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
4
Next
...
All

@Rundstedt1 Quoting Georgia's official declaration of causes of secession can hardly make me a liar, and, as you probably already know, I could quote much more extensive parts of that document dealing with the ways the northern states had abused the federal government to gain support for northern industry and special interests. Anti-slavery sentiment was the pretext, as that declaration shows, but that doesn't mean the southern states weren't suffering for it. The Republican anti-slavery position was indeed enough of a pretext for their real motives that it mostly wasn't doing or promising to do southern slaves any good, but things like stirring up terrorist attacks against random southern civilians (even murdering a free black Virginian for merely minding his own business) and then northern governors refusing to extradite the escaped perpetrators to serve justice was entirely real, so although the anti-slavery position was overwhelmingly just a pretext for the Republicans, it certainly had real consequences for the South. As for the list you shared, I wasn't familiar with it, but it's very consistent with the general position of the Deep South states prior to secession, so nothing unexpected. Of course, Georgia abandoned all the claims in your list when they opted to secede, so the more significant product of the secession convention was the one I quoted. What do you think that list proves anyway? How does it contradict anything I said?
1
@Rundstedt1 "protect slavery" against what? The North made it far more clear (like pass an irrevocable constitutional amendment level of clear) that they weren't fighting against slavery, so tell us what this threat was that the seceding states were protecting slavery against and which you apparently think was justified. Do you believe (as it seems you do) that trashing the rule of law, the Constitution, and the democratic process is the right way to make political changes once you've decided your political opponents are deplorable?
1
@Rundstedt1 Whether the Republican party intended to ultimately bring about the end of slavery as irrelevant to the question of the justice of the causes of the North and South in their conflict as the question of whether Hitler intended to end communism is irrelevant to the question of the justice of Hitler's and the USSR's causes in WWII. One point from the above quote that I have no trouble with at all, by the way, is calling a politician a "traitor both to principle and duty." That's the norm, and while pro-choice people today talk about what Republicans would do to women's rights in much the same terms as the above quote, the reality is that even when the Republicans recently controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, and a majority of Supreme Court justices were also appointed by Republicans, not only was abortion not outlawed, but nothing really changed at all. The Republicans, much like the Republicans that voted for the Corwin amendment, even continued to vote for budgets that included funding for Planned Parenthood. That's not to say that slavery wasn't on a course to extinction, but it was on a course to extinction that didn't depend on the Republicans or holier-than-thou Yankees ruling over deplorable Southerners or on union/secession. And just as you'll find no more than "a few dull speeches in favor of" corporate tax cuts in the midst of an abundance of pro-life speeches, rallies, advertisements, etc., that's no proof that the Republican party is actually more committed to the pro-life cause than to corporate tax cuts. (I may be over-simplifying current issues somewhat, but hopefully you get my point regardless.) So while whether the Republican party intended to ultimately bring about the end of slavery is really irrelevant to the questions of whether the South had a right to secede and whether the North was justified in going to war (let alone burning down farmsteads, cities, etc.) to crush the secession, there are nonetheless important questions we can ask about how things like slavery ought to be done away with in a union of states. I'm guessing you don't believe in the anti-abortion cause, but obviously there are people that do, so besides whatever objections you may or may not have to their cause (or substitute a cause in which you do strongly believe), would you object to the political tactics of overtaking a federal armory in a pro-abortion state and murdering random civilians in that state? Or of allowing such terrorists to organize in anti-abortion states or of protecting escaped perpetrators of such attacks from having to serve justice in pro-abortion states? Would you object to a US president banning abortion in Puerto Rico by executive order in defiance of Roe v Wade? Whether you hide from it or not, these are the questions that really matter; these are the sorts of questions that are highly relevant today; and these are the principles that you're really defending.
1
@Rundstedt1 That Mill quote seems to reveal your position very well: the war was all about holier-than-thou Yankees ruling over deplorable Southerners, because one day in the unforeseeable future they were going to save the slaves, even though all they were doing in the present, particularly Republicans with political power, was trashing the Constitution, the rule of law, the principles of free government, and the democratic process. Not much has changed, has it?
1
@Rundstedt1 I don't know why Al Mackey is, but here's what Lincoln said about the principles in the Declaration of Independence in 1848: "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."
1
@Rundstedt1 If the right to self-government is replaced by the right to participate in elections, does that mean you think a country with a minority of antebellum style slaves could give those slaves the right to vote, and so long as the majority voted for laws that would keep them in slavery, their rights would be satisfied by allowing them to vote? If not, why not?
1
@Ben00000 (aka the user that impersonates me because lies are all he has) You quoted Texas saying: "They demand the abolition of negro slavery..." Demand the abolition of slavery or what? What were they going to do if Texas didn't abolish slavery? The same document you quoted goes on to explain: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance... And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them..." In other words, submit to our wishes or we'll use our power in DC to exploit you (not that the North's robber barons and their tools in the Republican party weren't going to exploit them regardless; as Alexander Stephens more accurately discerned, "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.") If you want a one-word summary of what was at stake in the war and why the southern states couldn't secede in peace, tariffs is it.
1
@Ben00000 "Maybe you can include the full quote in your next comment, rather than cutting it off at the part that proves the rest of your comment wrong LOL." Good luck explaining that (not that I don't know you well enough to know that you're never going to even try to explain anything.)
1
@Ben00000 I don't need to repeat a full quote you've already quoted to read it and neither does anyone else. But, like I said, I know you well enough to know that you're never going to even try to explain your assertions.
1
@Ben00000 "Then why did you quote the partial quote?" Because that was the part relevant to my question to you, the part that's answered by all the parts of Texas' declaration that you're forced to ignore. If there's any relevance to the part of the quote I didn't repeat, you could explain what that is and how it's relevant and how it contradicts anything I've said, but of course, you can't and you never will.
1
@Ben00000 If it answered my questions challenging your nonsense you could explain how, but of course you never even try to explain anything because your arguments are inexplicable nonsense. The questions again: Demand the abolition of slavery or what? What were they going to do if Texas didn't abolish slavery? And the answers again: The same document you quoted goes on to explain: "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance... And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them..." In other words, submit to our wishes or we'll use our power in DC to exploit you (not that the North's robber barons and their tools in the Republican party weren't going to exploit them regardless; as Alexander Stephens more accurately discerned, "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.") If you want a one-word summary of what was at stake in the war and why the southern states couldn't secede in peace, tariffs is it.
1
@Ben00000 Whatever you want to quote is there for anyone reading this thread to see. I know what it says. To the extent you're willing to read and think, you can see what it says. If it disproved anything I've said or answered any of the questions I've challenged you with, you could explain how it did so. You can't explain anything, because your position is pure inexplicable nonsense.
1
@Ben00000 "So it was a conscious decision to omit the last part" The part that's irrelevant to the question of what "demand" meant, yes I omitted that part when I copied part of what you quoted. If it has any relevance to any point in dispute here explain it. I won't hold my breath.
1
@Ben00000 You keep saying that, but you still haven't even begun to explain how that could be. You don't because you can't.
1
@pulpficti Fought to save the union? Can you violently assault your partner to "save the union" with her? If you're violently assaulting her you're destroying the union (or further guaranteeing the destruction of an already wrecked union), not saving it.
1
@pulpficti First of all, I don't care who "started the war." What does it matter? Do you think if Americans fired first at Bunker Hill that that nullifies Americans' right to independence and gives England a right to violently subjugate and rule over all the American people forever? You don't bother trying to make any sense of your arguments, do you? Secondly, if South Korea decided it could provide for its own defense and no longer wanted American military forces in Korea, requested negotiations for the withdrawal of American military forces from Korea, but the US refused to negotiate and asserted a right to maintain military bases in Korea forever, and Korea finally forcibly evicted US military forces from Korea (but without killing a single American), and the US then responded by invading and subjugating all of South Korea in order to rule over all of South Korea forever, would you likewise lay all the blame for the US invasion of Korea and the war on Korea?
1
Secede to maintain slavery??? As if they couldn't have maintained slavery without seceding (like the slave states that fought on the side of the Union)?
1
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
So what constitutional rights do you think the South had with regards to slavery? Lincoln said he had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the slave states. Was he, in fact, doing or seriously threatening to do what he himself recognized he had no constitutional right to do?
1
@Rundstedt1 Is your overarching point that we should be following Lincoln's example to call people deplorable and then use that as an excuse to trash the Constitution? I mean, sure, Southerners were, in fact, deplorable, but so, too, were Republicans. Lincoln: "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..." It's important to keep it in perspective that the Republicans weren't advocating anything within their constitutional authority that was going to do southern slaves any good. If they had actually been concerned about slaves, they would have taken up the abolitionist rallying cry of "No Union with slaveholders!" But Republicans wanted to exploit anti-slavery sentiment for the sake of the robber baron class without actually helping to end slavery, trashing the Constitution (and therefore the rule of law) in the process. Do you think social change should take place within the framework of the rule of law or by using accusations of deplorability (sometimes justified, sometimes false allegations, sometimes true but pot calling the kettle black...) as an excuse for bypassing the rule of law and the democratic process?
1
@Rundstedt1 So were all these red herrings meant to intentionally distract from questions you can't answer directly without exposing the injustice of the side you're trying to defend? So what constitutional rights do you think the South had with regards to slavery? Lincoln said he had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the slave states. Was he, in fact, doing or seriously threatening to do what he himself recognized he had no constitutional right to do?
1
If the Articles of Confederation made the Union perpetual in the sense you're suggesting, how do you explain the Constitution saying that 9 out of 13 states could establish a new government regardless of what the 4 other states did and then 11 of 13 states in fact establishing a new government without 2 of the other states?
1
@Rundstedt1 So the sort of "perpetual union" that the Articles of Confederation described was one that, as you say, the states were free to "refuse to take part in" and which didn't continue after the Constitution until they chose for themselves to "come around" to the idea that it would be "their loss" not to join in under the new terms.
1
@Rundstedt1 How was Rhode Island part of the union in 1789? It certainly wasn't subject to the federal government? It certainly wasn't subject to federal taxes, contrary to Lincoln's claim in his first inaugural address to the right to tax the southern states even after they had seceded?
1
@Rundstedt1 What does ratifying the Articles of Confederation have to do with 1789? The Articles of Confederation had already been abandoned by 1789. There was no government operating under the Articles by 1789, even though the "perpetual union" of the Articles required unanimous consent for any changes. If 9 states could walk away from the "perpetual union" on their own authority in 1788, why couldn't 7 states walk away on the same authority in early 1861 or 11 states a few months later? In any case, your argument that the Articles were binding in 1861 even though they weren't binding in 1788 is obviously BS.
1
"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." Abraham Lincoln, March 1861
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks And the Supreme Court had already ruled: “3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. “4. The Constitution of the Unite I States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.” But Lincoln and the Republicans won their election on a platform of defying the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitution... and then they went to war to force the southern states to submit to their government without even the protections of the constitution as arbitrated by the courts. As the abolitionist George Bassett said in 1861: “Such is the deranged and distracted condition of the political elements of our country at the present time, that, while the South are bravely fighting the great battle of national liberty in the name of slavery, the North are maintaining the principles of oriental despotism in the name of Liberty!”
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks So would you say the same about bombing abortion clinics? In other words, either you believe abortion is morally wrong or you don't. Nothing else matters?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks I never said any such thing. There was absolutely nothing either side could have done about slavery that would have in any way satisfied the other side's demands. There was nothing about slavery at stake in the war (other than the Republican party's desire to enslave all the people of the North and South to their rule without any constitutional limits.) But you're saying that opposition to slavery, even the kind of opposition to slavery that swears an oath to support delivering up fugitive slaves to their masters and that passes an irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery in the slave states from all federal interference, is justification for terrorism (including even the murder of a free black Southerner trying just to mind his own business), for protecting such terrorists from having to serve justice, for trashing the constitution, for destroying the principles of free government on which the United States were founded, etc.? Nothing else matters but the shallowest pretenses of opposing slavery, huh?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks "... the North could have satisfied your demands -- by allowing the expansion of your beloved slavery into all states and territories." The Confederacy made no such demands. The Confederate states demanded merely to be left alone. If the Confederate states had wanted to defend their rights under the constitution and as states of the union, they wouldn't have seceded. Only an idiot or a liar would claim that the South seceded in order to fight for its constitutional rights as members of the union. "That's what was at stake in the 1860 election..." That was at stake only to the extent that the Republicans could succeed in doing what the Supreme Court had already ruled unconstitutional. The Republicans stood a good chance of succeeding, but Republican victory in the election didn't mean they would succeed in defying the Supreme Court.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Why do you think I have to make a defense of the Confederacy as it actually existed to defend the rule of law and the South's constitutional and inalienable rights? Do you think the rule of law should be trashed in order to deprive every sinner of all his rights? Are you a fan of the cop that murdered George Floyd, too (assuming the jury came to a fair verdict), because he was a criminal? Do you think cops should just kill anyone they deem a criminal?
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks When do you oppose unilateral secession? Just for the South? The 13 colonies? Kosovo? Etc.? In other words, do you have any consistent principles? You almost certainly wouldn't be defending the North's cause in the war if you did. The South's decision to secede and then defend its right to choose its own government and to independence is totally defensible apart from any defense of slavery. The North's decision to conquer the southern states is totally indefensible by anyone that believes in the rule of law or in America's founding principles. And the despicable, unprincipled nature of your argument is exposed by your evasive discussion tactics, including not answering any of the questions in my last comment seeking to draw out your position, a position which hides in darkness.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks No, I didn't. You could quote me if I had. You can't even defend your vile political positions without lying about me personally.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Here's the full comment: If you want to summarize the Republicans trashing the constitution's protections of slavery in order to divide the country politically, not for the sake of ending slavery, which they had neither the power nor the desire to do and which nothing they were proposing to do would have brought about anyway, but for the sake of gaining political power to enrich the North's robber barons and aspiring robber barons through exploitation of the South, particularly including the slave economy, (and exploitation of any much of the people of the North, too)... if you want to summarize opposition to that as "for slavery," well, then yes, that's what it was, but that's a super dishonest way to summarize it. Of course, people taking your position will never explain what they mean by it, because their position absolutely depends on inexplicable myths.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks If you had a real argument you wouldn't play these dishonest games. "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." -Abraham Lincoln, 1848
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks Pretty much the only reason (besides Republicans wanting to keep blacks out of their states altogether, which several Republican-led states had laws to do, in the case of one northern state even punishing blacks that failed to pass through the state quickly enough with lashings) that anyone particularly cared about slavery in the territories was because of how it played into the balance of power in DC. So even the issue of whether slave owners could take slaves to the territories was never really about slavery, and it certainly wasn't a point of contention between the Union and the Confederate states after they seceded and sought to walk away from DC altogether and do their own thing. “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 [the territory that was to become the next state], they will never mix blood in Kansas…” -Lincoln
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks I know you're not even halfway honest, but you make it seem as if you might also be stupid enough to believe some of what you say, too.
1
RonPaulHatesBlacks If Republicans had actually cared about any of the slavery related issues (slavery in the territories, fugitive slave issues, etc.) they had disingenuously exploited prior to secession for the sake of partisan political gains, they would have wanted the southern states to secede (which is why the leading slogan of abolitionists had for many years been "No Union with Slaveholders!"), because that would have meant a guaranteed win for them on all those issues. They would have been under no constitutional obligation to deliver up slaves to states that weren't part of the union, and states that weren't part of the union would have had no rights to the territories. And allowing slave states to secede would have meant that amending the constitution to eliminate the fugitive slave clause and in other ways would have been a possibility, but there wasn't the remotest chance of ratifying any amendments without support from slave states otherwise.
1
@NoelleSmash The War of Northern Aggression was about northern aggression (or, in the words of one Massachusetts abolitionist, Lysander Spooner, "to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South...") What do you think it was about?
1
Democrats nowadays hate the Confederate flag because it's the clearest and most powerful symbol of people joining together in refusing to bow down to the central government.
1
@silloweet Why do Democracts hate the Confederate flag nowadays? What application and significance does it have today? Democrats nowadays hate the Confederate flag because it's the clearest and most powerful symbol of people joining together in refusing to bow down to the central government.
1
@manilajohn0182 There was no "territorial dispute regarding Fort Sumter" apart from a territorial dispute over the entirety of South Carolina and the other seceded states, which is to say the southern states asserted their American birthright to a government accountable to them deriving its powers from their consent and the North claimed a right to rule over the southern states forever regardless of their consent (and regardless of the northern states deciding to nullify parts of the constitution itself.)
1
@manilajohn0182 So you're saying the North was willing to accept the southern states' right to independence and self-government, just not their right to Fort Sumter? Surely you know that's not true, but what else could you mean when you say the dispute over Fort Sumter was a dispute apart from the dispute over southern independence?
1
@manilajohn0182 Southerners didn't evict Northerners from their border fort until long after the North refused to recognize southern independence and refused to negotiate any terms of separation, which obviously ought to have included the southern states' own border defenses, and the North had no reason to want to retain Fort Sumter other than to deny independence to the South. That's the historical record, and we're not friends.
1
@manilajohn0182 No, it's an indisputable historical fact that Southerners didn't evict Northerners from their border fort until long after the North refused to recognize southern independence and refused to negotiate any terms of separation. You're not actually ignorant of the historical evidence of that fact, are you? > unless you can demonstrate that he U.S. government had a legal obligation to recognize the Confederate States of America That's irrelevant. Why do you think that would make any difference to anything I said in my last comment? > At least you've acknowledged that Fort Sumter was U.S. property I didn't say anything about the US nor about any legal rights. And when I spoke about the North retaining Fort Sumter, obviously I didn't mean that Fort Sumter belonged to the North before the secession of South Carolina. I was simply noting that the question wasn't who would get Fort Sumter but whether the North would relinquish the control it had (not by right but simply in matter of fact) from the time of secession until the Battle of Fort Sumter.
1
@manilajohn0182 > The United States had no obligation, legal or otherwise, which they "refused" to carry out. If I told you Bob asked Sam to give him his wallet and Sam refused, do you conclude that Sam had an obligation, legal or otherwise, to give Bob his wallet? > The United States government simply didn't recognize the new Confederate States government or nation. Which, given the fact that the seceded states had publicly declared their independence, constituted a refusal to recognize southern independence. Are you actually trying to make any point here or are you just playing dumb word games? > your false allegation that the U.S. would "...relinquish the control it had (not by right but simply in matter of fact)", Instead of attacking whatever straw man you're attacking, why don't you try reading what I actually said again? Maybe try reading the whole sentence. > but their bombardment of the fort cost them any prospect of actually creating a nation And what prospect was that? Is there any fleshing that out? Or is it just pure inexplicable myth? > At least you've acknowledged that it was the Confederates who resorted to force of arms- by "evicting" U.S. forces, as you put it. If South Korea decided it no longer needed or wanted US military forces in Korea but wanted to provide entirely for its own defense, asked the US to withdraw its forces, the US refused to withdraw arguing that it had a forever right to maintain a military presence in Korea, Korea rejected that claim, and evicted US military from Korea (without killing a single American), would you say, "it was the Koreans who resorted to force of arms"? Would you consider that a fair summary of the situation?
1
@manilajohn0182 > "Dumb word games? If you weren't just playing dumb word games you would have explained what your point was in denying that the North refused to recognize southern independence, but thanks for the confirmation that you never had a point. > whatever they may have been- ... There, I fleshed it out for ya. "Whatever they may have been"! I've never tasted such read meat before! Such amazing thoroughness and detail! And I thought you didn't have a point! > Fort Sumter was the property of the United States and a U.S. "border fort"- and not the other way around Check a map again, and tell me whose border Fort Sumter was on. And could it be that I already said, "I didn't say anything about the US nor about any legal rights." But you really want to attack that straw man, don't you? Is that because you can't defend your comment which I originally challenged any other way? > The United States had every legal right to remain there, in the middle of Charleston Harbor, indefinitely. No more than the southern states had a legal right to maintain an armed force in Boston Harbor indefinitely. > Your South Korea analogy is not applicable because Fort Sumter was U.S. territory So are you just entirely attacking a straw man or is your point actually that whether it was Koreans who resorted to force of arms would depend on the legal status of the US military bases in Korea?
1
@manilajohn0182 > No one asked the U.S. government to recognize the Confederate states, so they didn't refuse anything. That's right! The southern states just forgot to ask. That was the whole reason the war started, wasn't it, because the southern states just forgot to ask the northern states to recognize their independence? No one even knew the southern states wanted to be independent! > The Confederates didn't evict U.S. forces from Fort Sumter Maybe you should look up the meaning of "evict." > U.S. forces on U.S. territory US territory? How do you figure that? I'm sure you'll want to forget what I said in my first comment in this thread that get the discussion between us started. > it didn't take place long after the southern states seceded- a few months Which was way more than long enough for the North to get the word, carefully consider things, and send word back to withdraw to their forces to the North (or to the southern states that hadn't yet seceded and didn't secede until after Lincoln's call to invade and subjugate the states that had already seceded.) > I don't need to expound on Confederate prospects for nationhood. You claimed such prospects existed and were spoiled by South Carolina taking control of its own border defenses, but you can't say what those prospects were because your claim is based strictly on vacuous myth. > Boston Harbor wasn't in Confederate territorial waters. I never said or suggested it was. > I suppose that I am "attacking a straw man"- meaning you- via your South Korea bit. U.S. military bases in Korea are leased to the United States and are not considered U.S. territory. Fort Sumter was U.S. territory in 1861. That's why your analogy is not applicable. What was your point again lol? It's your own point that you've forgotten, and I quoted what you said immediately before I presented the Korean analogy and I immediately followed the analogy with the question you have yet to answer, which was to ask you would say the same thing about the Korean analogy. But when you say the analogy isn't applicable, you don't even have a clue what you're claiming it isn't applicable to.
1
@manilajohn0182 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 anything he copied and pasted and were confused enough to think he made any valid counterargument to anything I've said, let me know in your own words --- you'd be the first -- and I'll dispel whatever counterargument you may be tempted to believe.
1
@jondear772 > I believe they saw the writing on the wall as Lincoln was an abolitionist at heart. You might be interested to read what Alexander Stephens had to say in 1861 about the party Lincoln represented. He certainly didn't believe Republicans were "abolitionists at heart": "The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave."
1

Previous
4
Next
...
All