Comments by "Patrick Cleburne" (@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558) on "TED-Ed" channel.

  1.  @sbnwnc  And what in that speech do you want to pretend substantiates your revisionist myth that the Republican-led North was trying to abolish slavery? Or by "end slavery" do you have some creative definition that means something other than to abolish it?
    3
  2.  @JargonGigantus  What "about slavery" are you imagining was at stake in the war?
    3
  3.  @bluecat7684  1. The so-called cornerstone speech certainly doesn't prove what the OP was saying which was a point about what he called the Articles of Secession. 2. What point do you think the cornerstone speech proves that I or anyone else would dispute? Stephens even says in that speech that he didn't believe the Republican-led North even wanted slavery to end.
    3
  4.  @GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture  You need to read them (or practically any other even indirectly war-related historical evidence from the time) and you will see how wrong you are.
    3
  5. Multiple famous Northerners, including abolitionists, presidents of the US from northern states, famous Englishmen of the time, Lincoln, the US Congress, notable Southerners... all contradicted the myth that the war was "about slavery." What do you even mean by that anyway? Do you mean that the northern states were refusing to uphold their constitutional obligation to deliver up fugitive slaves and the southern states, without making any further demands for the return of fugitive slaves from the northern states, declared the constitutional compact broken? Do you mean that Republicans were threatening to abolish slavery and the southern states secede to try to avoid abolition being forced on them and the North then went to war to force abolition on them? Or do you just mean to imply that if anything relating to slavery had however indirect a connection to the war, that it's fair to say the war was "about slavery" in the same way 9/11 was about the Palestinian territories?
    3
  6. Secede. To declare independence and self-govern. And there wasn't even anything about slavery even indirectly at stake in the question of southern independence.
    3
  7.  @Acekhan201  Does you opposition to terrorism extend to the terrorism that the North, particularly including Republican governors, supported against the South?
    3
  8.  @Wh40kFinatic  The South, particularly not in a widespread and even official capacity, never supported murderous terrorism in the North prior to (or after) secession, as the North did in the South.
    3
  9. You should read the Confederate constitution more carefully, because it certainly did not prohibit states from individually abolishing slavery.
    3
  10.  @foetwenny  Section 9 is the section limiting Congress. Section 10 is the section on powers prohibited to the states. Prohibitions that were meant to apply both to Congress and to the states are repeated in section 9 and again in section 10 (including the other prohibitions in the line you cited), but there's nothing about slavery in section 10. The fact that some of the other exact same prohibitions are repeated in section 10 makes abundantly clear that section 9.4 wasn't meant to apply to the states. Similarly, why do you think Article 4, section 2 protects the right of slaveholders to travel with their slaves through other states of the Confederacy if those other states couldn't abolish slavery? The Confederate constitution clearly foresaw and left open the possibility of Confederate states abolishing slavery.
    3
  11.  @joshuaohuka7719  > the union they sought to preserve was one which aimed to abolish slavery... How do you reconcile that claim with what Republicans (the North's political leaders) were actually saying? Lincoln: "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."
    3
  12. Ultimately, the right to alter or to abolish their form of 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. But more specifically, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, the right of each state to judge for itself, as well of infractions of the constitution, as of the mode & measure of redress. Any other questions?
    3
  13.  @danomyte67  And if the South hadn't seceded in the first place they would have still had slavery. So there's no difference, is there? And regardless, the North wasn't challenging the South's right to have slavery, so that's certainly not what the North and South fought over: "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." -Lincoln
    3
  14. Do you consider crushing government by the consent of the governed "the spirit of the nation"?
    3
  15. @Michael Rogers Slavery had been around since 1776. Slavery wasn't the cause of anything that happened in 1860/61. Northern states trashing the constitution and the rule of law was what led to secession. "Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?” -President Franklin Pierce (from New Hampshire) 1863 And as to the Republicans' reasons for trashing the constitution and the rule of law, another New Englander, the famous abolitionist Lysander Spooner wrote, "The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have 'Abolished Slavery!' That they have 'Saved the Country!' That they have 'Preserved our Glorious Union!'"
    3
  16.  @farmsalot1233  "the southern constitution was an exact copy of the usa constitution except it added slavery." So where are the following clauses (from the Confederate constitution) in the US constitution? "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry..." "...but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof."
    3
  17. To independence and self-government. And there wasn't anything about slavery at stake in the question of independence, not even anything marginal like the right of slaveholders to take slaves to Kansas or the right of slaveholders to have fugitive slaves returned from northern states (not unless you're trying to argue that the North was fighting to maintain the rights of slaveholders and the South was fighting to absolve the North of those obligations.)
    3
  18. Why just the United States? Why not the whole world? Either government can only act justly within the limits of the consent of the governed or consent is irrelevant and DC should stamp out everything that's wrong regardless of whether the people where DC is acting consent to DC's actions, right?
    3
  19.  @evanhunt1863  Rig an election?! Lots of third party presidential candidates don't make it on the ballot in every state, and there wasn't a chance Lincoln was going to win a single southern state anyway.
    3
  20.  @evanhunt1863  If you think it's significant that the South shot first, tell us how else the South could have defended its secession.
    3
  21.  @jaranarm  How were northern Democrats any more "behind slavery" than Republicans? Do you mean simply because they respected the constitution and the rule of law?
    3
  22.  James Madison  And what did they say about slavery? One thing is sure whatever you're talking about, these "Articles of Confederacy" didn't say anything about the historical baseless myth that the North was going to free the South's slaves.
    3
  23.  @leg4317  "so they can keep their slaves"? As if there was something the Republican-led North would have done to stop them from keeping their slaves if they hadn't chosen independence? I'm sure you won't even try to explain that historically baseless myth.
    3
  24.  @thankyoucaptainobvious7707  You ask, "The South wanted to leave the Union in order to continue the practice of what" as if the South wouldn't have been able to continue practicing slavery in the union, but that's the historically baseless propaganda of the Righteous Cause Myth. How are you imagining the South's desire to practice slavery was threatened by remaining in the union? What are you imagining the North was going to do to prevent the southern states from continuing to practice slavery? As to the question of "freedom to do what," is like asking what slaves that tried to escape slavery wanted to do with their freedom. Asking "freedom to do what" completely misses the point. Even if they wanted to continue working on the same plantations where they had worked as slaves, they had a right to freedom. Even if they wanted to lie to the public in order to get elected to office and use their salary to waste their lives away in drunkenness, they still had a right to freedom. Freedom doesn't depend on what you want to do with your freedom. If your freedom depends on whether someone else approves of what you want to do with your freedom, then you're not free. So, no, it's not at all true that the South wanted to leave the union in order to continue practicing slavery, although it is true that the South wanted to leave the union and that the South wanted to continue practicing slavery, just like it's true that the South wanted to leave the union and wanted to continue drinking water. If you want to add an "in order to" to that sentence, then you need to answer the questions: How are you imagining the South's desire to practice slavery was threatened by remaining in the union? What are you imagining the North was going to do to prevent the southern states from continuing to practice slavery?
    3
  25. Free speech to say what? Free the slaves to do what?
    3
  26.  @The.Rooster  The OP's comment was about "the Northern army." First of all, none of the things you mentioned represented the Northern army. Secondly, not one of the documents you cited said anything about the war. Want to try again? But let's make it easy on you. Show me any document from either government or from any prominent leader from either side that actually directly talks about the war to back up your case. I'll give you a few, one from each side: Official Union declaration, passed by a nearly unanimous vote of both chambers of the US Congress: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]" Alexander Stephens, whom you've already referenced, except actually speaking directly about the war at the time of the war (1864): "Ours is a government founded upon the consent of sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act whenever it attempts to maintain or perpetuate its existence by force over its respective members. The surest way to check any inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such really exist even to the most limited extent among her people, is to show them that the struggle is continued, as it was begun, for the maintenance of constitutional liberty."
    3
  27.  @bjarkiengelsson  I'm not the one trying to justify violently subjugating other people. You are. You're also the traitor because you're the one attacking government by the consent of the governed.
    3
  28.  @sbnwnc  The Georgia declaration (nor any other) never once mentions slavery in the context of anything the northern states were doing to try to abolish it, nor does it even mention any marginal (as opposed to direct abolition) threat to slavery that secession was intended to protect against. If it had, you could say what that was, but you always just run away from even trying to explain your substanceless myth. The Georgia declaration contains multiple paragraphs discussing the various forms of crony capitalism the northern states were using to economically exploit the southern economy, and tariffs were just one of those ways.
    3
  29.  @RightfulArchon186  Practically no one believes in slavery any more, but lots of Americans believe DC has a right forcibly subjugate states to its rule if they should try to choose their own government. So the odds are very good that's what's really at play here, isn't it?
    3
  30.  @TundraTrash  You're saying the South thought slavery was threatened how? And why do you think seceding made any sense as a response to this mythical threat you can't explain?
    3
  31. That's as despicable as a man beating his wife "to bring her back into the union."
    3
  32.  @sbnwnc  There were other issues. South Carolina's declaration dealt with the constitutional issues and the ways in which the northern states had broken the constitution, like their refusal to extradite (in violation of the constitution's extradition clause) fugitive terrorists that had murdered random Southerners. But I didn't say anything about South Carolina's declaration and neither had you. You said "anywhere." Tariffs were mentioned in lots of prominent places. What kind of ideological extremism is blinding you to reality?
    2
  33.  @sbnwnc  So is your childish, dishonest argument that "duties and imposts" referred to something other than tariffs or for some other reason doesn't count? Or are you actually asserting that none of the documents I've mentioned refer to tariffs in any way?
    2
  34. ​ @sbnwnc  So is your position still that tariffs weren't mentioned (neither by the word "tariffs" nor by other words that meant the same thing, like "duties and imposts") in any of the documents I've mentioned?
    2
  35.  @averageboi5195  What about slavery are you imagining was at stake in the war? What could either side have conceded about slavery that could have gotten the other side to lay down its arms and accept a peaceful resolution?
    2
  36.  @sbnwnc  And what does that have to do with anything in this thread, particularly anything I said since you replied to me? Nothing, but you must recognize that what I said is true and feel the need to deflect to cover for the lies you want to defend.
    2
  37.  @sbnwnc  I didn't say anything about the Confederacy. My comment was just about the Articles of Confederation and the constitution. Why do you feel the need to reply to me and change the subject? Because you know what I said is true and feel the need to deflect to cover for the lies you want to defend.
    2
  38.  @sbnwnc  The question is why you want to reply to me here in a thread where I didn't say anything about the Confederacy. Obviously it's because you know what I said here about the constitution is true and you feel the need to deflect to cover for the lies you want to defend. But you know I've responded to you specifically about the Confederacy in other threads. Unlike you, I don't have to hide from anything. I'll tag you again in one of those threads if you actually want to discuss the tangents you're trying to use to deflect from the truth of what I've said in this thread. But you only want to hide from the facts there, too, don't you?
    2
  39.  @BigRingStumpy  You said, "It was about the state's right to enslave people," but the Lincoln quote shows that wasn't a right the Republican-led North was contesting.
    2
  40.  @lefishe6611  Nowhere in that quote does it say or even suggest that secession is prohibited by the constitution. And more to the point, nowhere in the constitution does it say that secession is prohibited. And even more to the point, the United States was founded on the inalienable right -- which means it's a right no matter what the constitution says -- of people to declare independence on their own authority and establish a new government for themselves.
    2
  41. The US Congress officially declared with nearly unanimous votes in both chambers that, "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery]..."
    2
  42. What about slavery would you even like to imagine either side went to war to force the other side to do or to concede? Or are you content with vague, inexplicable myths?
    2
  43. Republicans were to blame for the war, not Democrats. "Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?" President Franklin Pierce (of the Democrats)
    2
  44.  @sbnwnc  So what? The USSR's position was thoroughly identified with Marxism. That's nothing but misleading propaganda if you're presenting it as the issue the war was fought over.
    2
  45.  @Vendavalez  Sure, I know you meant to imply the completely historically baseless propaganda myth that the North wasn't willing to concede the South's right to continue practicing slavery. 1860 Republican platform: "the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions [i.e. slavery] according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential..." Official Union declaration, 1861: "this war is not waged... for any... purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States [i.e. slavery], but... to preserve the Union [i.e. maintain control over the southern states against their will, without their consent, and to deny them the right to independence and self-government]" So I ask again: Self-govern. What else?
    2
  46.  @mackmckinney5206  There have always been Americans with imperialist/expansionist ambitions (the French and Indian War, the War of 1812, the Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Vietnam War, the proxy war in Ukraine... and that's not even close to a comprehensive list of wars supported by Americans with imperialist aims), but the Confederacy didn't fight for imperialism, and it's absurd to characterize the Confederate cause as imperialist just because some of America's many imperialist hawks happened to be Southerners; the Confederacy only fought one war, and it was an anti-imperialist war, fought against the North's imperialist ambitions. As the London (England) Times said in November of 1861: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces." And as Jefferson Davis said in his presidential inaugural speech: "An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued."
    2
  47.  @LKMNOP  Lincoln said he thought slavery was wrong long before the war, but he was willing to go along with it. And he never deviated from his initial reasons for going to war (which really had nothing to do with slavery.)
    2
  48.  @sbnwnc  Why does the EU allow for the addition of new member states? Why has the USA been able to add new territories? And, what does it matter, given that the CSA wasn't trying to add new states when Lincoln denied their right to secede? It's not as if Lincoln and the Republican party would have respected their right to secede if they had had a provision in their constitution banning the admission of any new territories. You're not pretending that would have made any difference, are you? You probably do know better, which is why you didn't provide a direct answer to my question of how you're pretending the extension of slavery was an issue between the Confederacy and the Union.
    2
  49.  @sbnwnc  The "expansion of slavery" wasn't just not "the main issue"; it wasn't an issue between the Confederacy and the Union at all. And now how are you pretending the "preservation" of slavery was an issue between the Confederacy and the Union? How are you falsely imagining the Union was challenging the right of the Confederate States to choose for themselves whether and how long to continue practicing slavery? It's nonsense to say the South fought for something the North wasn't challenging but was willing to give them without a fight. The US Congress in describing the Union's war aims officially declared by a practically unanimous vote in July of 1861 that the war was being waged with no "purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States..."
    2
  50.  @sbnwnc  What David Wenger says is true, and the differences between the Confederate constitution and US constitution provide proof on multiple points. The Confederate constitution, for example, does away with the US constitution's "general welfare" clause, specifically limits Congress' taxing power to "revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States …" (contrary to the taxing power that the Supreme Court used to justify the individual mandate, for example), the Confederate constitution added a clause that “… no bounties … shall be granted from the Treasury…”, disallowed any tariffs to “promote or foster any branch of industry”, prevented Congress' power to regulate commerce from being "construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce” except along waterways and harbors, added a line item veto in opposition to pork barrel spending... and I could go on, but that's more than enough to show you need to do a whole lot more reading on your own and not from your usual propaganda sources.
    2