Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeffrey-hu2gb > the failed articles of confederation
They didn't fail. As Patrick Henry said in the ratification debates on the constitution, "Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig—tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances." If you want to see a failure look to the war that resulted from the constitution. That's a failure.
> the confederate government also did similar things in what Lincoln did that were deemed unconstitutional
Every government does things that will be deemed unconstitutional, but the difference is what happens when the people of a whole state deem the constitutional compact broken. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Those are the foundations of freedom that Lincoln led the North in destroying (and if you want to blame Buchanan for starting the North down the path, that's fine by me.)
1
-
1
-
@Jeffrey-hu2gb Did you not see my previous comment. Your response seems to suggest you didn't.
Here it is again:
> the failed articles of confederation
They didn't fail. As Patrick Henry said in the ratification debates on the constitution, "Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig—tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances." If you want to see a failure look to the war that resulted from the constitution. That's a failure.
> the confederate government also did similar things in what Lincoln did that were deemed unconstitutional
Every government does things that will be deemed unconstitutional, but the difference is what happens when the people of a whole state deem the constitutional compact broken. As Thomas Jefferson said, " the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Those are the foundations of freedom that Lincoln led the North in destroying (and if you want to blame Buchanan for starting the North down the path, that's fine by me.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "The fact of the matter is Benning, Brown and the other Confederate leaders did full well believe what they said, and they were 100% right. As more and more free states were added to the Union, the slave states would face increasing pressure to abolish slavery..."
Obviously you don't believe what they said would happen would have happened either, because that's not what Brown said.
Politicians exaggerate the significance and consequences of their opponents' actions all the time. What are you saying? That politicians never exaggerate, particularly when talking about their political adversaries? Politicians from very Democratic states right now are talking about the draft Supreme Court opinion being a threat to abortion rights in their states.
And what Benning said in the quote you just shared was more or less true. If the North had respected the constitution, not supported anti-Southern terrorism, and generally been a good and upright neighbor, anti-slavery would have spread, probably one state at a time, and then altogether at the end, much like it did in Brazil. And the same thing would basically have happened if the North had peacefully negotiated secession. What are you pretending? That slavery would have lasted forever in the South if the North had negotiated a peaceful secession?
"Just 5 Union states ever ratified it..."
How many Union states ratified it had nothing to do with my point. But your argument for why northern states wouldn't have ratified it is absurdly dishonest. You obviously can't make an honest argument. You don't seem like a straight up liar, which means it's amazingly pathetic what you force yourself to believe for the sake of worshiping your god, DC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "you seem to deny what he said about slavery being "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution," and the Confederacy being the first government in the history of the world founded specifically for preserving slavery."
Of course, I deny it, because that's not what he said. He didn't say slavery was the cause. He said constitutional disputes and the agitations that arose from them were the cause. And it's flat earth, Holocaust denying crazy and 1984 level dishonest to suggest that Stephens was talking about a constitutionally legitimate threat of abolition as the cause of secession. And he didn't say anything about "preserving slavery" either. That's nothing but revisionist propaganda.
"Stephens have personally believe that, but he was soon proven spectacularly wrong."
Wrong? He said slavery would be more secure if the southern states remained in the Union. They seceded and slavery was abolished sooner than anyone imagined it would have been if the southern states hadn't seceded. Wrong?
"And no, Benning and Brown's state didn't deny slavery was their reason for secession."
What are you even talking about? What does it even mean for slavery to be a reason for secession? What precisely would you have expected them to deny? If one section of a union proves to another section of the union that it's going to trash the rule of law, and economically exploit the other section, and support murderous terrorism against them because they hate them, doing so under anti-slavery pretenses and claiming the political and economic advantages to their section are insignificant, would you summarize all that as "slavery"? If you're willing to be that dishonestly and misleadingly vague, then the problem isn't precisely that you're wrong but that you're being dishonestly and misleadingly vague.
"they refused to accept the Union plan to ban on its expansion."
They believed the constitution guaranteed that right, and the Supreme Court had already decisively ruled on the question, confirming their belief. What else might they have done, given the beliefs they held? Do you have a point?
"their causes of complaint were 'in reference to the subject of African slavery'"
So what? Is trashing the constitution justified if it's "in reference to" slavery? Is murderous terrorism justified if it's "in reference to" slavery? Is economic exploitation justified if it's "in reference"? Ending government by the consent of the governed? Hugely destructive and deadly wars of subjugation?
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "He said of slavery: 'This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.'"
No, he didn't. That's a lie.
"The cause of the Confederacy..."
That's just a BS propaganda framework. What's the "cause" of the United States today? What are you trying to say? That the Confederacy stood for one thing and one thing only? Of course, that's exactly how ridiculous your argument is. And the "cause" that's really significant is the cause that the North was challenging, namely the southern states' self-govermment. Lincoln himself said whatever he did about slavery was all about denying the southern states their right to choose their own government.
"He said the Union wanted to keep Texas to benefit from its slavery"
Republicans were absolutely "disinclined" as Stephens said to give up the benefits of slavery, but that certainly doesn't mean they were inclined to let the southern states secede in peace, and after a couple years of extremely costly war with successful subjugation still uncertain, they were willing to let go of some things they had been disinclined to give up. As one Massachusetts abolitionist explained, "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."
Do you have any reason at all to doubt what Spooner said?
"The point is George's motivation for secession was based around a desire to preserve and expand slavery."
Except, as even Lincoln said, secession didn't "preserve" slavery against the leading grievances of the southern states (fugitive slaves not being returned from northern states and others). Nor was there any expansion involved in or even promised by secession. So your argument is complete BS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dstblj5222 The constitution didn't have to be "unratified" any more than the Articles of Confederation had to be "unratified." The states wanting a new government for themselves just needed to choose a new government for themselves, just like happened with the 11 states that initially ratified the constitution in 1787-8 and the 11 states that ratified the Confederate constitution in 1861.
What do you think was said in the Federalist Papers to deny the right of states to do precisely what the authors of the Federalist Papers were advocating at the time (i.e. the states forming a new government on their own authority)?
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." Madison, Federalist #39
1
-
@dstblj5222 "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." Madison
"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." Madison
"to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Jefferson
1
-
@SovereignStatesman What does legality ultimately matter, particularly when, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions, "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress"?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” --Lysander Spooner
“Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.” Address of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 1787
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snidelywhiplash Is your "leaves no doubt" understanding of the supremacy clause compatible with what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798?
Jefferson: "Resolved that the several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style & title of a Constitution for the US. and of Amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are unauthoritative, void, & of no force. that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, it’s co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made it’s discretion, & not the constitution the measure of it’s powers: but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode & measure of redress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brucebostick2521 Of course, you didn't answer a single one of my questions, my challenges to you, in my last comment, because your position depends on vague lies that can't be explained or exposed.
"THAT, and much further expanded upon here, is what they, as a new govt, fought for!"
You think that's what the North was challenging? No, you don't, but why are you pushing that lie? The fight between the North and South was about what the North and South couldn't agree about, couldn't even agree to disagree about. That's what every fight is about: what the sides can't agree about and can't agree to disagree about.
“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.” -Lincoln
Why do you feel the need to hide from the basic reality that wars are about what the two sides can't agree about and can't agree to disagree about? Because you're just like those degraded slaves that the abolitionist George Bassett described on the eve of the war, the kind of slaves that defended slavery: "But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole fabric of American Liberty falls by the same stroke. Then not one star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. We are no longer a voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us conquered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of the North may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded of slaves—yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection still."
"While slaveholders yelled about their "rights," under their beloved "Fugitive Slave Law," they, to a man, strongly supported govt support for slavers violently going north, into states that outlawed human slavery, seized African Americans while committing violence agst those opposing that vile institution, drug them back to slavery in the south."
In other words, they supported the constitution: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."
And your position is obvious: if the party that you favor takes control of DC you want it to trash the rule of law, trash the constitution to advance its agenda, to use all power it can seize, the constitution be damned, to destroy its political opponents. That's your idea of democracy and of freedom and that of other degraded slaves like you. According to you, destroying the constitution and the rule of law and the democratic process is "saving our nation."
As to the speech you referenced of Alexander Stephens, Stephens in that speech did indeed make it perfectly clear what was really at stake and what caused the war: "...the present administration of the United States the republican party... 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."
1
-
1
-
1