Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woodrowcall3158 > the confederacy wasn’t some innocent house wife
By all means, yes, please, fill in the important details that you think justify a man physically beating a woman in order to deny her right to split up with him and maintain a relationship! Tell me the circumstances which you think justify maintaining a union on the basis of anything other than continued voluntary consent!
Yes, the woman wasn't morally pure/sinless, that's for sure. So is your point that if your girlfriend does things that are immoral, that that gives you the right to physically beat her back into a relationship if she decides to split up with you? Keep in mind, the evil things your girlfriend was doing weren't against the law at the time and she had been doing these things since before you formed your relationship -- in fact you had been doing the same things yourself (just not to the extent she was) when you first formed your relationship, and you hadn't altogether quit doing them yourself at the point you denied her right to split up with you.
If after entering your relationship you come to decide that the things your girlfriend is continuing to do are morally intolerable and you have no realistic hope of getting a law passed to make those things illegal -- and if the law, in fact, requires you to help your girlfriend do the immoral things she's doing so long as you're in a relationship with her (most notably, the fugitive slave clause), shouldn't you want to let her break up with you? Shouldn't you actually break up with her? But instead you feel justified in using violence and threats of violence to maintain that relationship, all while your president declares that he will "cheerfully" uphold "this provision [the legal requirement to help your girlfriend do the immoral things she's doing] as much as to any other"?
> our collective resources
> my weapons... my forts
Why are the weapons and forts "yours" but the resources used to unjustly subjugate people "collective resources"? Weren't those weapons and forts which, after all, were on her property in her house? (Although you and your "wife" had formed a relationship, you had never cohabited, but had continued to live in separate houses on separate properties.) If you had felt that an unfair share of the weapons and forts built with your collective resources had wound up on your wife's property you could have sought different divorce terms, but you denied your wife's right to any share at all of the forts built with your collective resources, and refused even to sell those weapons and forts to your "wife," and instead you insisted on maintaining your own armed forces in your wife's house and maintaining control over the entrance to your wife's house after she told you she was done with the relationship. This is the model of union you're defending, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some of Lincoln's words ring true today: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
Or conversely, as one abolitionist wrote in The Liberator on the eve of the war, forcible reunion would mean the “abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people.... 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Votrae > generally countries aren't into losing land.
Indeed, as the abolitionist Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator in March of 1861, "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."
> the North receiving escaped Southern slaves, combined with the limitation on new slavery territories during the expansion West.
Yes, the North refusing to abide by the constitution or the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court was a big part of why the first wave of southern states seceded, but the war unambiguously wasn't fought to force the northern states to fulfill their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slave or to guarantee the rights of slaveholders in Kansas or any of the other formerly disputed territories.
Like I said to start with there wasn't anything either side fought (as in waged war) to get the other side to do or concede with regards to slavery, and you still haven't thought of anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Is your argument really so weak that you have to make what can only be an intentionally dishonest argument and pretend that the bloodiest war in American history didn't in any way alter the trajectory of anything else? Apparently so.
As one famous abolitionist said after the war, "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,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, 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
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Whatever reason the Union got rid of slavery is beside the point. The point is they got rid of it..."
Firstly, the Union, as distinct from the Confederacy, didn't get rid of it. That Union (as in the states that fought on the side of the Union) could have gotten rid of slavery, but they never did. Like you said, "It wasn't the EP that abolished slavery in America, it was the 13th amendment, which wasn't a war measure." And the 13th amendment was only ratified because multiple former Confederate states voted for it.
Secondly, the reason the United States got rid of slavery isn't beside the point. But you're going to go on pretending that the War of Northern Aggression didn't alter the trajectory of abolition, even while you play word games saying, did "I ever at any time claimed the Civil War didn't alter the trajectory of anything else? Of course I never said any such thing, so you had to make it up out of thin air." And yet you continue making your arguments that depend on the assumption that the War of Northern Aggression didn't alter the trajectory of anything else.
"apparently not famous enough for you to know his name"
After all this time are you still so ignorant of what the most famous abolitionists had to say that you can't recognize that quote? Others might not know, but I surely shouldn't have to name him for your sake, not unless you're willfully ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronpaulhatesblacks4192 Obviously you're the one that's never read them, because they do. But as was said in the Richmond Examiner in 1864, "Yet neither tariffs nor slavery, nor both together, could ever have been truly called the cause of the secession and the war. We refuse to accept for a cause any thing… than that truly announced, namely, the sovereign independence of our States. This, indeed, includes both those minor questions, as well as many others yet graver and higher. It includes full power to regulate our trade for our own profit, and also complete jurisdiction over our own social and domestic institutions; but it further involves all the nobler attributes of national, and even of individual life and character."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1