to your comment that, "Almost every federal court ruling... from 1850-1860 went in their favor," I said, "Including any objections to the fugitive slave law northern states brought to the courts on the basis of due process objections. So why do you continue to pretend that's any excuse for hiding from my repeated question which exposes the BS of your argument?" And then I also said, "You tell me where any northern state sued for the right not to have to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law on the basis of due process objections. Unless they did, and until the courts granted any reprieve on that basis, what do any such objections matter?" Now you say, "As such, I'd like to know which specific case you were referring to. Which one covered due process objections?" But I didn't mean to refer to any particular case. Is the end result not true that, as you said, "Almost every federal court ruling... from 1850-1860 went in their favor"? I'm not aware of any exception relating to the Fugitive Slave Act. Are you? Are you suggesting there was an important exception to the "almost every federal court ruling" generalization you made and which I agreed with? Or what are you suggesting?
For my part, not being aware of any contradictory evidence and in agreement with the generalization you yourself made, I'm trusting what Georgia's declaration of causes said that, "The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its [the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850] constitutionality in all of its provisions." So whether any northern states took any constitutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Act to the federal courts or not, it seems that in any case any such objections weren't upheld by the court. In either case, the Fugitive Slave Act was upheld against whatever legal challenges were brought against it. So what's your point?
1
-
@splinter1psi99 You've been feeding yourself way too much Righteous Cause Myth revisionist history -- you need to read more original documents -- if you think the South needed to, let alone did fight to keep slavery.
Here are a couple quotes from Republican presidents for you:
"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. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union." President Calvin Coolidge
"Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall." Eisenhower
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid If they thought they could have they would have. The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided when the leaders of the North refused to even negotiate terms for secession and when they first went to war to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons (and you're doing the same with your dishonest BS, even in your last comment.) But even if I were wrong about their (Grant, etc.) reasons, the fact remains that neither Grant nor anyone else said anything of the sort except as after-the-fact propaganda/historical revisionism. Do you have any stupid excuse for that or are you just going to continue deflecting from that fact?
And I'll repeat another question you've ignored over and over again: What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I just shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You must have missed where I said (emphasis added), "The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided WHEN THE LEADERS OF THE NORTH REFUSED TO EVEN NEGOTIATE TERMS FOR SECESSION AND WHEN THEY FIRST WENT TO WAR to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons."
But, actually, I'll take your answer to my question of "Do you have any stupid excuse for that or are you just going to continue deflecting from that fact?" to be that you prefer false propaganda and historical revisionism to facing the historical facts.
And your argument still depends on inventing revisionist definitions (ones not even commonly used today) of "states rights"? Grow up!
Why does the principle of free government "gall" you so (to use your word)? Besides the almost certain fact that you've been financially dependent on the government practically your entire life and you can't even envision any other kind of existence, Tocqueville described your defense of slavery well when he said, "Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.
By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large."
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid The fact that they felt the need to come up with new justifications after the fact that are totally absent from the justifications provided when the leaders of the North refused to even negotiate terms for secession and WHEN THEY FIRST WENT TO WAR (which wasn't in 1863 either, by the way, even though your quote from 1863 shows that Grant wasn't using the same false pretenses in 1863 as in 1865) to destroy government by the consent of the governed shows that they felt the need to cover up for their original reasons (and you're doing the same with your dishonest BS, even in your last comment, as with the one before.)
And their justifications, as you know but seek to dishonestly distort, were explicitly divorced from any question of slavery (e.g. Crittenden-Johnson resolution), besides the fact that the justifications they did give were completely independent of slavery and would (as with the reasons you give today) apply every bit as much today if any state(s) were to seek to secede today for any reasons over 150 years removed from southern slavery. And, of course, your opposition to government by the consent of the governed today (long, long after early American style slavery is completely gone) is the reason you care so much about the war to end government by the consent of the governed.
Obviously, government by the consent of the governed has never in human history been close to perfect, but you're galled to no end by the very ideal of free government as held up in the Declaration of Independence, principles claimed by the South and denied by the North from the time the first southern state seceded throughout the entire war and still denied by you today.
As the northern abolitionist George Bassett wrote in early 1861: "It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Some kind of nebulous opposition to slavery was used as cover to try to justify the North's cause only later in the war, so yes, it was absolutely a new justification for the war (and false cover even at that, as even multiple northern abolitionists at the time, at least one war-time governor of a northern state, a previous US president from New Hampshire at the time, future US presidents from northern states, foreigners at the time that had been voicing stronger opposition to slavery than Republicans... ) As you full well know but want to hide from, there was nothing about slavery that either side could have conceded that would have avoided the war, and the real reasons for the war, which had nothing to do with slavery, never changed, and I've never seen a shred of evidence to suggest any leader of the Confederacy ever expressed any interest in submitting to DC rule again in exchange for any protections of slavery, nothing about slavery was ever really a point of contention in the war (although, of course, the war had unintended consequences on slavery, similar to the way WWI wasn't at all about monarchy but resulted in the end of monarchy in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, Hungary...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid You say, "The proof is that..." What are you referring to? The proof of what? What particular point are you trying to prove? Like I said, if you want to pursue some deflection to your last losing argument, at least tell me what the point is you want to prove.
In any case, Lincoln (nor the US Congress, nor any leading generals...) from the start of the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861 to Davis' capture in 1865 (or whatever other dates you want to use to mark the beginning and end of the war) never said he would concede anything to the Confederacy if they did anything about slavery, up to and including immediately freeing all the slaves (which the Union didn't even do with its slaves anytime during the war)... and Davis (nor the Confederate Congress nor the governor of any Confederate state nor any leading general...) at no point from the beginning to the end of the war ever said he would return to the union or otherwise back off the South's fight for independence if the North would recognize anything about slavery. If slavery had been a point of contention in the war, you'd be able to quote leaders of at least one of the two sides saying something like that. You can't.
And not only can you not provide evidence of slavery ever having been a point of contention in the war, but you yourself have been unwilling to recognize anything the South could hypothetically have conceded about slavery that could have gotten you to recognize their right to choose their own government, to independence. So everything about slavery, even every possible hypothetical thing, is totally irrelevant to you when it comes to what the war was about.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Staying in the Union meant the end of slavery." Seceding, even if the North had let the South secede in peace, meant the end of slavery, too, and abolitionists had heavily supported separating from the South precisely because they thought separation would bring about the end of slavery sooner than maintaining the union.
But if you want it in the words of slave state leaders instead of abolitionists, you can have that, too: “...the dissolution of the Union was [speaking hypothetically, i.e. would be] the dissolution of slavery... Just as soon as Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio river become the boundary between independent nations, slavery ceases in all the border states. How could we retain our slaves, when they, in one hour, one day, or a week at the furthest, could pass the boundary? Sooner or later, this process would extend itself farther and farther south, rendering slave labor so precarious and uncertain that it could not be depended upon; and consequently a slave would become almost worthless; and thus the institution itself would gradually, but certainly, perish... Slavery in the States would fall with the Union.” Congressman Underwood of Kentucky
The simple fact is that the writing was on the wall for slavery, especially African slavery in the Americas, in 1860. And the forces that brought an end to slavery in Cuba and Brazil in the 1880's would have brought an end to slavery in the States, too, and "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... or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." (abolitionist Lysander Spooner)
"To understand how slavery was the point of contention during the war, you need only answer two simple questions
1. If there was no slavery, would there have been a war?
2. If there was no war, would slavery have ended in all the states in December of 1865?"
I could just as absurdly argue:
To understand how monarchy was the point of contention during WWI, you need only answer two simple questions
1. If there was no monarchy, would there have been a war?
2. If there was no war, would monarchy have ended in all the axis states in 1918?
Same stupid argument. It's just an evasive tactic for avoiding the fact that there's nothing at all about slavery that was a point of contention between the Confederacy and the North that you can name.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid That question again that you previously ignored over and over again:
What recourse do you think states should have if they believe other states have decided to simply trash the constitution? I can only think of two answers. I think if states don't want to honor the terms of the constitution, then they should secede. If other states are simply going to dishonor their constitutional oaths (at least according to the allegations of the other states), then (1) the states on the losing end of that alleged constitutional abuse can implore them to honor their commitment and if those other states still don't act honorably (according to the states making the allegations), then the only choices left to them are to declare the contract broken and the union dissolved (at least between them and the offending states) or they could choose to let it slide and continue in union with the allegedly dishonorable states; or (2) the other position, which I wouldn't support at all, but it's the only other answer I've heard, is that the federal government could somehow force compliance on the allegedly dishonorable states, but even if you think the federal government should use force to settle constitutional disputes between states (contradicting the Madison quote I shared), what recourse do you think states should have if the allegedly dishonorable states have enough power in DC to prevent force from being used against them (sufficient to satisfy the demands of the states alleging constitutional neglect)? What then? Do you think there should be no recourse for the states alleging their constitutional rights have been abused, unless they can get enough power in DC to be able to use force against the dishonorable states?
Do you think majorities in DC (even if because of electoral college rules and such things they don't even represent a majority of the electorate, not even to the very limited extent that politicians do actually represent their voters) should have any effective checks on their abuse of the constitution? Or should a majority in DC be able to disregard he constitution with impunity, so long as it can maintain a majority in DC?
1
-
1
-
1