Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "TED-Ed"
channel.
-
30
-
21
-
20
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
@qcthesxientist Are you suggesting that the North wasn't willing to allow plantation owners to continue holding humans as cattle? If so, what evidence is there of that? If not, how could there have been a war over it?
As the London (England) Spectator said after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, “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.”
Lincoln himself had said in 1861, after the the original 7 Confederate states had seceded but before the start of the war, "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."
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@careyfreeman5056 "There are ways to go about being recognized as a separate country."
Not when the North refused to even negotiate.
Here's what a couple northern abolitionists said about it at the time:
"...the advocates of "unbroken Union" abruptly refuse to negotiate with the receding party (who offer compensation for what they must take with them), thereby finally denying their right to become a separate party, and pronouncing the final word that the Union recognizes no two parties who can negotiate with each other; which is equivalent to saying that the political Union (or clanship) is more sacred than persons, or property, or freedom, or any other inalienable human right. Thus completely destroying the last vestige of union between the parties, and forcing both into hostile attitudes, and both prepare to destroy each other."
"It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dockyards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are the common property of all the States. But, it will be remembered that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the remaining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation.
"In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?" -George Bassett
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
@cadenvanvalkenburg6718 It was clearly an independence war, right? The South fought for the right to self-government. The North fought to destroy the principles the United States were founded on, that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, that no men have a natural right to rule over any other men, that people have a right to alter or abolish their form of government whenever it to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
And the North fought to destroy the constitution: "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." Thomas Jefferson
6
-
@N0noy1989 If the South was "obviously wrong," why did so many Northerners, abolitionists, foreigners, etc. at the time (including all those I mentioned in my last comment and lots more) fail to see the "obvious"?
As for names, if you want to call it the Southern Revolutionary War or the Second Revolutionary War or the Second Independence War or the Southern Independence War, those are all good names, too.
However, the 13 colonies didn't really have a legal argument for independence. Their claim to a right to independence was based on the inalienable right of all people, regardless of the existing laws and political structures, "to alter or to abolish it [the existing government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And, of course, the southern states had that inalienable right, too, but on top of that inalienable right (which was more than sufficient) they also had a legal (constitutional) right, and that was the primary argument they made, and that legal argument was valid, too.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@justintime1343 OK, it's fair enough to call the shelling of Fort Sumter the start of the war, but that didn't happen until after the southern states gave the northern states multiple months to negotiate a peaceful separation. The southern states peacefully voted to secede, then gave the other states multiple months to peacefully negotiate terms, then gave the occupying forces multiple warnings, and only then fired on the occupying forces.
As the northern abolitionist George Bassett wrote before the shelling of Fort Sumter:
"...the seceding States express the most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the following article in the Constitution recently established. It is as follows:
"'The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liabilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, justice, equality, and good faith.'
"This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace; and if we decline it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized world and the impartial record of history be against us?"
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3