Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid And it's worth noting that abolitionism in general was considered a radical position. Hardly any Northerners, especially not any Republicans or Democrats, considered themselves abolitionists, although almost all Northerners were personally opposed to slavery. Abolitionists generally were outside both political parties for reasons like Wendell Phillips gave: "...secession from the present United States Government is the duty of every abolitionist; since no one can take office, or throw a vote for another to hold office, under the U.S. Constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and rendering himself an abettor of the slaveholder in his sin." Lincoln, of course, took the mirror opposite position with regards to the fugitive slave clause, for example.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Just because Garrison had radical views about women or whatever else is no reason to believe that disunionism wasn't widely supported by abolitionists. The American Anti-Slavery Society was the largest abolitionist organization in the States, not some fringe, radical organization (except insofar as all abolitionists were fringe radicals at the time), so a vote of members of the AASS is indeed representative of the abolitionist mainstream.
And just because many abolitionists espoused principles that they then refused when their enemies appealed to those principles, doesn't negate the fact that large majorities of abolitionists advocated exactly what the South fought for (the right to secede and separation from the non-slave states.) But multiple prominent abolitionists, like Bassett, Spooner, Blanchard, Warren... did remain true to the principles large majorities of abolitionists had long defended. If any abolitionists are to be held up as shining examples, it should those that didn't shift with the sands but held true to principle.
Of course, there were other issues, too. Spooner, for example, supported murderous terrorism against random people in southern states. That's certainly not laudable, but as regards the central issues at play in our discussion, he was much truer to principle and more consistent than Garrison.
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Just because Garrison had radical views about women or whatever else and just because someone with some modern-day group in Massachusetts wants to suggest something without providing any historical basis for the claim (other than things like views about women not directly related to abolitionism) is no reason to believe that disunionism wasn't widely supported by abolitionists. The American Anti-Slavery Society was the largest abolitionist organization in the States, not some fringe, radical organization (except insofar as all abolitionists were fringe radicals at the time), so a vote of members of the AASS is indeed representative of the abolitionist mainstream.
And just because many abolitionists espoused principles that they then refused when their enemies appealed to those principles, doesn't negate the fact that LARGE MAJORITIES OF ABOLITIONISTS advocated exactly what the South fought for (the right to secede and separation from the non-slave states.) But multiple prominent abolitionists, like Bassett, Spooner, Blanchard, Warren... did remain true to the principles large majorities of abolitionists had long defended. If any abolitionists are to be held up as shining examples, it should those that didn't shift with the sands but held true to principle.
And it's BS propaganda to call the southern states' secession a "rebellion." Do you think Brexit was a "rebellion"?
And it's BS propaganda to say the southern states seceded to "preserve slavery," when even you have recognized that seceding didn't "preserve" slavery against any threat to slavery, except insofar as you want to conflate secession with possible future things the Confederate States might have done (and then further assume that those things wouldn't have been done peaceably.)
And it's BS propaganda to call beating a partner(s) into submission "preserving a union." And it's despicable to imply that any sort of "union" that would be based on violence and threats of violence would be worth preserving in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Who was Tappan speaking for in 1834 in the quote you shared? Just himself, as president of the AASS? Was that particular statement voted on by the members of the AASS?
In any case, by the late 1840's we know that the disunionism was supported by a very large majority of the members of the AASS, and that continued to be the case through at least the Worcester Convention of 1857. Of course, not all abolitionists supported disunionism, but it was a large majority of what was by far the largest abolitionist organization. If representing a large majority within what was by far the largest abolitionist organization doesn't represent a mainstream abolitionist position, what would? And even the better known abolitionists like Frederick Douglass that by sometime in the 1850's were no longer supporting disunionism were still active members of the AASS and not the Liberty Party, so they, too, were represented in the AASS votes in which large majorities voted in favor of disunion.
As for Garrison and Douglass, Garrison had been an outspoken disunionist well before whatever split occurred between the two of them, so whatever change on disunionism contributed to any split was on the part of Douglass moving away from disunionism, not Garrison toward it.
And it's ridiculous to equate Lincoln's positions with that of any of the abolitionists, just because they happened to find common ground with regards to opposing disunionism. You might as well equate the political philosophies of FDR and Stalin, just because they happened to find common ground with regards to opposing Germany. As Lincoln said after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, “Understand, I raise no objections against it [slavery] on legal or constitutional grounds … I view the matter [emancipation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” Lincoln's position on slavery was always subservient to his other priorities. That was never the case for real abolitionists on either side of the disunion question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid Got nothing in response to, "Lincoln acted against slavery with all the means he had available"? Is anyone really supposed to take that seriously? Granted, I didn't read most of your last comment, but I already said, "The point is that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't done for the sake of freeing slaves." It's safe to assume you didn't address that point, isn't it?
As I said, "What matters is that Lincoln's priorities were so unrelated to slavery that he wouldn't have freed any slaves if declaring his enemy's slaves freed wouldn't have helped his other priorities." And you say, he "acted against slavery with all the means he had available." Are you really so stupid that I should assume you aren't purposefully and knowingly being deceitful?
And speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation as "freeing slaves" is almost as ridiculous as speaking about beating your wife as "saving the union." As the London Spectator said at the time, “The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” Assuming that you're not going to recognize any truth in that statement, why do you think Englishmen would have said that at the time?
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid "Lincoln had no power whatsoever to free all the slaves in the United States in 1863."
He had no more constitutional power to free the slaves of citizens (that he claimed were still US citizens) that happened to live on one side of the battle lines as on the other. Do you think he did?
""Lincoln acted against slavery with all the means he had available"? Is anyone really supposed to take that seriously?"
You dispute this claim?"
No one forced him to swear an oath to uphold the fugitive slave clause, but he did, saying, "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other... I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules..." Is swearing to uphold the fugitive slave clause, something he freely chose to do, "acting against slavery with all the means he had available"? Tell me how you'll twist that into an absurd yes.
And what other means did he have? If your point was that, as Lincoln said, "I have no lawful [i.e. constitutional] right to" "directly or indirectly... interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists," and he did everything he could to directly or indirectly interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, then you're just playing word games.
And if your point is that he acted against slavery but not directly or indirectly against slavery in the states where it existed, but only in other places, then your point has nothing to do with the Confederacy or the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaranarm So you think political parties should "put an end to... that judicial madness" of bad Supreme Court decisions on the constitution? In other words, you think political parties should be the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions, not by passing and ratifying constitutional amendments, but by decisively determining the meaning and implications of the constitution?
The proper solution is what Thomas Jefferson said: "...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
-
@TheStapleGunKid A keyword search for "overturn" in the Republican platform doesn't yield any results. What am I missing? Oh, that's right, I'm not missing anything.
The Republican platform did declare, "we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States." And that after the Supreme Court had already ruled that, ""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. 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."
You can deny that the Supreme Court should be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions (and I wouldn't say they should be either), but you can't blame some states for not submitting to the idea of other states to deny what the constitution said according to a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court (which is exactly the criticism implied in the opening comment of this thread), especially when the party denying what the constitution says according to the Supreme Court doesn't even represent 40% of the country.
1
-
1
-
@TheStapleGunKid So you're essentially denying the truth of the content of jaranarm's opening quote? "They have declared, by the election of Lincoln, 'There shall be no more slave territory–no more slave States.'" You wouldn't know it by the Republican platform, though.
"They Republicans thought SCOTUS got their ruling wrong, so their goal was to get SCOTUS to overturn it..."
No indication of any of that in the Republican platform. Again, nothing to contradict the belief that "by the election of Lincoln" the new policy would be directly effected, rather than indirectly through the courts.
"Again, nothing unusual. That's the modern republican strategy for overturning Roe V. Wade."
The modern Republican platform speaks directly about appointing anti-abortion judges and about amending the constitution. The 1860 Republican platform did no such thing but directly denied what the Supreme Court had said and claimed authority to do what the Supreme Court said Republicans had no authority to do.
"The Confederate states launched a rebellion BEFORE the Republicans did anything to slavery in the territories."
You've been saying all along that what Republicans did after the war started is proof of why the southern states seceded. Which is it?
Regardless, the southern states' leading grievance had nothing to do with the territories. The southern states' grievances began with what the northern states had "for years past" refused to do. Past, not before.
"When laws are passed that you think are unconstitutional, the proper response would be to challenge them in court, not launch a revolution."
Tell that to Lincoln, who instead of challenging secession in court, started The War of Northern Aggression.
"If a state could launch a revolution in response to any law they thought was unconstitutional, we would be in a state of permanent revolution forever."
So is the EU in a state of permanent revolution forever, because any state can secede whenever it chooses? Nonsense. What you're arguing for would be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson (obviously not in reference to issues 60+ years after he wrote them), "to surrender the form of govmt we have chosen, & to live under one deriving it’s powers from it’s own will & not from our authority."
"If the South actually cared about the constitution, that's what they would have done: Challenged any ban on slavery in the territories in court."
Again, tell that to Lincoln. You're the one defending the practice of acting first and leaving it to anyone that objects to challenge it in the courts. If Lincoln had constitutional objections to secession, then by your standards, it's his fault for not taking his objections to the courts but rather starting a war to resolve it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickarnall6583 But it's a myth that the Republicans were trying to shut down southern slavery.
As the London Spectator said after the Emancipation Proclamation, "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
Or as the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, "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..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmmccrea > a constitutional amendment
Nowhere in the declarations of causes of secession is there any mention of an abolition amendment or anything else of the sort (by which I mean the Republican-led North using its constitutionally legitimate power to abolish slavery in the southern states.)
And not only is there no mention of a constitutional amendment, but none of the slavery-related grievances mentioned in the declarations of causes of secession were even issues that seceding resolved in favor of slaveholders.
Northern states refusing to abide by their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves (as per the constitutions' fugitive slave clause) led the southern states to declare the constitutional bargain broken and voided, but the war obviously wasn't fought to force the northern states to deliver up fugitive slaves. The southern states tried to walk away from the constitution, including the northern states' obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves. It was the Republican-led North that wouldn't have it.
That's why northern abolitionists like Joshua Blanchard said things at the time like: "It seems so clear that slavery in the South could not long exist when deprived of the support of the North, that we are surprised that this evident consequence is so overlooked or disregarded... It is plain, then, that this war is not an anti-slavery, but a pro-slavery war."
> By pushing Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment.
Besides the fact that Republicans denied any interest in any such thing and the fact that there's no mention of any constitutional amendment in any of the declarations of causes of secession, i.e. besides the complete lack of any historical evidence for your myth, you don't even seem to know how the constitution can be amended. Congress can't amend the constitution.
> Literally how it happened in real life.
No, not how it happened. The 13th amendment became law when Georgia voted for it (after multiple other former Confederate states had already voted for it.) There was never any remotely realistic prospect of an abolition amendment being forced on the southern states so long as they didn't support it themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmmccrea Alexander Stephens, March 1861: "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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1