Posted on 11/27/2018 3:32:30 PM PST by C19fan
Beto O’Rourke is calling for the removal of a controversial Confederate plaque hanging in the Texas State Capitol building, tweeting on Tuesday to “take it down today.” The plaque contains the Children of the Confederacy’s creed, which is a statement that pledges “to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery).”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“My point was that historically, Senate rules change very seldom and very slowly.”
And a President of the United States arresting and imprisoning state legislators and newspaper editors without trial never happens at all. Ever.
Until it does.
Southerners insisted on protecting slavery, however obliquely mentioned, and Northerners reluctantly agreed.
That pattern of behavior continued until 1861 in the Union, until 1865 in the Confederacy.
Fire Eater claims in 1860 were not justified by actual Republican intentions of that time.
But by 1865 after four years of war those fears were more than realized.
You could easily understand that, if you wanted to.
"Excessive taxation" in the eyes of beholders.
Southern Democrats worked for lower tariffs and by 1860 they were as low as ever, less than half of Andrew Jackson era "tariff of abominations".
Republicans wanted higher tariffs to protect US industries, but so long as Democrats remained united and strong they could block or minimize increases.
So the new Morrill tariff never passed until after Southern Democrats walked out of Congress.
And why did Southerners threaten in 1856 and then secede in 1861?
Was it over tariffs or any other similar matter?
No, it was over Republican threats to slavery -- that's what they said at the time.
I bet it can’t...
>And a President of the United States arresting and imprisoning state legislators and newspaper editors without trial never happens at all. Ever.
Non-sequitur much?
“Southerners insisted on protecting slavery, however obliquely mentioned, and Northerners reluctantly agreed.”
Is that the official explanation on the plaque at 75 Wall Street between Pine and Waters Streets - the generally accepted site of New York’s slave auction block?
Or is that beautifully exculpatory statement something you just made up?
If it is the latter, you should tack on: “Once understood many years later, northern slave states denounced the terms “all other Persons” and “such persons” and “held to Service” in the strongest possible terms!
As soon as I clicked “post” I realized my comments - especially if viewed in context - would create distraught confusion for you. By then it was too late.
They say that the first person to mention Hitler loses the argument.
For you, Lincoln is Hitler, and you lose every argument by not sticking to the actual topic discussed.
The topic of this article is Beto wanting to take down memorials in Texas, and Beto visiting memorials in Washington, including the Lincoln Memorial.
I didn't think there would be anything wrong with mentioning President Lincoln who is closely associated with the Lincoln Memorial.
Import slaves.
“Import slaves.”
That is an interesting comment.
May we see your data?
“Excessive taxation” in the eyes of beholders.”
Correct. And I like the way the other guys said it too.
” . . . AS TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Emphasis added.)
History Axiom: The closer to the actual historical event the truer the perspective given by the observer/commentator.
Lincoln’s War was a bloody fiasco.
If King George III had put down the rebellion that very same plaque would exist except Confederate would be replaced with Colonist.
Slavery was codified in the US Constitution. The Confederate States just adopted the US Constitution with some additions.
Can/could 5 million whites, over half women and children ever pose and extensional threat to 30+ million northerners? Show me one Southern CONTEMPORARY writing, legislation, letter, editorial stating the the South wanted to conquer the North? You sir are a ridiculous a$$. You have a cartoon mind.
May we see your data?
Confederate constitution.
If you mean tariffs, tariffs and excise taxes were the only tax revenue sources the Federal government had. The practical reason the Southern States had for objecting to the shift in economic activity was that they were losing the economic power they had enjoyed since before the Revolution. Instead of cotton leaving ports in the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas, and European goods entering those same ports, the cotton (and rice and sugar) were leaving those ports, but corn and wheat and other exports were leaving from Baltimore and Philadelphia, and New York and Boston and the European goods were coming in to those northern ports as well. The economic center of the US was shifting, and Southern economic elites were losing their advantage. Part of this was the willful refusal of those Southern economic elites, the Planter Aristocracy, to invest in the infrastructure of the Industrial Revolution; their wealth was invested in land and slaves, and they didn't want to diversify into railroads, mills, and factories. If they had, they would not have had to import as much, and so would have had to pay less in tariffs.
“They had no plans to invade the North...”
Oh, bull! The Confederacy invaded Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia (Confederate troops entered Virginia before the state referendum on Secession was held), Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico/Arizona (Territories at that time), Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, even Vermont. Secessionists made no secret of their intentions to force border states like MD, KY, MO, the Southwest Territories and other territories into joining the Confederacy by military occupation, if they could, no matter what the people of those places wanted, just as they had been trying to force Kansas to become a slave state before the War.
“...or tell the North what to do.”
More BS! The Slave States had no trouble telling the Free States that they had to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, that Free States couldn't grant rights to Negroes, and one of the reasons South Carolina gave in its Declaration of Secession was that Illinois had granted free negroes the franchise.
“...the provocation at Ft. Sumter...”
The attack on Ft. Sumter was entirely the South's decision. Had they waited another couple of days, the garrison would have had to quit the place, as they were out of supplies. Some Confederate leaders were quite frank that they wanted to start a War with the US, because without a War, Secession would fade away as the passions of the election of 1860 died out, and the seceding states would drift back into the Union by sheer political and social inertia. Jefferson Davis's instructions to Gen. Beauregard, in command of the Confederate Army in Charleston, SC, seem to indicate this was one of his motives for ordering the bombardment. "Those are the facts," Facts are items of information which can be proved. Your statements are opinions, and can be argued about, and in some points refuted. It seems it is not only the Leftist/Progressives who hold that their opinions are self evident Truth, and therefore Facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.