My Founding Fathers knew their actions violated British law, and they'd be hung to death if they lost, like Nathan Hale. They didn't spend much time whining to the contrary. But my Founding Fathers didn't fight for a "cornerstone" of racism and slavery. The confederacy did. That's why the CSA is supported today by a few sick assholes who hate America and the Constitution, and wish states could engage in slavery, segregation and other unfettered tyranny under a reinstated Articles of Confederacy.
People on both sides were very racist, and many Northerners had slaves (esp. in border states).
The South seceded because they feared the north would eventually outlaw slavery with the rise of the Repub. Party.
Doesn't make one side "good guys" and one side "bad guys" necessarily. But to say the South seceded for "States Rights" is disingenuous. Every secession convention debates slavery immensely. South Carolina's secession declaration mentioned slavery 19 times.
Yep. I think people lose perspective as it was 150 years ago and the nation was so different then politically, socially and technologically. All parties on both sides were working in self-interest. Many abolitionists fought slavery for altruistic reasons, for example, but many others were small landowners who feared the power of huge plantation owners. A sort-of 99% vs. 1% argument at the time.
It's hard to discuss this intelligently as people get so emotional
My Founding Fathers knew their actions violated British law, and they'd be hung to death if they lost, like Nathan Hale. They didn't spend much time whining to the contrary. But my Founding Fathers didn't fight for a "cornerstone" of racism and slavery. The CSA did. That's why the CSA is defended today by a few sick trolls who hate America and wish the confederacy had won the Civil War and subjected millions of innocent people to more decades or centuries of slavery and segregation.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So because the Founding Fathers won the fight, that makes it ok? Either unilateral secession of territories/states is or is not acceptable. If it isn't, then how do you justify the existence, in any part, of the United States of America? Once again, the reason why the CSA seceded from the Union may not have been morally justifiable, but the fact that they did secede shouldn't even be an issue. The War was fought, the South lost. I don't have an issue with that.
@GloryBound87 That's ridiculous. Of course there are times when fighting is the right moral choice. The Civil War isn't one of them, spammer. The South had no legal right to unilateral secession, and no moral right---unless you don't think slavery and racism are wrong. You should drop the act and argue the REAL reason you believe millions of black people and their descendants deserved MORE years of slavery and segregation.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The people in the state voted for secession. How does that not give them the right to secede? Whether or not it's morally justifiable, the Southern states voted to secede. Unless you believe a government is legitimate without the consent of the governed, the states had a justifiable legal right.
Unilateral secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as Robert E Lee admitted and every court to consider the issue has confirmed, in decisions this spammer has never even read. Lincoln and others swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, and they did. Simple. We the People are glad America won, because We believe slavery is wrong. Others disagree. They wish millions of black folks had suffered MORE slavery and segregation, and call their enslavement "irrelevant." Sick.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So you default back to your argument that "if the federal government tells me it's wrong, it must be wrong." And I suppose the unilateral secession of the 13 original colonies from the British Empire was wrong too, right? Ater all, the British said so and fought a war to quell the insurrection! Don't worry, citizen. Your wise federal overlords will keep providing you with your pre-approved patterns of thought. Just remain calm and continue your conventional thinking.
Human slavery is wrong. Period. Condemning people more than a century after the fact for it is more or less irrelevant, but it is morally wrong to enslave another person for one's benefit, even if it is legal. That said, the Confederacy was wrong not in the fact that it seceded, but for the reasons why it seceded. When no other legal recourse remains, nullification and secession are actions that are rooted in our American tradition.
The video's about the Civil War. One of us is a troll, a spammer, and an uneducated stoner trying desperately to change the subject to marijuana regulation, but it sure the fuck ain't me.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I haven't changed the subject once. I've been presenting the argument for state nullification and secession, one of the integral legal issues of the Civil War, in a calm, logical, and polite way. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but insult and denigrate me from the start. Speaking of which, where'd you go to law school? Still waiting for a response.
Yeah. More arrogant, uneducated rantings from a stoner who couldn't even graduate high school. How pathetic. You're done here, spammer. This is not your personal blog. Go write a manifesto and ask High Times to publish it.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks How has anything I've said been uneducated? I've presented all my arguments logically and clearly, I haven't called you names (though I've wanted to, believe me), and your interpretation of the Commerce clause makes me doubt you understand anything about the Constitution. Where did you get your law degree? You tell me, and I'll provide you my educational background. All of it.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks In fact, as a good faith gesture, I'll give you this bit: graduated University High School - Irvine, CA 2005. Now how about you? Where'd you graduate high school? College? What degree do you have and when did you receive it? Where'd you get your law degree and when did you receive it? Have you passed your state's bar exam? If so, when?
Ugh. Nothing worse than an arrogant lecture from a moron who never even graduated high school, has never read the Constitution, has never even heard of the commerce clause, and never bothered to do any research or read any of the Supreme Court decisions before forming his pathetic opinion. And all because he's too embarrassed and politically correct to argue the REAL reason he supports the confederacy and it's "cornerstone" of slavery and white supremacism.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So in other words, you have no response to my argument, and all you can do is call me names and denigrate me. I just provided you with an existing example of such an unconstitutional situation that has managed to survive all your levels of redress. What's your counter argument? That somehow, the Commerce clause, which regulates commerce "among the several States" allows the federal government to ban consumer products within a state? How can you possibly deduce that?
@GloryBound87 Consumer products are sold in interstate and international commerce. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce. Thanks for playing.
High school. College. Law school. These are good things, son.
Seriously---do you also troll medical videos and lecture doctors about proper surgical techniques? Do you lecture NASA about rocket science? Don't you have any humility at all? Does your arrogance and ignorance have ANY limits?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act goes beyond that. Like I said, in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Collective and Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court contends that even local growth for personal consumption somehow contributes to interstate commerce. What the hell are you talking about? Not only that, but how can you possibly argue that the federal government, under the enumerated powers of the Constitution, can ban products that the (con't)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RonPaulHatesBlacks states decide they want to produce within their territory? How does the Commerce Clause apply to the local state economy when it bears no relation whatsoever to commerce between the states? Believe it or not, the Constitution doesn't require a law degree to read and interpret. The wording is rather clear concerning Congress' power over commerce, and it applies between the states. If California is not selling marijuana to anyone else, how is that interstate commerce?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks How about you? You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of the difference between implied and enumerated Constitutional powers. Making the incredible logical leap that regulating interstate commerce somehow grants federal authority to confiscate from and prosecute people who produce goods for their personal consumption is ridiculous and flies in the face of our founding tradition and the clearly described power of the federal government to regulate commerce.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks If you want further confirmation of the vast overreach of the federal government under the auspices of the Controlled Substances Act and the Commerce Clause, there's also Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, which held that the consumption of locally grown marijuana could somehow affect the interstate market for marijuana. I suppose if I grow some tomatoes in my backyard for my consumption, I'm going to destroy the interstate tomato market, too. Really? How is that even logical?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks clearly unconstitutional act if the Supreme Court has declared that it is constitutional? We've had several Congresses since 1970, several Presidents, and more than a handful of new Supreme Court justices, so clearly changing the law by voting hasn't worked. Filing suit hasn't worked. What other option is left except for nullification?
@GloryBound87 "and more than a handful of new Supreme Court justices, so clearly changing the law by voting hasn't worked. Filing suit hasn't worked. What other option is left except for nullification?"
Okay, I get it now. Even though you keep saying "we the people", you don't actually believe in democracy. If every Congress for the past 40 years hasn't tried to repeal the law, then the people obviously want it to stay. You prefer oligarchy, where a small group can overrule the people.
@KayBeeEee1983 No, I don't. I prefer the model of government where by the federal government operates under the authority delegated to it by the states under the agreed-upon Constitution, and that its authority over the states is changed only by amendment to that Constitution. I'm not sure how I gave the impression I want to nullify a federal law for -every state-, but what I was trying to get across was the right of any state in the Union to determine for itself whether or not the (con't)
@GloryBound87 federal government is obeying the Constitution, which exists to restrain it. If State A decides to nullify a federal law, it doesn't have any authority to invade State B and impose its will on it. Nullification and secession are issues that should be handled by each state independently, and apply only to each state. If the people in State A vote and decide a federal law is unconstitutional, how does the federal government trump that decision?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I never said any such thing, and you know it. All I'm trying to say is that states, by the power given to them by their people, determine whether the federal government is obeying the Constitution. See my above comment about consent of the governed.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks distribution, and use of domestic consumer products. This legislation was contested in 2001 in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, citing the legal status of marijuana in California. The Supreme Court declared that if the federal government declared it illegal, it automatically trumped state law. Where in the Constitution is any portion of the federal government allowed to ban domestic consumer products? What recourse is available against this (con't)
@GloryBound87 hello I would just like to advise you to look at Ronpaulhatesblacks previous comments before responding to him again because all his responses are either insults or assumptions that you are racist, uneducated, and spamming
@lightning267100 I know. I'm pretty sure he's just a troll. Still, he's trying to claim an argument, and I'm going to defeat him handily, which I seem to be doing. Thank you for the comment though. Glad to see someone else noticed. :)
@RonPaulHatesBlacks My level of formal schooling has no bearing whatsoever on the strength of my argument. Painting my argument as irrelevant because of your unsubstantiated assumption that I'm an uneducated moron is called an ad hominem fallacy. And concerning "all avenues have been exhausted," let's talk about actual legislation. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which gave the federal government unprecedented authority to criminalize the production, sale, (con't)
@GloryBound87 There's no such thing as "all avenues have been exhausted," and no dictatorship. The closest thing to a dictatorship was your beloved confederacy. You're trying to change the subject because you're too embarrassed to defend the confederacy and your beloved slavery on the merits, so you've created a false hypothetical, a strawman. I think I can guess why you ducked the question of whether you even graduated high school. So sad.
@GloryBound87 The video's about the South's secession and the Civil War, dummy. The South's decision to unilaterally secede was unconstitutional, as Robert E Lee himself admitted, and it was immoral as well---unless you don't think racism and slavery are wrong. You should leave and go troll a video about secession and nullification in the abstract, or drop the act and argue the REAL reason you support the confederacy and it's "cornerstone" of white supremacism and neverending slavery.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I can leave comments on any video I wish. The discussion was about the constitutionality of secession. The fact it was prompted by a video about Robert E. Lee doesn't make it any less valid. The way you behave is hardly the way an educated person should act. For someone you claim is so stupid, I haven't attacked you personally or put you down. I don't support white supremacy, slavery, or racism. Why do you assume this about me?
@GloryBound87 You vote for a new president and Congress. You lobby to repeal the bill. You move away. You file a new suit and ask the Court to reconsider. There's no such thing as "no recourse remains." Serious question---are you really this stupid? Did you even graduate high school? This is really basic stuff.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Once again, you missed the part where I stated all avenues have been exhausted. And if the solution to dictatorial federal government is to leave the United States, that's not a solution at all. Calling me stupid and accusing me of not graduating high school doesn't do anything to add to the discussion. I would hope someone as educated as you say you are would be above personal attacks and name calling.
No one's forced to accept anything, kiddo. I guessed you missed high school civics, but this country was founded on the principle of checks and balances. You have thousands of legal and reasonable options if you don't like a federal decision. Violating the Constitution and murdering American soldiers just isn't one of them. Obviously. It's never too late to get an education, boy.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Not sure why you're calling me boy or implying that I don't have an education, but going back to the point you seem to be missing. If those checks and balances all vote in favor of unconstitutional legislation, what recourse remains? Let's take a hypothetical example to illustrate, as that may clarify what I'm saying. The Congress passes a law that declares federal searches no longer require warrants signed by judges, but rather department bureaucrats. (con't)
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The President supports this legislation. Despite numerous complaints about the legislation's constitutionality and repeated suits, the Supreme Court rules that the legislation is constitutional. When all three branches of the federal government rule that legislation is constitutional even if it clearly isn't, what other avenue or recourse remains?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Once again, since you are saying you're a lawyer with a focus on Constitutional law, I'm asking you to approach this from a coherent legal perspective, rather than justifying that secession is wrong because the manner in which the CSA seceded was wrong. Whether the CSA acted immorally or not, that has no bearing on the legality of nullification or secession. These are two separate issues.
You should stick to comparing Ron Paul to Optimus Prime, and leave the Constitutional law to people who've actually studied it and know what they're talking about. Do you also troll medical videos and lecture doctors about the best surgical techniques? Your arrogance and ignorance is embarrassing, boy.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I would have liked to reply earlier, but my phone was malfunctioning while I was at work. Going back to your previous comment and your continued denigration and unfounded characterization of me as being pro-slavery, you've still missed the point. If only the federal government can determine whether what the federal government does is constitutional or not, what recourse do we, the people, have? You can't ignore the fallacy that line of reasoning. I'm not arguing (con't)
@RonPaulHatesBlacks that states should just ignore federal law whenever they want, but to tell me that, when all other avenues are exhausted, people are forced to accept whatever decree is passed down by the federal government defies the principles upon which this country was founded.
Secession is not a constitutional right. Unilateral secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as Robert E. Lee admitted in 1860 and every court to consider the issue has confirmed. Stupid racist spammers really shouldn't lecture about Constitutional law when they've never even stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. They should stick to praising Hitler and claiming the Nazis were "right in their opinion" that Jewish people are evil. Sick.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The states are sovereign entities that allow the federal government to operate over them with their consent. The states are sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is endowed only with the powers provided to it by the states. If any of those states feel that the federal government is no longer operating under this charter (the Constitution), they do not have to obey, which is tantamount to secession.
@GloryBound87 Actually, if any state feels the federal government is no longer operating under the Constitution, it has a right to bring a lawsuit to enforce it. That happens every day. States do not have a right to murder American soldiers, seize federal property, or violate the Constitution simply because their preferred candidate lost a presidential election and they fear for the future of their "cornerstone" of slavery and white supremacism. Obviously. You're not too bright, kiddo.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Putting your denigration of me aside, you're missing the point. To say that only a branch of the federal government has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional is ridiculous. What if the Supreme Court upholds a clearly unconstitutional law? What then? We, the People, have no recourse? Put aside slavery and the Civil War for a second and look at this objectively, because there is a legal argument to be made.
You've obviously never even stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. If the Court upholds an unconstitutional law, you can pass a constitutional amendment, appoint new justices who agree with your interpretation, maybe threaten to expand the court. You don't get to murder American soldiers. Obviously.
The South didn't secede because of the Court. You seceded because your candidate lost to someone who threatened the expansion (and thus future) of your beloved slavery.
@GloryBound87 "What if the Supreme Court upholds a clearly unconstitutional law?"
Congress made the law, the President approved it, the Supreme Court confirmed its constitutionality. If you don't like the law, you have to wait until the next elections. Then you can elect officials who will change the law.
"We, the People, have no recourse?"
No, because the people elected the federal officials. The people have to deal with their decisions.
@GloryBound87 "the federal government has the sole right to determine if the federal government is acting constitutionally?"
I suppose the American people could hold a referendum if they're desperate.
"people are forced to accept whatever decree is passed down by the federal government defies the principles upon which this country was founded"
If that "decree" was issued by representatives of the PEOPLE then, yes, you have to accept it. The American colonists had no representation in Parliament
@KayBeeEee1983 The point I was trying to make is that there's a very real fallacy when those in power police themselves. If the federal government assumes authority in something that falls outside of its enumerated powers, who is supposed to reign it in?
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Put another way, you're trying to tell me that the federal government has the sole right to determine if the federal government is acting constitutionally? Don't you see the problem with that assertion?
@KayBeeEee1983 The federal government doesn't need state consent so long as it exercises its authority under the powers delegated to it by the states in the Constitution. The example I cited, of the Controlled Substances Act, goes well beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government, unless the giant leap is made that "among the several States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) means banning individuals from producing goods for their own consumption. I'm legally obligated to uphold that?
I don't get the American Civil War. If states wanted to be in a separate country to the federalists why not grant them their democratic right to leave?
The south would have had to rejoin with or without the civil war because of a variety of factors. But the south attacked a union fort and thats what started it
@Snagprophet "If states wanted to be in a separate country to the federalists why not grant them their democratic right to leave?"
They didn't just secede. They stole federal weapons, federal property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were inside. The "invasion" of the south was to reclaim federal property.
@escapefromobamastan We know what the South fought for. They proudly told us what they were fighting for at the time, in their Cornerstone Speech and Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina declarations of secession. The later, post hoc spin was calculated and meaningless.
100 years after the war black people were still treated like shit... Slavery was just an excuse for war, it would look kinda hypocritical that the "country of freedom" didn't let some states to become independent (as they had done years before).
@Lgw1984 Slavery was the main cause of the war, Jefferson davis said in his address to the assembly of succeded states that they had to protect the right of the south to control the negroes and keep slavery
@cdmcowcam Read how Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War. His tactics were terrible, he is the sole reason why anaconda worked. his refusal to reinforce the other theatres of the war was a disaster. If you look at it objectivly rather than through the modern glasses of his cult of personality then you will see, he was god awful. The south should have won, the north was losing the political will to fight, so he went on a suicide mission into gettysburg??? thats being a good general????
@MikeJGallagherJr I see your point but abolition meant the ruin of the South. Slavery was ALLOWED to happen. Then all of a sudden: "you guys cant do that anymore, its wroooong" whilst having VIRTUAL slave labor in their own industry, the wealthy of the NORTH just had to play altruistic to hide their own sins.. thus, they had Abe elected then began the strong arming of the Southern elitist prick who forced southern "white trash" to fight for THIER slaves. To this day you judge the wrong people.
@shdwofhanzo Northerners weren't "VIRTUAL" slaves. They were free. Then or now, not one single Northerner would have traded their life for that of a slave in Mississippi. There is no substitute for freedom.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks They chained children to machines because the little rascals had a tendancy to not want to do hard labor.. but yeah they did let them go home in the evening where their parents had to pay for their shelter and sustinance but yeah they were "free" to do that I 'spose. ;)
@shdwofhanzo And those children (and adults) were allowed to learn to read, to travel, to worship how they wished, to marry, to raise children without them being seized and sold downriver. They were FREE, and thus in an eminently better place than slaves. That's why you and your boys owned 3.5 million black slaves and ZERO white ones. If freedom made black folks worse off, you would support it. But you don't. You support slavery.
@shdwofhanzo Consider the fact that England was banning slave labor at the same time and that the entire world was going through that political shift. When put in context the war was neccisary.
I understand the context of the Emancipation Proclimation being a weapon of war. That does not however strip the morality out of it. And yes, the North had slavery for slightly longer than the South, but it was still abolished. And the souths behavior towards blacks following war was awful
@MikeJGallagherJr The South responded to scorched earth and a warped sense of an eye for an eye.. they took both eyes of people who didnt even have anything to do with it. Innocents were slaughtered. Doubt if you wish or refute it by saying the ends justify the means but murder is murder and hypocrisy has never fixed a thing in this world thus the resentments on both sides of the mason dixon and the color line continue to this day. Blacks and Whites suffer because nothing is balanced or honest.
@MikeJGallagherJr I only wish that people would get their stuff together and say what they mean but perhaps that too much for people of "means" and power. I dont think the vid maker was trying to demonize the figureheads of the North but merely trying to vindicate the South's of being the one who is, in fact, constanty and completely in the wrong.
This video absolutely misleading and 95% wrong. Lee didn't free his slaves until after the war was going and his plantation at Arlington was occupied by Union troops. His slaves had already been effectively freed by Union troops, they were no longer of use to Lee as they were behind enemy lines, his freeing them at that point is meaningless.
Lee absolutely fully supported slavery even while questioning its morality, but this moral questioning didn't stop him from having had runaways, like his slave Mary Norris, whipped. Trying to make Lee sound less favorable toward slavery than Grant is a mischaracterization so blatant that it can only be categorized as a deliberate lie.
@Rundstedt1 Yep, you are absolutely correct on all points. During the ANV's occupation of PA, Lee permitted his army to engage in the roundup of Black civilians, who were subsequently marched South to good ole Virginny, to be sold in slave markets. A historical fact documented by both civilians and Confederates. Not exactly the conduct of a man opposed to slavery.
@Rundstedt1 I can't help but wonder if ANY Confededrate reenacting units, recreate THAT piece of living history, at their annual pilgrimages to Gettysburg. I'm betting no.
I asked that very question of a CSA reenactor on another thread. He abrubtly changed the subject.
And, as the video doesn't seem to understand the significance of it: it was NOT GRANT himself who owned the slaves that were freed later, but his wife and her family. Grant personally had only owned one slave which was probably given to him by his father-in-law, and Grant freed that slave after only about a year. And as pointed out on the National Park service site about the Grant/Dent residence at White Haven:
"In Mary Robinson’s July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that “he always said he wanted to give his wife’s slaves their freedom as soon as he was able.” In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned.
During the Civil War, some slaves at White Haven simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven."
Notice here also that the video didn't even get the timing correct on when the Dent slaves were freed, it was it was not from the 13th Amendment, but before that by the state.
And Grants feelings about, or involvement in slavery, doesn't even matter to the issue of slavery as the root of the civil war. The South still seceded to protect slavery, all the divisive points can be traced back to slavery. Slavery had been the issue that had been threatening to boil over for decades and had already boiled over in Kansas. Slavery was THE cause of the war.
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton, (Called on the book's cover page, America's Greatest Civil war Historian) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
So no matter what sad excuse the Neo-Confederates try, or distraction like this one they throw out, it doesn't matter, the real historians are clear on the issue, the Civil War was caused by, and about slavery, and the South itself make it clear many times, like in every declaration of secession and in the cornerstone speech introducing its Constitution.
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
Huh? Do you know what manifest destiny is? And the issue that was contentious behind territorial expansion was... slavery! Both North and South supported expansion about equally, the difference was; would there be slavery or free labor in the new territories and states, so the divisive issue even in that; was slavery.
i live in the south, and I'm a reenactor (both Union and Confederate) but damn I hate seeing all of these rectangular rebel flags everyone likes flying. The rebel "battle flag" was NOT rectangular. It was square. Gah. The historian in me really comes out when I see these redneck abominations of the "rebel flag". And yes, the "Stars and Bars" is a reference to the First National Flag of the Confederacy, not the "rebel flag" everyone in the South embraces.
The flag they show on the right is the 'Third National' flag of the Confederate States of America. The flag you are familiar with, the 'stars and bars' when in square form is the Confederate battle flag, and when in rectangle form the battle flag of the Confederate navy. But either way, the 'Stars and Bars'; that which we call the Confederate flag, is a symbol of racism, slavery and oppression.
@Rundstedt1 The stars and bars? The confederate battle flag, the cross with stars, is what I think you mean. The Stars and Bars is the flag with the stars in the blue box, with two red and one white stripes, but I will give you a thumbs up for your effort.
Yes sorry, the stars and bars was really the first national, but it us not unusual for the confederate battle flag to be referred to as stars and bars, but technically yes the first national was the starts and bars.
The South did not fight for the preservation or extension of slavery but for state's rights. The North fought a war of National integration. Slavery was used by the North as an excuse to extend its power on the southern states. With development of agricultural technology, slavery would have ended naturally....
Look, the only reason Lincoln brought slaves into it was because he didn't want British troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with the confederates as the Queen supported them over the Unionists. By doing this, he made it impossible for Britain and it's colonial forces to physically intervene as slavery had already been abolished there.
And so if the war wasn't about slavery, than why didn't the South just emancipate the Slaves themselves and get the support of England? Why... Because even as the South admitted over and over itself it was all about slavery.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens from the 'cornerstone speech'
@Rundstedt1 The whole reason the South needed the slaves were for the cotton industry, which was exactly what the British wanted. So no, they couldn't get rid of the slaves, or otherwise potential allies would fall out of interest. Let me ask you, why did Lincoln do nothing about slavery until mid-war, when the British were about to enter the war. If the war was over slavery, what did the other 96% of Southerners fight for?
@Rundstedt1 And as for Lee, he was in the military his whole adult life before the War. He almost was never home, he had to be doing military engineering projects. Many biographies leave out the years of his life between the Mexican and Civil Wars because he really wasn't doing anything important. So no, he could not have had the time to play slave driver with his one slave.
Yes he was home he left the service when, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857 and Robert E. Lee was named executor, and as his father-in-law had foolishly drawn up his will without benefit of legal advice, Lee was forced to take an extended leave of absence from the army to return to Arlington to sort it all out, and this is where he will be when the war breaks out four years later.
@Rundstedt1 Of course I know that. I don't even know why you care so much, since you arn't a Christian. You say that these things not happening is like saying the Nazi's didn't kill the Jews. I bet you didn't know that public school prayer existed in the sixties. Eversince it was disbanded, sex, violence, and drug use in schools shot up. The New York Times had an article on how useless marrige is. Without marrige though, STDs will be rampant. Cont>
@RebelSoldat1 Cont> So, without marrige, if you don't want to get an STD, you'd have to pick a partner before you were 17 or 18, because everyone will be running around having sex, and then we'll be a disease-ridden country.
@rebelproud81 The union isn't a marriage, retard. Even Robert E. Lee understand that the Constitution creates a permanent nation and prohibits unilateral secession. If you voluntarily choose to sign an apartment lease, you can't unilaterally seize the building and attempt to murder the landlord. If Southerners wanted out, they were free to move. And without slavery, black folks would have immigrated here as free men, like every other group did. You're really uneducated.
@Rundstedt1 To be honest, I can't trust anyone in the modern world. The media is very set against Christians, even Washington and Columbus. One thing I do know about Lee is that he wouldn't even call the Northerners 'Yankees', nor would he even call them 'enemies'. He always refered to them as "those people."
I cannot imagine such a man that takes such great care in his speech whipping and raping slaves. This would be like saying Washington was a pedophile or gay. Cont>
@Rundstedt1 Actually, yes. I've seen shows on Nat Geo putting down Washington, MSN always has something up to tear down morality, they have something up right now about how great retiring is for gay men. I can go on much, much, more. An yes, the media is replacing the word Christmas with Holiday. I hope you had a happy 'Holiday.'
What is the word Holiday? Well.... "HOLY day" you are just making up some garbage issue, there is no 'war on christmas'. But just keep it up, you only show your delusions in full and discredit yourself even further with your silly garbage.
@Rundstedt1 The purpose of it was to remove CHRIST from Christmas. So they replaced it with Holiday. It could be a Muslim's holy day for all they care. This is why we have Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Leprechaun (I probably misspelled that.) to replace holidays. Media-supported groups like the ACLU are constantly waisting Christians' money with court battles over the smallest things that they know they will lose.
@RebelSoldat1 They like to keep this covered up so the transition to a free-religion country to eventual Christian persecution is a slow, unnoticed one. They press church leaders to have gays teach Sunday schools. They took down a cross out in the middle of the desert honoring WW1 vets. A Christian praying at a public school can be suspended, but Muslim students have their own special prayer rooms. All this I remember just off the top of my head. Being a Christian is the new 'black.'
If slavery had been the main focus, Congress would have passed the 13th ammendment while the southern states were not involved. Instead it waits till the end of the war. Look it's very simple. Is it ok to beat your wife because she wants to leave. No! As a matter of fact that is exactly the case here. We choose to end a union and the abuse gets physical. Also if the institution of slavery never existed, would there be African Americans?
You idiot it takes time for admentdments to pass, and it had to pass even in the states that seceded, the 13th COULD NOT have been passed sooner.
Slavery was THE casue of he war period and the judgement of historians agree.
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton,) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
New York banned slavery: "the state provided for abolition of all slavery by 1827" - Wiki (a source I don't prefer to use but even you would probable have the reading skills to comprehend it.)
"Slavery ended in New York State in 1827" - nydivided(dot) org
and so on and so on...
New York, slaves, 1860.... ZERO!
And again the split over slavery, no split, no war, slavery casued the war no matter what the North originally fought for.
I suspected you were immature from your ignorance, stay in school kid, you need it, and if you're really lucky, you'll end up in one of my classrooms. But not supporting your statements on you papers or using bogus sources will cause you a serious loss of credit.
@Rundstedt1 You may want to try again back then they didn't always count slaves. Most times it was only the head of the household. So I would check the actual census records next time not something you pulled up on Google.
Sorry did check the actual Census. Yup when presented with evidence you try to deny the evidence even if that evidence can be easily obtained from the Census bureau and many academic historical sites.
Oh and they were always intrested in counting slaves, the count of slaves helped in providing the state with representation. The owners WANTED the slaves counted and would make sure they were.
And so what are you trying to say anyway? That the South had more than nine million people in bondage? That the immoral horror of the South was to an even greater extent that we thought? Well how many slaves were in the South? 6 MIllion? Ten? No wonder they South wanted to protect it huh?
@Rundstedt1 Very well could have been many more enslaved then we thought I however don't have the full new york state census infront of me. All state were not interested in making it know how many slaves there were and yes they wanted a count of how many slaves but it didn't mean that they made it readily avaible information. To figure that number out you have to dig through records.
And the facts are the South started the war over the issue of slavery.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
@Rundstedt1 No date, no year, no bill number, no author, no official title, no citation of any kind, just "the cotton tax." You know, the Cotton Tax!!! That one!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! What a fucking moron!!!
It's amazing the lengths to which racist spammers will go to avoid acknowledging the confederacy's own Cornerstone Speech and declarations of secession. It's like supporting Christianity in post after post but never once mentioning the Bible.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks well I'm tired of commenting on this video. sorry but I won't be here to prove you wrong anymore so you can go ahead and post that comment about how I'm retreating or some other insult.
Yup, run away when we show you have no idea about what you're talking about, and that you've made up this stuff about some tax, that you can't name or find anything about in the entire record of the country.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks oh and I know we have always argued but I really didn't think you would take sides with somebody who on there channel believes in communism.
@Rundstedt1 well looks like you've resorted to using insults to try and prove your point. i'm done talking to you i'm going to go back to proving that other five year old wrong. i bet you feel cool cause you can trash talk on youtube
Are you kidding? You're trying to run away from your BS. Come on; where's that supposed Cotton tax? When was it passed, what was the vote? How many Democrats voted for, against? Come on let's see what you're talking about.
I don't need insults, you insult yourself with your unsupported trash. You posted some BS about a tax and you are now too ashamed to admit you have no idea about what you are talking about and you just pulled 'facts' out of your ass.
@Rundstedt1 I am not going to state how many people voted for it or the exact date. just
like your unsupported lee documents. What gives you the right to tell other people what they know or what they believe. if I said I believe in god you would probably tell me I was wrong for that. I will no longer reply to you.
I will say southerners had slaves... Some even mistreated there slaves... BUT I will the the war was not about slavery... The south was getting taxed more then the north... And so on... Some Southerners let there slaves go... But the slaves refused to leave there masters.
Prove this: What is this magic tax that taxed the South more? Prove they were taxed more. Slaves refused to leave their masters? Maybe a small few, but that's a total mischaracterization, and that's why Union lines were flooded with grateful contrabands. How sad, you try to make excuses for slavery, alluding that it was so nice the slaves didn't want to leave.
@Rundstedt1 it was the cotton tax and we were taxed more because we grew the most cotton, but I have never heard of any slaves not wanting to leave there masters. mabey not wanting to leave there home, but hey it was there home.
What Cotton tax? There was no Cotton tax.... Come on what was the tax bill's name of this so called cotton tax... when were the congressional debates about this cotton tax? When was it passed? No sorry, no such thing as a cotton tax.
@Rundstedt1 ok look did you ever think that was it's name? The Cotton Tax. what did it place a tax on? cotton. What did The Tea Tax put a tax on? tea. you would think people that come on here thinking they know everything about that time period would at least do some research. and if lee was such a big supporter of slavery why did lincoln ask him to lead the union army?
Well you still didn't answer the question.... Come on where is this tax? What date was it passed. There was no such thing called a cotton tax and no special taxes were put on the South and you cannot prove there were. And Lee was asked to head the armies because of his military reputation, not his views on slavery, the North was trying to keep the Union togeather only because the South had split over slavery, so slavery was THE cause, period.
@Rundstedt1 look i'm pretty sure it was passed in the late 1850s to early 1860 but i really don't feel like looking it up right now. you can't prove that there wasn't one. I have read several biographies on lee and have never heard anything about these mysterious letters. what i have heard is that he never even purchased the slaves he inherited them and let them go several months before the will required. slavery was one reason for the war, but NOT THE MAIN ONE.
Pretty Sure??? Well I'm Certain you're full of shit, prove me wrong. There was no so called 'cotton tax' and there was no special tax on the South. I don't have to prove the negative, you made the assertion that there was this so called tax, it's up to you to prove it. And again slavery was THE cause of the war and historians are explicit on this.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
I don't hate anyone. I just think racism is wrong, and you don't. I think slavery is wrong, and you don't. I think the confederacy made a mistake in seceding and starting a war to try to preserve slavery and racism, and you don't. I love America and freedom of religion, and you don't. You hate America, freedom of religion, and Muslims like Dave Chappelle and Muhammad Ali. You're a sick little boy, and you're done here.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Me, done? Ho no. We have real photographs of black confederate soldiers, just as well-dressed and well-armed as their white counterparts. if you want to understand my views on slavery and racism, you must read the Bible. I'll explain later if you give me time. I speak out against Islam because the goal of a Muslim is to prepare the way for the Madhi - which can only be accomplished when every infidel is dead. In the Bible, the Madhi is the Anti-Christ.
And it's all bullshit, especially if you're reffering to the Silas Chandler photo, which was shown to be that of a slave being displayed by his master as a child would dress a doll. The guns the slave is holding are useless outdated props provided by the photo artist. PBS and the Civil War times have aready covered the topic and All the Photo shows is a slave being forced to do his masters bidding. Black Confederates are a myth, and the idea is rebutted by Civil War historians.
My Founding Fathers knew their actions violated British law, and they'd be hung to death if they lost, like Nathan Hale. They didn't spend much time whining to the contrary. But my Founding Fathers didn't fight for a "cornerstone" of racism and slavery. The confederacy did. That's why the CSA is supported today by a few sick assholes who hate America and the Constitution, and wish states could engage in slavery, segregation and other unfettered tyranny under a reinstated Articles of Confederacy.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 hours ago
the truth is...
People on both sides were very racist, and many Northerners had slaves (esp. in border states).
The South seceded because they feared the north would eventually outlaw slavery with the rise of the Repub. Party.
Doesn't make one side "good guys" and one side "bad guys" necessarily. But to say the South seceded for "States Rights" is disingenuous. Every secession convention debates slavery immensely. South Carolina's secession declaration mentioned slavery 19 times.
kuwinsitall 11 hours ago 2
@kuwinsitall I agree. I don't have any illusions for why the Southern states seceded, nor about why they lost. The Union beat them. The war's over.
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
@GloryBound87
Yep. I think people lose perspective as it was 150 years ago and the nation was so different then politically, socially and technologically. All parties on both sides were working in self-interest. Many abolitionists fought slavery for altruistic reasons, for example, but many others were small landowners who feared the power of huge plantation owners. A sort-of 99% vs. 1% argument at the time.
It's hard to discuss this intelligently as people get so emotional
kuwinsitall 57 minutes ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Founding Fathers knew their actions violated British law, and they'd be hung to death if they lost, like Nathan Hale. They didn't spend much time whining to the contrary. But my Founding Fathers didn't fight for a "cornerstone" of racism and slavery. The CSA did. That's why the CSA is defended today by a few sick trolls who hate America and wish the confederacy had won the Civil War and subjected millions of innocent people to more decades or centuries of slavery and segregation.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So because the Founding Fathers won the fight, that makes it ok? Either unilateral secession of territories/states is or is not acceptable. If it isn't, then how do you justify the existence, in any part, of the United States of America? Once again, the reason why the CSA seceded from the Union may not have been morally justifiable, but the fact that they did secede shouldn't even be an issue. The War was fought, the South lost. I don't have an issue with that.
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
@GloryBound87 That's ridiculous. Of course there are times when fighting is the right moral choice. The Civil War isn't one of them, spammer. The South had no legal right to unilateral secession, and no moral right---unless you don't think slavery and racism are wrong. You should drop the act and argue the REAL reason you believe millions of black people and their descendants deserved MORE years of slavery and segregation.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 hours ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The people in the state voted for secession. How does that not give them the right to secede? Whether or not it's morally justifiable, the Southern states voted to secede. Unless you believe a government is legitimate without the consent of the governed, the states had a justifiable legal right.
GloryBound87 3 hours ago
Unilateral secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as Robert E Lee admitted and every court to consider the issue has confirmed, in decisions this spammer has never even read. Lincoln and others swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, and they did. Simple. We the People are glad America won, because We believe slavery is wrong. Others disagree. They wish millions of black folks had suffered MORE slavery and segregation, and call their enslavement "irrelevant." Sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So you default back to your argument that "if the federal government tells me it's wrong, it must be wrong." And I suppose the unilateral secession of the 13 original colonies from the British Empire was wrong too, right? Ater all, the British said so and fought a war to quell the insurrection! Don't worry, citizen. Your wise federal overlords will keep providing you with your pre-approved patterns of thought. Just remain calm and continue your conventional thinking.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Human slavery is wrong. Period. Condemning people more than a century after the fact for it is more or less irrelevant, but it is morally wrong to enslave another person for one's benefit, even if it is legal. That said, the Confederacy was wrong not in the fact that it seceded, but for the reasons why it seceded. When no other legal recourse remains, nullification and secession are actions that are rooted in our American tradition.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
The video's about the Civil War. One of us is a troll, a spammer, and an uneducated stoner trying desperately to change the subject to marijuana regulation, but it sure the fuck ain't me.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I haven't changed the subject once. I've been presenting the argument for state nullification and secession, one of the integral legal issues of the Civil War, in a calm, logical, and polite way. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but insult and denigrate me from the start. Speaking of which, where'd you go to law school? Still waiting for a response.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
Yeah. More arrogant, uneducated rantings from a stoner who couldn't even graduate high school. How pathetic. You're done here, spammer. This is not your personal blog. Go write a manifesto and ask High Times to publish it.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks How has anything I've said been uneducated? I've presented all my arguments logically and clearly, I haven't called you names (though I've wanted to, believe me), and your interpretation of the Commerce clause makes me doubt you understand anything about the Constitution. Where did you get your law degree? You tell me, and I'll provide you my educational background. All of it.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks In fact, as a good faith gesture, I'll give you this bit: graduated University High School - Irvine, CA 2005. Now how about you? Where'd you graduate high school? College? What degree do you have and when did you receive it? Where'd you get your law degree and when did you receive it? Have you passed your state's bar exam? If so, when?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
Comment removed
OtmShank93 1 day ago
Ugh. Nothing worse than an arrogant lecture from a moron who never even graduated high school, has never read the Constitution, has never even heard of the commerce clause, and never bothered to do any research or read any of the Supreme Court decisions before forming his pathetic opinion. And all because he's too embarrassed and politically correct to argue the REAL reason he supports the confederacy and it's "cornerstone" of slavery and white supremacism.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks So in other words, you have no response to my argument, and all you can do is call me names and denigrate me. I just provided you with an existing example of such an unconstitutional situation that has managed to survive all your levels of redress. What's your counter argument? That somehow, the Commerce clause, which regulates commerce "among the several States" allows the federal government to ban consumer products within a state? How can you possibly deduce that?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@GloryBound87 Consumer products are sold in interstate and international commerce. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce. Thanks for playing.
High school. College. Law school. These are good things, son.
Seriously---do you also troll medical videos and lecture doctors about proper surgical techniques? Do you lecture NASA about rocket science? Don't you have any humility at all? Does your arrogance and ignorance have ANY limits?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act goes beyond that. Like I said, in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Collective and Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court contends that even local growth for personal consumption somehow contributes to interstate commerce. What the hell are you talking about? Not only that, but how can you possibly argue that the federal government, under the enumerated powers of the Constitution, can ban products that the (con't)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks states decide they want to produce within their territory? How does the Commerce Clause apply to the local state economy when it bears no relation whatsoever to commerce between the states? Believe it or not, the Constitution doesn't require a law degree to read and interpret. The wording is rather clear concerning Congress' power over commerce, and it applies between the states. If California is not selling marijuana to anyone else, how is that interstate commerce?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks How about you? You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of the difference between implied and enumerated Constitutional powers. Making the incredible logical leap that regulating interstate commerce somehow grants federal authority to confiscate from and prosecute people who produce goods for their personal consumption is ridiculous and flies in the face of our founding tradition and the clearly described power of the federal government to regulate commerce.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks If you want further confirmation of the vast overreach of the federal government under the auspices of the Controlled Substances Act and the Commerce Clause, there's also Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, which held that the consumption of locally grown marijuana could somehow affect the interstate market for marijuana. I suppose if I grow some tomatoes in my backyard for my consumption, I'm going to destroy the interstate tomato market, too. Really? How is that even logical?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks clearly unconstitutional act if the Supreme Court has declared that it is constitutional? We've had several Congresses since 1970, several Presidents, and more than a handful of new Supreme Court justices, so clearly changing the law by voting hasn't worked. Filing suit hasn't worked. What other option is left except for nullification?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@GloryBound87 "and more than a handful of new Supreme Court justices, so clearly changing the law by voting hasn't worked. Filing suit hasn't worked. What other option is left except for nullification?"
Okay, I get it now. Even though you keep saying "we the people", you don't actually believe in democracy. If every Congress for the past 40 years hasn't tried to repeal the law, then the people obviously want it to stay. You prefer oligarchy, where a small group can overrule the people.
KayBeeEee1983 7 hours ago 5
Comment removed
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 No, I don't. I prefer the model of government where by the federal government operates under the authority delegated to it by the states under the agreed-upon Constitution, and that its authority over the states is changed only by amendment to that Constitution. I'm not sure how I gave the impression I want to nullify a federal law for -every state-, but what I was trying to get across was the right of any state in the Union to determine for itself whether or not the (con't)
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloryBound87 federal government is obeying the Constitution, which exists to restrain it. If State A decides to nullify a federal law, it doesn't have any authority to invade State B and impose its will on it. Nullification and secession are issues that should be handled by each state independently, and apply only to each state. If the people in State A vote and decide a federal law is unconstitutional, how does the federal government trump that decision?
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
Comment removed
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I never said any such thing, and you know it. All I'm trying to say is that states, by the power given to them by their people, determine whether the federal government is obeying the Constitution. See my above comment about consent of the governed.
GloryBound87 3 hours ago
Comment removed
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks distribution, and use of domestic consumer products. This legislation was contested in 2001 in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, citing the legal status of marijuana in California. The Supreme Court declared that if the federal government declared it illegal, it automatically trumped state law. Where in the Constitution is any portion of the federal government allowed to ban domestic consumer products? What recourse is available against this (con't)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloryBound87 hello I would just like to advise you to look at Ronpaulhatesblacks previous comments before responding to him again because all his responses are either insults or assumptions that you are racist, uneducated, and spamming
lightning267100 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lightning267100 I know. I'm pretty sure he's just a troll. Still, he's trying to claim an argument, and I'm going to defeat him handily, which I seem to be doing. Thank you for the comment though. Glad to see someone else noticed. :)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks My level of formal schooling has no bearing whatsoever on the strength of my argument. Painting my argument as irrelevant because of your unsubstantiated assumption that I'm an uneducated moron is called an ad hominem fallacy. And concerning "all avenues have been exhausted," let's talk about actual legislation. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which gave the federal government unprecedented authority to criminalize the production, sale, (con't)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@GloryBound87 There's no such thing as "all avenues have been exhausted," and no dictatorship. The closest thing to a dictatorship was your beloved confederacy. You're trying to change the subject because you're too embarrassed to defend the confederacy and your beloved slavery on the merits, so you've created a false hypothetical, a strawman. I think I can guess why you ducked the question of whether you even graduated high school. So sad.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
@GloryBound87 The video's about the South's secession and the Civil War, dummy. The South's decision to unilaterally secede was unconstitutional, as Robert E Lee himself admitted, and it was immoral as well---unless you don't think racism and slavery are wrong. You should leave and go troll a video about secession and nullification in the abstract, or drop the act and argue the REAL reason you support the confederacy and it's "cornerstone" of white supremacism and neverending slavery.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I can leave comments on any video I wish. The discussion was about the constitutionality of secession. The fact it was prompted by a video about Robert E. Lee doesn't make it any less valid. The way you behave is hardly the way an educated person should act. For someone you claim is so stupid, I haven't attacked you personally or put you down. I don't support white supremacy, slavery, or racism. Why do you assume this about me?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@GloryBound87 You vote for a new president and Congress. You lobby to repeal the bill. You move away. You file a new suit and ask the Court to reconsider. There's no such thing as "no recourse remains." Serious question---are you really this stupid? Did you even graduate high school? This is really basic stuff.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Once again, you missed the part where I stated all avenues have been exhausted. And if the solution to dictatorial federal government is to leave the United States, that's not a solution at all. Calling me stupid and accusing me of not graduating high school doesn't do anything to add to the discussion. I would hope someone as educated as you say you are would be above personal attacks and name calling.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
No one's forced to accept anything, kiddo. I guessed you missed high school civics, but this country was founded on the principle of checks and balances. You have thousands of legal and reasonable options if you don't like a federal decision. Violating the Constitution and murdering American soldiers just isn't one of them. Obviously. It's never too late to get an education, boy.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Not sure why you're calling me boy or implying that I don't have an education, but going back to the point you seem to be missing. If those checks and balances all vote in favor of unconstitutional legislation, what recourse remains? Let's take a hypothetical example to illustrate, as that may clarify what I'm saying. The Congress passes a law that declares federal searches no longer require warrants signed by judges, but rather department bureaucrats. (con't)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The President supports this legislation. Despite numerous complaints about the legislation's constitutionality and repeated suits, the Supreme Court rules that the legislation is constitutional. When all three branches of the federal government rule that legislation is constitutional even if it clearly isn't, what other avenue or recourse remains?
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Once again, since you are saying you're a lawyer with a focus on Constitutional law, I'm asking you to approach this from a coherent legal perspective, rather than justifying that secession is wrong because the manner in which the CSA seceded was wrong. Whether the CSA acted immorally or not, that has no bearing on the legality of nullification or secession. These are two separate issues.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
You should stick to comparing Ron Paul to Optimus Prime, and leave the Constitutional law to people who've actually studied it and know what they're talking about. Do you also troll medical videos and lecture doctors about the best surgical techniques? Your arrogance and ignorance is embarrassing, boy.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 days ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks I would have liked to reply earlier, but my phone was malfunctioning while I was at work. Going back to your previous comment and your continued denigration and unfounded characterization of me as being pro-slavery, you've still missed the point. If only the federal government can determine whether what the federal government does is constitutional or not, what recourse do we, the people, have? You can't ignore the fallacy that line of reasoning. I'm not arguing (con't)
GloryBound87 1 day ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks that states should just ignore federal law whenever they want, but to tell me that, when all other avenues are exhausted, people are forced to accept whatever decree is passed down by the federal government defies the principles upon which this country was founded.
GloryBound87 1 day ago
Secession is not a constitutional right. Unilateral secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, as Robert E. Lee admitted in 1860 and every court to consider the issue has confirmed. Stupid racist spammers really shouldn't lecture about Constitutional law when they've never even stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. They should stick to praising Hitler and claiming the Nazis were "right in their opinion" that Jewish people are evil. Sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 days ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks The states are sovereign entities that allow the federal government to operate over them with their consent. The states are sovereign, not the federal government. The federal government is endowed only with the powers provided to it by the states. If any of those states feel that the federal government is no longer operating under this charter (the Constitution), they do not have to obey, which is tantamount to secession.
GloryBound87 2 days ago
@GloryBound87 Actually, if any state feels the federal government is no longer operating under the Constitution, it has a right to bring a lawsuit to enforce it. That happens every day. States do not have a right to murder American soldiers, seize federal property, or violate the Constitution simply because their preferred candidate lost a presidential election and they fear for the future of their "cornerstone" of slavery and white supremacism. Obviously. You're not too bright, kiddo.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 days ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Putting your denigration of me aside, you're missing the point. To say that only a branch of the federal government has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional is ridiculous. What if the Supreme Court upholds a clearly unconstitutional law? What then? We, the People, have no recourse? Put aside slavery and the Civil War for a second and look at this objectively, because there is a legal argument to be made.
GloryBound87 2 days ago
You've obviously never even stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. If the Court upholds an unconstitutional law, you can pass a constitutional amendment, appoint new justices who agree with your interpretation, maybe threaten to expand the court. You don't get to murder American soldiers. Obviously.
The South didn't secede because of the Court. You seceded because your candidate lost to someone who threatened the expansion (and thus future) of your beloved slavery.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 days ago
@GloryBound87 "What if the Supreme Court upholds a clearly unconstitutional law?"
Congress made the law, the President approved it, the Supreme Court confirmed its constitutionality. If you don't like the law, you have to wait until the next elections. Then you can elect officials who will change the law.
"We, the People, have no recourse?"
No, because the people elected the federal officials. The people have to deal with their decisions.
KayBeeEee1983 7 hours ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@GloryBound87 "the federal government has the sole right to determine if the federal government is acting constitutionally?"
I suppose the American people could hold a referendum if they're desperate.
"people are forced to accept whatever decree is passed down by the federal government defies the principles upon which this country was founded"
If that "decree" was issued by representatives of the PEOPLE then, yes, you have to accept it. The American colonists had no representation in Parliament
KayBeeEee1983 7 hours ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The point I was trying to make is that there's a very real fallacy when those in power police themselves. If the federal government assumes authority in something that falls outside of its enumerated powers, who is supposed to reign it in?
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Put another way, you're trying to tell me that the federal government has the sole right to determine if the federal government is acting constitutionally? Don't you see the problem with that assertion?
GloryBound87 2 days ago
@GloryBound87 "The states are sovereign entities that allow the federal government to operate over them with their consent."
The federal government doesn't need state consent. See: Article 6, Clause 2 (a.k.a. Supremacy Clause).
" If any of those states feel that the federal government is no longer operating under this charter (the Constitution), they do not have to obey"
Legally, they have to, just like you have to obey laws that you disagree with.
KayBeeEee1983 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 The federal government doesn't need state consent so long as it exercises its authority under the powers delegated to it by the states in the Constitution. The example I cited, of the Controlled Substances Act, goes well beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government, unless the giant leap is made that "among the several States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) means banning individuals from producing goods for their own consumption. I'm legally obligated to uphold that?
GloryBound87 4 hours ago
I don't get the American Civil War. If states wanted to be in a separate country to the federalists why not grant them their democratic right to leave?
Snagprophet 6 days ago
@Snagprophet
The south would have had to rejoin with or without the civil war because of a variety of factors. But the south attacked a union fort and thats what started it
mrslothguy 5 days ago
@Snagprophet You would think it would be that easy. Secession is a constitutional right, but even if it wasnt, why would anyone try to deny it?
RevBillyRayCollins 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Snagprophet "If states wanted to be in a separate country to the federalists why not grant them their democratic right to leave?"
They didn't just secede. They stole federal weapons, federal property, and demolished a federal fort while federal troops were inside. The "invasion" of the south was to reclaim federal property.
KayBeeEee1983 8 hours ago
Hmm should i believe my history book or a idiots opinion?
Crazyrevan5 1 week ago
...apparently the English language " ain't " like we've been taught either?
wetdigestive 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@escapefromobamastan We know what the South fought for. They proudly told us what they were fighting for at the time, in their Cornerstone Speech and Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina declarations of secession. The later, post hoc spin was calculated and meaningless.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search YouTube for "Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For. "
escapefromobamastan 1 week ago
Sorry but Lee's family owned slaves until the end of the war, the confederacy was evil end off
SArmagh681 1 week ago
@SArmagh681
100 years after the war black people were still treated like shit... Slavery was just an excuse for war, it would look kinda hypocritical that the "country of freedom" didn't let some states to become independent (as they had done years before).
Lgw1984 1 week ago
@Lgw1984 Slavery was the main cause of the war, Jefferson davis said in his address to the assembly of succeded states that they had to protect the right of the south to control the negroes and keep slavery
SArmagh681 1 week ago
Even JIM Webb (Dem), wrights in his book "born fighting". That it was well after the war was over b4 the north was told to free It's slaves.
It's a fantastically read.
freeRguns 2 weeks ago
Lee was originally offered the position of the union general.
Frankly, he wouldve been better than the stream of generals Abe appointed.
cdmcowcam 2 weeks ago
@cdmcowcam Read how Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War. His tactics were terrible, he is the sole reason why anaconda worked. his refusal to reinforce the other theatres of the war was a disaster. If you look at it objectivly rather than through the modern glasses of his cult of personality then you will see, he was god awful. The south should have won, the north was losing the political will to fight, so he went on a suicide mission into gettysburg??? thats being a good general????
MikeJGallagherJr 2 weeks ago 3
SO CLEARLY THIS COMPLEATLY JUSTIFIES SECCESION FROM THE UNION AND DECLARES ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND GRANT AS SATAN SPAWN!!!
Whatever, idiotic southern white trash.
MikeJGallagherJr 2 weeks ago
@MikeJGallagherJr Whoaaa abit grouchy there why are southerners white trash i dont see any trash here in the south
GeneralCage 2 weeks ago
@MikeJGallagherJr I see your point but abolition meant the ruin of the South. Slavery was ALLOWED to happen. Then all of a sudden: "you guys cant do that anymore, its wroooong" whilst having VIRTUAL slave labor in their own industry, the wealthy of the NORTH just had to play altruistic to hide their own sins.. thus, they had Abe elected then began the strong arming of the Southern elitist prick who forced southern "white trash" to fight for THIER slaves. To this day you judge the wrong people.
shdwofhanzo 2 weeks ago
@shdwofhanzo Northerners weren't "VIRTUAL" slaves. They were free. Then or now, not one single Northerner would have traded their life for that of a slave in Mississippi. There is no substitute for freedom.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks They chained children to machines because the little rascals had a tendancy to not want to do hard labor.. but yeah they did let them go home in the evening where their parents had to pay for their shelter and sustinance but yeah they were "free" to do that I 'spose. ;)
shdwofhanzo 2 weeks ago
@shdwofhanzo And those children (and adults) were allowed to learn to read, to travel, to worship how they wished, to marry, to raise children without them being seized and sold downriver. They were FREE, and thus in an eminently better place than slaves. That's why you and your boys owned 3.5 million black slaves and ZERO white ones. If freedom made black folks worse off, you would support it. But you don't. You support slavery.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago
@shdwofhanzo Consider the fact that England was banning slave labor at the same time and that the entire world was going through that political shift. When put in context the war was neccisary.
I understand the context of the Emancipation Proclimation being a weapon of war. That does not however strip the morality out of it. And yes, the North had slavery for slightly longer than the South, but it was still abolished. And the souths behavior towards blacks following war was awful
MikeJGallagherJr 2 weeks ago 6
@MikeJGallagherJr The South responded to scorched earth and a warped sense of an eye for an eye.. they took both eyes of people who didnt even have anything to do with it. Innocents were slaughtered. Doubt if you wish or refute it by saying the ends justify the means but murder is murder and hypocrisy has never fixed a thing in this world thus the resentments on both sides of the mason dixon and the color line continue to this day. Blacks and Whites suffer because nothing is balanced or honest.
shdwofhanzo 2 weeks ago
@MikeJGallagherJr I only wish that people would get their stuff together and say what they mean but perhaps that too much for people of "means" and power. I dont think the vid maker was trying to demonize the figureheads of the North but merely trying to vindicate the South's of being the one who is, in fact, constanty and completely in the wrong.
shdwofhanzo 2 weeks ago
This is laughable
Zurrixia 3 weeks ago 3
(1/7)
This video absolutely misleading and 95% wrong. Lee didn't free his slaves until after the war was going and his plantation at Arlington was occupied by Union troops. His slaves had already been effectively freed by Union troops, they were no longer of use to Lee as they were behind enemy lines, his freeing them at that point is meaningless.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(2/8)
Lee absolutely fully supported slavery even while questioning its morality, but this moral questioning didn't stop him from having had runaways, like his slave Mary Norris, whipped. Trying to make Lee sound less favorable toward slavery than Grant is a mischaracterization so blatant that it can only be categorized as a deliberate lie.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago 11
@Rundstedt1 Yep, you are absolutely correct on all points. During the ANV's occupation of PA, Lee permitted his army to engage in the roundup of Black civilians, who were subsequently marched South to good ole Virginny, to be sold in slave markets. A historical fact documented by both civilians and Confederates. Not exactly the conduct of a man opposed to slavery.
UnionStatesHeritage 3 weeks ago 4
@Rundstedt1 I can't help but wonder if ANY Confededrate reenacting units, recreate THAT piece of living history, at their annual pilgrimages to Gettysburg. I'm betting no.
I asked that very question of a CSA reenactor on another thread. He abrubtly changed the subject.
UnionStatesHeritage 3 weeks ago 2
(3/8)
And, as the video doesn't seem to understand the significance of it: it was NOT GRANT himself who owned the slaves that were freed later, but his wife and her family. Grant personally had only owned one slave which was probably given to him by his father-in-law, and Grant freed that slave after only about a year. And as pointed out on the National Park service site about the Grant/Dent residence at White Haven:
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(4/8)
"In Mary Robinson’s July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that “he always said he wanted to give his wife’s slaves their freedom as soon as he was able.” In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(5/8)
During the Civil War, some slaves at White Haven simply walked off, as they did on many plantations in both Union and Confederate states. Missouri’s constitutional convention abolished slavery in the state in January 1865, freeing any slaves still living at White Haven."
Notice here also that the video didn't even get the timing correct on when the Dent slaves were freed, it was it was not from the 13th Amendment, but before that by the state.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(6/8)
And Grants feelings about, or involvement in slavery, doesn't even matter to the issue of slavery as the root of the civil war. The South still seceded to protect slavery, all the divisive points can be traced back to slavery. Slavery had been the issue that had been threatening to boil over for decades and had already boiled over in Kansas. Slavery was THE cause of the war.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(7/8)
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton, (Called on the book's cover page, America's Greatest Civil war Historian) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
(8/8)
So no matter what sad excuse the Neo-Confederates try, or distraction like this one they throw out, it doesn't matter, the real historians are clear on the issue, the Civil War was caused by, and about slavery, and the South itself make it clear many times, like in every declaration of secession and in the cornerstone speech introducing its Constitution.
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1, Succession was more about slavery, but the war was about Manifest Destiny...
FearTheSpear1977 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FearTheSpear1977
Huh? Do you know what manifest destiny is? And the issue that was contentious behind territorial expansion was... slavery! Both North and South supported expansion about equally, the difference was; would there be slavery or free labor in the new territories and states, so the divisive issue even in that; was slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
i live in the south, and I'm a reenactor (both Union and Confederate) but damn I hate seeing all of these rectangular rebel flags everyone likes flying. The rebel "battle flag" was NOT rectangular. It was square. Gah. The historian in me really comes out when I see these redneck abominations of the "rebel flag". And yes, the "Stars and Bars" is a reference to the First National Flag of the Confederacy, not the "rebel flag" everyone in the South embraces.
lagoonguy 3 weeks ago
@lagoonguy actually the rectangular one is the second confederate navy jack, so it actually is a confederate flag just not the battle flag.
the69ford 3 weeks ago
That's not a rebel flag......
kaylabug27909 3 weeks ago
@kaylabug27909
The flag they show on the right is the 'Third National' flag of the Confederate States of America. The flag you are familiar with, the 'stars and bars' when in square form is the Confederate battle flag, and when in rectangle form the battle flag of the Confederate navy. But either way, the 'Stars and Bars'; that which we call the Confederate flag, is a symbol of racism, slavery and oppression.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 The stars and bars? The confederate battle flag, the cross with stars, is what I think you mean. The Stars and Bars is the flag with the stars in the blue box, with two red and one white stripes, but I will give you a thumbs up for your effort.
JohnGreene444 3 weeks ago
@JohnGreene444
Yes sorry, the stars and bars was really the first national, but it us not unusual for the confederate battle flag to be referred to as stars and bars, but technically yes the first national was the starts and bars.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
very cool video :)
914light 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The South did not fight for the preservation or extension of slavery but for state's rights. The North fought a war of National integration. Slavery was used by the North as an excuse to extend its power on the southern states. With development of agricultural technology, slavery would have ended naturally....
FrenchExpat1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THANK YOU!
THEFLYINGREDNECK 3 weeks ago
Look, the only reason Lincoln brought slaves into it was because he didn't want British troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with the confederates as the Queen supported them over the Unionists. By doing this, he made it impossible for Britain and it's colonial forces to physically intervene as slavery had already been abolished there.
WickyWiggstaz 3 weeks ago
@WickyWiggstaz (1/2)
And so if the war wasn't about slavery, than why didn't the South just emancipate the Slaves themselves and get the support of England? Why... Because even as the South admitted over and over itself it was all about slavery.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@WickyWiggstaz (2/2)
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens from the 'cornerstone speech'
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 The whole reason the South needed the slaves were for the cotton industry, which was exactly what the British wanted. So no, they couldn't get rid of the slaves, or otherwise potential allies would fall out of interest. Let me ask you, why did Lincoln do nothing about slavery until mid-war, when the British were about to enter the war. If the war was over slavery, what did the other 96% of Southerners fight for?
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 The three stars he wears are the colonel's stars. Duh. He only owned one slave, anyway.
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 And as for Lee, he was in the military his whole adult life before the War. He almost was never home, he had to be doing military engineering projects. Many biographies leave out the years of his life between the Mexican and Civil Wars because he really wasn't doing anything important. So no, he could not have had the time to play slave driver with his one slave.
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1
Yes he was home he left the service when, George Washington Parke Custis, died in October 1857 and Robert E. Lee was named executor, and as his father-in-law had foolishly drawn up his will without benefit of legal advice, Lee was forced to take an extended leave of absence from the army to return to Arlington to sort it all out, and this is where he will be when the war breaks out four years later.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Of course I know that. I don't even know why you care so much, since you arn't a Christian. You say that these things not happening is like saying the Nazi's didn't kill the Jews. I bet you didn't know that public school prayer existed in the sixties. Eversince it was disbanded, sex, violence, and drug use in schools shot up. The New York Times had an article on how useless marrige is. Without marrige though, STDs will be rampant. Cont>
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 Cont> So, without marrige, if you don't want to get an STD, you'd have to pick a partner before you were 17 or 18, because everyone will be running around having sex, and then we'll be a disease-ridden country.
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebelproud81 The union isn't a marriage, retard. Even Robert E. Lee understand that the Constitution creates a permanent nation and prohibits unilateral secession. If you voluntarily choose to sign an apartment lease, you can't unilaterally seize the building and attempt to murder the landlord. If Southerners wanted out, they were free to move. And without slavery, black folks would have immigrated here as free men, like every other group did. You're really uneducated.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 To be honest, I can't trust anyone in the modern world. The media is very set against Christians, even Washington and Columbus. One thing I do know about Lee is that he wouldn't even call the Northerners 'Yankees', nor would he even call them 'enemies'. He always refered to them as "those people."
I cannot imagine such a man that takes such great care in his speech whipping and raping slaves. This would be like saying Washington was a pedophile or gay. Cont>
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1
WOW are you deluded, the Media against christmas? Hahaha. Oh, you're a Faux News junkie, what a joke. No wonder you are so missinformed
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 Actually, yes. I've seen shows on Nat Geo putting down Washington, MSN always has something up to tear down morality, they have something up right now about how great retiring is for gay men. I can go on much, much, more. An yes, the media is replacing the word Christmas with Holiday. I hope you had a happy 'Holiday.'
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1
What is the word Holiday? Well.... "HOLY day" you are just making up some garbage issue, there is no 'war on christmas'. But just keep it up, you only show your delusions in full and discredit yourself even further with your silly garbage.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 The purpose of it was to remove CHRIST from Christmas. So they replaced it with Holiday. It could be a Muslim's holy day for all they care. This is why we have Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Leprechaun (I probably misspelled that.) to replace holidays. Media-supported groups like the ACLU are constantly waisting Christians' money with court battles over the smallest things that they know they will lose.
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1 They like to keep this covered up so the transition to a free-religion country to eventual Christian persecution is a slow, unnoticed one. They press church leaders to have gays teach Sunday schools. They took down a cross out in the middle of the desert honoring WW1 vets. A Christian praying at a public school can be suspended, but Muslim students have their own special prayer rooms. All this I remember just off the top of my head. Being a Christian is the new 'black.'
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1
You moron you do realize that 'Christmas' originates from a pagan celebration?
And this is all meaningless and silly. But thank you, you only show that you are a crazy fuck to be ignored.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
RebelSoldat1 3 weeks ago
If slavery had been the main focus, Congress would have passed the 13th ammendment while the southern states were not involved. Instead it waits till the end of the war. Look it's very simple. Is it ok to beat your wife because she wants to leave. No! As a matter of fact that is exactly the case here. We choose to end a union and the abuse gets physical. Also if the institution of slavery never existed, would there be African Americans?
rebelproud81 4 weeks ago
@rebelproud81
You idiot it takes time for admentdments to pass, and it had to pass even in the states that seceded, the 13th COULD NOT have been passed sooner.
Slavery was THE casue of he war period and the judgement of historians agree.
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton,) "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
So it was just an accident that the Confederate constitution guaranteed slavery in perpetuity?
kathrynsmith724 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 If you say so. ;)
We are all watching you.
davisdayne9 4 weeks ago
@davisdayne9
New York banned slavery: "the state provided for abolition of all slavery by 1827" - Wiki (a source I don't prefer to use but even you would probable have the reading skills to comprehend it.)
"Slavery ended in New York State in 1827" - nydivided(dot) org
and so on and so on...
New York, slaves, 1860.... ZERO!
And again the split over slavery, no split, no war, slavery casued the war no matter what the North originally fought for.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@davisdayne9
Oh geeze, here one for starters:
civil-war (dot) net (slash)pages/1860_census (dot) html
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
oh and by the way just remember that you were proven wrong by a 14 year old kid. that's gotta hurt.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
I suspected you were immature from your ignorance, stay in school kid, you need it, and if you're really lucky, you'll end up in one of my classrooms. But not supporting your statements on you papers or using bogus sources will cause you a serious loss of credit.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
"History Ain't Quite Like You've Been Taught"
The1AndOnlySAGAKing 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 You may want to try again back then they didn't always count slaves. Most times it was only the head of the household. So I would check the actual census records next time not something you pulled up on Google.
shadowfals 4 weeks ago
@shadowfals
Sorry did check the actual Census. Yup when presented with evidence you try to deny the evidence even if that evidence can be easily obtained from the Census bureau and many academic historical sites.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@shadowfals
Oh and they were always intrested in counting slaves, the count of slaves helped in providing the state with representation. The owners WANTED the slaves counted and would make sure they were.
And so what are you trying to say anyway? That the South had more than nine million people in bondage? That the immoral horror of the South was to an even greater extent that we thought? Well how many slaves were in the South? 6 MIllion? Ten? No wonder they South wanted to protect it huh?
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 Very well could have been many more enslaved then we thought I however don't have the full new york state census infront of me. All state were not interested in making it know how many slaves there were and yes they wanted a count of how many slaves but it didn't mean that they made it readily avaible information. To figure that number out you have to dig through records.
shadowfals 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shadowfals
Slavery was illegal in New York Since 1827, the number of slaves in New York in 1860 ... Zero.
You can't get around it.
The Records were allready gone through and I reported the findings.
But here, here's the entire Census for you to go through:
census (dot) gov (slash) prod (slash) w w w (slash) abs (slash) decennial (Slash)1860 (Dot) html.
NY still had Zero slaves in 1860 as well it should have, since it banned slavery in 1827.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
I believe slavery was wrong and never should have happened, but we should not deny the facts.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
And the facts are the South started the war over the issue of slavery.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 No date, no year, no bill number, no author, no official title, no citation of any kind, just "the cotton tax." You know, the Cotton Tax!!! That one!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! What a fucking moron!!!
It's amazing the lengths to which racist spammers will go to avoid acknowledging the confederacy's own Cornerstone Speech and declarations of secession. It's like supporting Christianity in post after post but never once mentioning the Bible.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 4 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
They're just a sad lot. Not a bit of honesty between them. Southern Honor; Ha... bunch of lairs.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks well I'm tired of commenting on this video. sorry but I won't be here to prove you wrong anymore so you can go ahead and post that comment about how I'm retreating or some other insult.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
Yup, run away when we show you have no idea about what you're talking about, and that you've made up this stuff about some tax, that you can't name or find anything about in the entire record of the country.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks oh and I know we have always argued but I really didn't think you would take sides with somebody who on there channel believes in communism.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 well looks like you've resorted to using insults to try and prove your point. i'm done talking to you i'm going to go back to proving that other five year old wrong. i bet you feel cool cause you can trash talk on youtube
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
Are you kidding? You're trying to run away from your BS. Come on; where's that supposed Cotton tax? When was it passed, what was the vote? How many Democrats voted for, against? Come on let's see what you're talking about.
I don't need insults, you insult yourself with your unsupported trash. You posted some BS about a tax and you are now too ashamed to admit you have no idea about what you are talking about and you just pulled 'facts' out of your ass.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 I am not going to state how many people voted for it or the exact date. just
like your unsupported lee documents. What gives you the right to tell other people what they know or what they believe. if I said I believe in god you would probably tell me I was wrong for that. I will no longer reply to you.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
So you made up this so called tax. Yup just what I thought.
And the book that used the Lee papers is available maybe you should actually try to open a real book.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
I will say southerners had slaves... Some even mistreated there slaves... BUT I will the the war was not about slavery... The south was getting taxed more then the north... And so on... Some Southerners let there slaves go... But the slaves refused to leave there masters.
StormriftonROBLOX 4 weeks ago
@StormriftonROBLOX
Prove this: What is this magic tax that taxed the South more? Prove they were taxed more. Slaves refused to leave their masters? Maybe a small few, but that's a total mischaracterization, and that's why Union lines were flooded with grateful contrabands. How sad, you try to make excuses for slavery, alluding that it was so nice the slaves didn't want to leave.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 it was the cotton tax and we were taxed more because we grew the most cotton, but I have never heard of any slaves not wanting to leave there masters. mabey not wanting to leave there home, but hey it was there home.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
What Cotton tax? There was no Cotton tax.... Come on what was the tax bill's name of this so called cotton tax... when were the congressional debates about this cotton tax? When was it passed? No sorry, no such thing as a cotton tax.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 ok look did you ever think that was it's name? The Cotton Tax. what did it place a tax on? cotton. What did The Tea Tax put a tax on? tea. you would think people that come on here thinking they know everything about that time period would at least do some research. and if lee was such a big supporter of slavery why did lincoln ask him to lead the union army?
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100
Well you still didn't answer the question.... Come on where is this tax? What date was it passed. There was no such thing called a cotton tax and no special taxes were put on the South and you cannot prove there were. And Lee was asked to head the armies because of his military reputation, not his views on slavery, the North was trying to keep the Union togeather only because the South had split over slavery, so slavery was THE cause, period.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1 look i'm pretty sure it was passed in the late 1850s to early 1860 but i really don't feel like looking it up right now. you can't prove that there wasn't one. I have read several biographies on lee and have never heard anything about these mysterious letters. what i have heard is that he never even purchased the slaves he inherited them and let them go several months before the will required. slavery was one reason for the war, but NOT THE MAIN ONE.
lightning267100 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100 (1/2)
Pretty Sure??? Well I'm Certain you're full of shit, prove me wrong. There was no so called 'cotton tax' and there was no special tax on the South. I don't have to prove the negative, you made the assertion that there was this so called tax, it's up to you to prove it. And again slavery was THE cause of the war and historians are explicit on this.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@lightning267100 (2/2)
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
RebelSoldat1 4 weeks ago
I don't hate anyone. I just think racism is wrong, and you don't. I think slavery is wrong, and you don't. I think the confederacy made a mistake in seceding and starting a war to try to preserve slavery and racism, and you don't. I love America and freedom of religion, and you don't. You hate America, freedom of religion, and Muslims like Dave Chappelle and Muhammad Ali. You're a sick little boy, and you're done here.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 4 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Me, done? Ho no. We have real photographs of black confederate soldiers, just as well-dressed and well-armed as their white counterparts. if you want to understand my views on slavery and racism, you must read the Bible. I'll explain later if you give me time. I speak out against Islam because the goal of a Muslim is to prepare the way for the Madhi - which can only be accomplished when every infidel is dead. In the Bible, the Madhi is the Anti-Christ.
RebelSoldat1 4 weeks ago
@RebelSoldat1
And it's all bullshit, especially if you're reffering to the Silas Chandler photo, which was shown to be that of a slave being displayed by his master as a child would dress a doll. The guns the slave is holding are useless outdated props provided by the photo artist. PBS and the Civil War times have aready covered the topic and All the Photo shows is a slave being forced to do his masters bidding. Black Confederates are a myth, and the idea is rebutted by Civil War historians.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago