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
20
Next
...
All

@brucebostick2521 Why do you want me to ask Davis and Stephens? How would Davis and Stephens have known you'd be so stupid and so blind to facts and reason that you must be a school teacher?
1
@brucebostick2521 I'll repeat the questions/challenges you've ignored because they expose the nonsense of the myths your position is built on. "ALL, every one, was over aspects of slavery. 'states rts' were NEVER part of these." What do you mean by "aspects of slavery"? And are you trying to suggest that everything done in opposition to slavery was justified, even government officials refusing to honor the constitution in order to protect men that had murdered random Southerners? And what do you mean by "states rights"? By what definition of "states rights" was the return of fugitive slaves not a "states right"? 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."
1
@unnamedenemy9 What about slavery, you lying apologist for coerced union (i.e. slavery)? Certainly none of the declarations of causes of secession support the revisionist myth that the southern states seceded to protect against some constitutionally legitimate threat to the legal right of the southern states to continue practicing slavery. You can't even say what that threat would have been, let alone find any support for whatever that revisionist myth might be.
1
@tpxchallenger You said, "Foreign nations made treaties with tje US, not with individual states." The 1783 Treaty of Paris in which England recognized the independence of the States declared, "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
1
@TheStapleGunKid "as they had achieved the means to put it in course of ultimate extinction by getting Lincoln elected president, which is of course exactly why [deflect back to the South...]" Even if that were true (which it isn't, but never mind that), that doesn't make anything about slavery, long-term or otherwise, the motive of the North. As Luis said, when you go to war you need to consider the motivating factor of both sides. But keep on deflecting from why Northern armies were in the South (apart from which there wouldn't have been a war.)
1
@Guti3737 "He ultimately wanted peace and the separation of powers." The constitution separated powers between the states and the federal government. Lincoln wanted total domination of the government over the people, which is why he went to war to destroy that separation of powers. If a slave master allows his slave to decide which end of the row of cotton to begin picking, that's not a separation of powers.
1
@TheStapleGunKid "...didn't have to be a military objective for the North, because it was a political objective..." And all of the Repulicans' crony capitalist agenda (tariffs, subsidies, banking manipulation...) was a political objective, too, and that agenda posed more of a threat to the slave economy than anything else Republicans had done or threatened to do, particularly relative to an independent Confederacy. And insofar as political objectives explain military objectives and in turn explain the North's motivations in the war, Republican leaders were much more motivated by their crony capitalist agenda than anything directly or indirectly having to to with slaves, and their leading interest in slaves was a racist interest in keeping them (together with free blacks) out of the North and the territories they wanted to incorporate into the North.
1
@TheStapleGunKid Even if that were true (which it isn't, but never mind that), that doesn't make anything about slavery, long-term or otherwise, the motive of the North. As Luis said, when you go to war you need to consider the motivating factor of both sides. But keep on deflecting from why Northern armies were in the South (apart from which there wouldn't have been a war.)
1
@TheStapleGunKid They were not in the South because of anything about slavery, and especially not what you said in your previous post about trying to limit where slaves could be taken. They were in the South, as Lincoln said, "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government [sic] and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force..." Nothing at all about slavery there, and those were indeed the North's motives: maintaining political control and the force necessary to maintain that control over the South and using that control to support Republicans' crony capitalist agenda. And that was precisely what was at stake in the war (objectively, apart from each sides' motivations), too.
1
Sure, the southern states wanted to keep slaves, but it's an historically baseless myth that the North wasn't willing to let them. That Righteous Cause Myth wasn't at all what the war was about.
1
@TheStapleGunKid So do you think Cobb's assessment of what the Republicans were going to do was accurate or not?
1
@TheStapleGunKid And, of course, it's a mighty poor justification for the North's part in the war if you're arguing that Republicans were actually going to trash the constitution and the rule of law but were just telling all sorts of lies to hide the fact. And ultimately it doesn't really matter whether Southerners believed that Republicans were going to respect the Constitution (including the fugitive slave clause, etc.) or trash it. As Joshua Blanchard wrote in The Liberator, the abolitionist newspaper, forcible reunion would mean the "abandonment of our claim to be a government of the people... 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 exultation of tyrants, the disgrace of our land, the despair of all the friends of freedom in the world."
1
@TheStapleGunKid And what are you pretending denying the southern states the right to self-government had to do with seeing "the spread of slavery arrested"?
1
@TheStapleGunKid You didn't say Republicans were going to trash the constitution and the rule of law, but you quoted Cobb saying so. As you said, "You can say that all you want, but the Confederate leaders said otherwise," and the quote came from you.
1
@TheStapleGunKid tl;dr If you think you can give a direct, succinct answer to my question, do so in your own words. I realize obfuscation is your game, but here again is the question: And what are you pretending denying the southern states the right to self-government had to do with seeing "the spread of slavery arrested"?
1
@TheStapleGunKid You should try actually reading the quotes you share.
1
@TheStapleGunKid If you think you can give a direct, succinct answer to my question, do so in your own words. I realize obfuscation is your game, but here again is the question: And what are you pretending denying the southern states the right to self-government had to do with seeing "the spread of slavery arrested"?
1
Obviously the 2nd amendment was about protecting the right of government agents to possess firearms. Consider all the countries in the world that have disarmed or threatened to disarm their militaries! There was clearly a need to protect against that possible abuse with a constitutional amendment.
1
@MrHejke > The South, on the other hand, seceded to protect its state's right, of which, sadly, upholding the institution of slavery was a key element. "Seceded to protect... upholding the institution of slavery" from what??? What are you trying to suggest seceding was intended to protect slavery from? What are you trying to suggest the seceding states thought would have happened to slavery if they hadn't seceded that seceding was intended to protect against? Just tell me as clearly and succinctly as you can in your own words. > The North started this war to keep the Union intact under a strong federal government. It's ridiculous to call any relationship in which the members are held in the relationship by violence and threats of violence a "union." If you're threatening to beat your partners in union (or actually violently beating them), you're destroying consent as the basis of your relationship, and any relationship not based on continuing consent isn't really a union, so you're doing the opposite of keeping the union intact. As one abolitionist said on the eve of the war, "...the doctrine of coercion... is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolution. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a confederacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and common attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military force. "...it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government—the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but in the affections of the people. Numbers in our midst... are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreciate the true theory of the American system. Their is the old European, and not the American, idea of government. ... "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
How are you imagining the legal right of slave states to own slaves was threatened? 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."
1
Anyone who's honest with himself knows the North wasn't challenging the southern states' right to keep slavery... that's a fact u can't change. And you can't have a war over something that one side wants to keep and the other side isn't willing to contest.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Expand? The southern states asserted rights under the constitution, yes, and seceded because the northern states weren't respecting the rule of law and the terms of the constitution, yes, but once they seceded they sought nothing but the most American right of being able to choose their own government: Confederate General Cleburne said, "…slavery is... merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties... the North... They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed... We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and ONLY ASK TO BE LEFT ALONE."
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So what would you accept as evidence? You don't accept what Southerners say or Northerners... you ridicule what impartial foreigners said at the time... it seems like you have excuses for rejecting every category of historical evidence there is. I'll tell you what I'd accept as evidence of your assertion: either (a) any Southern politician saying that the Confederate states would go to war unless the North granted a demand for whatever Union territory beyond the southern states' own borders you want to pretend the war was over, or (b) any Northern politician explaining the conditions under which the North would allow the South to simply "be left alone" as General Cleburne said. If that wasn't what the South actually wanted, there would surely be evidence of Northerners saying they would grant that if the South would relinquish its claim to whatever other territory beyond the South's borders that you're pretending the southern states wanted to take.
1
@rundstedt1004 As I've already told you, I don't read any of your comments. Why do you keep replying to me and tagging me? (That's a rhetorical question. No need to answer, because I won't read your response, just like I haven't read the comments where I see you've just tagged me.) Obviously you can comment in any thread you want, but there's no point in tagging me.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So where in any of the declarations of causes do you see evidence that the seceding states were demanding (not prior to secession while still asserting their rights as members of the union but after declaring their independence and as members of the newly formed confederacy) anything of the union other than what General Cleburne said, namely the right to be left alone? Let me guess, you have no answer but another baseless ad hominem attack.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks How does the southern states' strong attachment to slavery show that when they seceded they were demanding anything from the Union other than the right to be left alone? Certainly they were hypocrites, not giving slaves the same right to be left alone that they demanded of the Union, but that doesn't change the fact that all they were demanding of the Union and what the Union fought to deny them was simply their right to be left alone.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks They certainly identified with slavery. Where is the contradiction between identifying with slavery and demanding nothing from the Union but to be left alone? (There's hypocrisy in demanding to be left alone but not allowing their slaves to be left alone, but why do you think they weren't simply hypocrites?) And what is secession other than an assertion of a people of the right to govern themselves, i.e. to be left alone?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Why do you share a quote saying they identified with slavery and put "thoroughly identified" in bold print if you're going to say in your next comment that "they did not 'identify with'... slavery"? And what are you imagining would be the difference between seceding and demanding to be left alone? Sure, they had reasons for wanting to be left alone/for seceding, but they were demanding nothing other than to be left alone. As for their reasons for wanting to be left alone, yes, they objected to the northern states trashing the rule of law and disregarding the constitution's protections of slavery and the slave states, for example, the constitutional promise to deliver up fugitive slaves. What do you think the northern states should have done about the constitution's fugitive slave clause (if, hypothetically, they had actually had any commitment to the abolitionist cause)?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks That makes sense. Someone that thoroughly identifies with a thing couldn't be said to identify with that thing. And what are you imagining would be the difference between seceding and demanding to be left alone? Sure, they had reasons for wanting to be left alone/for seceding, but they were demanding nothing other than to be left alone. As for their reasons for wanting to be left alone, yes, they objected to the northern states trashing the rule of law and disregarding the constitution's protections of slavery and the slave states, for example, the constitutional promise to deliver up fugitive slaves. What do you think the northern states should have done about the constitution's fugitive slave clause (if, hypothetically, they had actually had any commitment to the abolitionist cause)?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks You know what they said in their declarations of causes of secession, what was the central point of those declarations? That they were seceding, i.e. that they wanted to be left alone. If there were a difference between demanding to be left alone and declaring independence, you could say what it is, but obviously you can't.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Still waiting to hear what you think the difference is between seceding and wanting to be left alone. I won't hold my breath. And as for mentioning slavery, I already recognized that they objected to the northern states trashing the rule of law and disregarding the constitution's protections of slavery, for example, the constitutional promise to deliver up fugitive slaves. What do you think the northern states should have done about the constitution's fugitive slave clause (if, hypothetically, they had actually had any commitment to the abolitionist cause)?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So you still can't explain what the difference is between seceding and wanting to be left alone? And you still won't say what you think the northern states should have done about the constitution's fugitive slave clause (if, hypothetically, they had actually had any commitment ot the abolitionist cause)?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So according to RP HatesBlacks, if you want to be left alone, you have to first accept however the political party that controls DC wants to govern you, even if what that party wants to do is something the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional. I guess you also believe that if a slave wants to be left alone, he doesn't run away, use any force in resisting his reenslavement, or seek anyone else to recognize his freedom. Because you think that would be the opposite of being left alone LOLOLOLOL.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So you're back to alleging that if you want to be left alone, you have to first accept however the political party that controls DC wants to govern you, even if what that party wants to do is something the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional? If everyone that defended the South's right to secede was pro-slavery, why did men that were outspoken abolitionists before and throughout the war defend the South's right to secede? Obviously because your argument is BS.
1
Do you call refusing to extradite terrorists that murdered random Southerners (that weren't even slave owners, one of which was even a free black man) in violation of the constitution's extradition clause a "derivate of slavery"? Whether you do or don't, it certainly isn't defensible, just like the Republican-led North's actions in general.
1
@jaranarm Texas' declaration of causes of secession, for example, said, "They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."
1
@jaranarm Barclay Coppock, for example, only escaped to Canada after the governor of Ohio refused to extradite him, and after escaping to Canada he moved to Iowa where the governor of Iowa also refused to extradite him on a technicality, allowing him to escape to Canada again before the technicality in the paperwork was corrected. But the Union cause was tightly enough linked to such terrorism that not only did he not have to face justice for his crimes in any jurisdiction but he was even made a member of the Union army.
1
@jaranarm "there was no nationwide epidemic" The facts are exactly as I've said, but no, not nationwide. Only in those states with large numbers of Republicans was there an epidemic of fostering terrorism, supporting terrorism, celebrating terrorism... Was there an epidemic of violating the constitution's extradition clause in order to protect fugitive terrorists from justice? If you had a political partner or any other kind of partner, how many terrorists that had tried to murder you would your partner have to protect in violation of your partnership agreement before you'd call the partnership broken? Would you wait for an "epidemic" of violating your partnership agreement in protection of murderous terrorism against you? We're talking about murderous terrorism here. "overly exaggerated the incident for their rabid propaganda campaign to dissolve the country"? If you're inciting and supporting and celebrating terrorism against the other states of the union, who is it that's rabidly trying to dissolve the union?
1
@jaranarm "Almost all the other men involved were brought to justice yet you think the Extradition Clause wasn't obeyed." Almost all the other men involved were brought to justice only because they never escaped to northern states. Not one of the men that initially escaped to a northern state was brought to justice.
1
@jimeagle6636 You're exaggerating even what the first group of states said. What do you think secession did for slavery? The Republican-led North wasn't doing or threatening to do anything that seceding protected against. If you enter into a partnership with someone to run a bbq business, and your part of the deal is to cook the bbq, and your partner's part of the deal is to raise the hogs for you to bbq, and your partner isn't holding up his end of the deal, it would be misleading and wrong to say you quit the partnership "for hogs," especially if you're not able to replace your partner (as was the case with the fugitive slave clause -- the seceding states simply chose to freely abandon any efforts to get fugitive slaves back from the northern states.)
1
@manilajohn0182 That sounds like a definite no to the question of whether you can explain and make any sense of your claim about seceding to "preserve slavery." And as to the second point, are you imagining whatever truth there is in anything you said contradicts the fact that secession clearly wasn't intended to protect slaveholding rights in Kansas or any other place that had been disputed within the union. If anything you said has any relevance to the question of what the war was about -- it doesn't -- then it would have to relate to a dispute between the Union and the Confederacy. There was no dispute relating to any aspect of slavery between the Union and the Confederacy that even possibly could have led either side to go to war. And as to Fort Sumter, what possible relevance do you think the fact you cited has to this discussion or anything I said on the point?
1
No mention there of an abolition amendment or any other threat to slaveholding rights that independence offered any prospect of protecting against! Go ahead, read the whole declaration. Try to find any threat to slavery that the Confederacy could have even indirectly been fighting to prevent by fighting for its independence!
1
@kryzzan7039 I don't read Rundstedt's comments any more, because I'm fully convinced that he's knowingly and intentionally lying and distorting the historical facts, and it's a complete waste of time to engage with him, but in case you had the misfortune of reading his response to me and were confused enough to think he made any valid counterargument, let me know in your own words, and I'll dispel whatever counterargument you may be tempted to believe.
1
Thomas Jefferson: "I should propose a declaration or Resolution by their legislatures on this plan... determined... to sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, & in which alone we see liberty, safety & happiness."
1
@watching7721 And physically beating your partner is called "preserving the union."
1
@Ben00000 Don't you just generally refer to any instance of physically beating your partner into submission as "preserving the union"?
1
@Ben00000 But in any case you believe beating your partners into submission when "necessary" is a good thing, worthy a nice sounding euphemism like "preserving the union."
1
@Ben00000 "Bud, nobody replies to you" Says the guy that not only has replied to me 3 times in this thread alone and countless times in other thread but who even opened another account to post comments impersonating me.
1
@TheoHawk316 Point out what about slavery the Republican-led North was supposedly going to do that seceding offered any hope of protecting against. None of you Righteous Cause Myth apologists can seem to do that.
1
What were none of those things about? The North abolishing slavery in the South. What were none of those things about? Anything that was at stake in the war. What were most of those things about? Gaining partisan advantages over DC for purposes unrelated to slavery.
1

Previous
20
Next
...
All