<s>Robert</s>Beto O'Rourke Calls For Removal of Confederate Plaque [ed]

Newsweek ^ | November 27, 2018 | Alexandra Hutzler

[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).”

[Uncle Sham]

As to the issue of whether or not secession was legal or illegal at the time, the North deemed it so by allowing West Virginia to remain a state after the war. You can’t have it both ways. Anyway, who gave the north ownership of what was legal or illegal as it pertained to secession? That they claim ownership of it’s viability is a good window into how they claimed ownership of everything the South wanted for itself at the time. It is no wonder why the South wanted to end the relationship.

[Uncle Sham]

As to the issue of whether or not secession was legal or illegal at the time, the North deemed it so by allowing West Virginia to remain a state after the war. You can’t have it both ways. Anyway, who gave the north ownership of what was legal or illegal as it pertained to secession? That they claim ownership of it’s viability is a good window into how they claimed ownership of everything the South wanted for itself at the time. It is no wonder why the South wanted to end the relationship.

[Uncle Sham]

As to the issue of whether or not secession was legal or illegal at the time, the North deemed it so by allowing West Virginia to remain a state after the war. You can't have it both ways. Anyway, who gave the north ownership of what was legal or illegal as it pertained to secession? That they claim ownership of it's viability is a good window into how they claimed ownership of everything the South wanted for itself at the time. It is no wonder why the South wanted to end the relationship.

The light of truth has broken through the historical narrative handed down over the years by those who want to hide what actually happened back then. Anything reminding us of this truth, such as monuments, plaques, etc. must be removed if these handed down falsehoods are to remain the primary story. North good, South bad. It actually is the total opposite. The South owned it's own destiny and decided to take control of it. The North, owners of it's own destiny, decided that it owned the destiny of the South as well and had no problem sacrificing the lives of 750,000 young men in the prime of their lives to enforce it's will. THAT is what happened however you wish to color it. Your colors might be the brightest greens and reds and yellows but in the light of the truth appear to be shit brown.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "They seceded to preserve slavery in their own state.
They fought a war because Lincoln assembled a 75,000 man army to force them to remain part of the Union.
A look at where the battlefields are should give you an indication of who invaded whom."

You mean this map?

I see battles in Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma & New Mexico, among others.

If you count up the battles here, you'll see that during the war's first 12 months, more were fought in Union states & territories than Confederate and more Confederate soldiers died in the Union than in the Confederacy.

It's simply a lie to claim that Confederates posed no "existential threat" to the United States.

[OIFVeteran]

Wanted to be left alone? Here is a list of what some of those states did, prior to many of them even seceding. It looks like they were grabbing every federal property they could get their hands on.

State of Alabama: On 3 January 1861 Governor A. B. Moore directed the Alabama militia to seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal and Forts Morgan and Gaines, which controlled the entrance to Mobile Bay. The Arsenal was seized on the 4th, and the two forts a day later. Alabama didn’t succeed from the Union until 11 January.

State of Arkansas: On 8 February 1861 Arkansas militia volunteer companies seized the Little Rock Arsenal at the direction of the governor. On 6 May the Arkansas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Convention elected not to submit the Ordnance to the people of Arkansas in a referendum for their approval.

State of Florida: On 6 January 1861 the Florida militia seized the U.S. arsenal at Apalachicola, the sole Federal arsenal in the state. On 7 January the Florida militia seized Fort Marion at St. Augustine. And, on 8 January Federal troops at Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to the harbor at Pensacola, fired on a party of Florida militia who had demanded the surrender of that fort. The next day, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer gathered the 50 men in his company from Forts Barrancas and McRee, dumped 20,000 pounds of gunpowder into the bay, and spiked his guns at those two forts. With the help of sailors from the Warrington Navy Yard, he moved all of his remaining supplies across the bay to Fort Pickens, which the Federal Army retained for the balance of the war. On 10 January the Florida Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of Florida for their approval in a referendum.

State of Georgia: The Georgia Secession Convention passed its ordnance of secession on 19 January 1861 and the state withdrew from the Union. The Georgia militia seized the Augusta Arsenal on 24 January, and on the 27th Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort James Jackson at Savanah were also seized. In response to a demand from the state government for surrender of the Arsenal, Captain Arnold Elzey, the commander, had asked the War Department for instructions. Acting Secretary of War Holt had responded on 23 January that “The governor of Georgia has assumed against your post and the United States an attitude of war. His summons is harsh and preemptory. It is not expected that your defense shall be desperate. If forced to surrender by violence or starvation you will stipulate for honorable terms and a free passage by water with your company to New York.” In accordance with his instructions, Elzey made terms with Governor Brown, and his company was permitted to depart the arsenal with its arms and company property and to have unobstructed passage to New York.

State of Louisiana: The U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, was seized by the Louisiana militia on 10 January 1861, as was the U.S. Army pentagon barracks at Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Barracks [Jackson Barracks] was seized on 11 January, as were Forts St. Philip and Jackson. Between them, these two forts controlled the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans. Fort Pike, which controlled the Rigolets Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was taken on 14 January. Fort Macomb, which controlled the Chef Menteur Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was seized on 28 January. On 31 January Revenue Captain James G. Breshwood surrendered the revenue cutter Robert McClelland to the State of Louisiana; which turned the cutter over to the Confederate States Navy which renamed her CSS Pickens. On 31 January the revenue cutter Washington was seized by Louisiana authorities in New Orleans. On 26 January the Louisiana Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Louisiana for their approval.

State of Mississippi: On 9 January 1861 the Mississippi Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Mississippi for their approval. On 21 January the Mississippi militia seized Fort Massachusetts, an unfinished brick fort on Ship Island on the Mississippi coast. The fort was abandoned by the end of January because Governor Pettus had no artillery to arm it.

State of North Carolina: On 23 April 1861 the North Carolina militia seized the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville, and the Federal garrison subsequently departed on 27 April. On 20 May the North Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of North Carolina for their approval in a referendum.

State of South Carolina: On 20 December 1860 the South Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of South Carolina for their approval. On 27 December Captain Napoleon Coste turned the revenue cutter William Aiken over to South Carolina secessionists. On the same date, the South Carolina militia seized Castle Pickney, a small masonry fort in Charleston harbor. A Federal officer and a sergeant and his family were captured, provoking a discussion by the South Carolinians over whether to treat them as prisoners of war. The officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter, while the sergeant was given a safe conduct and permitted to remain in his quarters at the fort. Also on the 27th the militia seized Fort Moultrie, another of the forts guarding Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 26th. On 28 December the South Carolina militia occupied the site of Fort Johnson on Windmill Point on James Island. Although long unoccupied by the U.S. Army, it had been one of the four forts controlling Charleston harbor. On 30 December the Charleston Arsenal was seized.

State of Tennessee: On 6 May 1861 the Tennessee Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. Although the state did not formally succeed from the Union until a “declaration of independence” referendum on 8 June, Governor Isham G. Harris persuaded the legislature to create the Provisional Army of Tennessee on 6 May. The enabling legislation authorized an army of 55,000 volunteers and authorized the governor to issue $5 million in state bonds for defense and military supplies. By the end of May convicts at the state penitentiary in Nashville were manufacturing small arms cartridges and other military supplies. The 8 June referendum affirmed the Ordnance of Secession 104, 913 to 47,238. East Tennessee voted solidly Unionist, and there were reports of interference with the vote in middle and western Tennessee, however.

State of Texas: On 1 February 1861 the Texas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was submitted to the people of Texas for their approval on 23 February, with the referendum passing 46,153 to 14,747. Although Texas had not yet seceded, Major General Twiggs surrendered his forces and facilities, including the San Antonio Arsenal, at the demand of Texas authorities on 16 February. His officers and enlisted personnel were permitted to depart the state with their small arms, and the two artillery batteries under his command with four guns each.

Commonwealth of Virginia: On 17 April 1861 the Virginia Secession Convention passed the Commonwealth’s Ordnance of Secession, but there was an effort to initially suppress the announcement that the Ordnance had passed. While the Convention was meeting in secret session on the 17th, William C. Scott, the delegate from Powhatan County, said “I was told by the Adjutant General this morning that if we passed an ordinance of secession, we ought not to let it be known for a few days, because he sent for arms to the North, and he is apprehensive that they may be intercepted if it was known that the ordinance passed. Would it not be well, if we are determined to secede, to wait a little while in order that we may receive those arms from the North? We could then secede, and we would be in a much better condition to meet the enemy than we are now. This seems to be the proper course, and I trust the Convention will pursue it.” Later in the debates that day, Scott again mentioned his conversation with the Adjutant General and said “The Governor tells us this morning that if the action of this Convention is permitted to be known outside of this body, these arms will not be allowed to come here. If you send a communication of this sort to the President of the Confederate States, there will be great danger that the whole secret will leak out.” On 30 April the Convention authorized the Governor to issue $2,000,000 in treasury notes for the defense of the Commonwealth. The Ordnance of Succession was not ratified by the people of Virginia until a referendum on 23 May, wherein it passed 132,201 to 37,451. Although secession had not yet been approved by the people, the Commonwealth militia prepared to seize the Harper’s Ferry Armory. First Lieutenant Roger Jones, USA, had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry on 3 January with a company of eight non-commissioned officers and 60 enlisted men. By 18 April Rogers was in command of the post. Recognizing his utter inability to defend the armory, Jones set fire to the buildings and retreated with his troops across the Potomac River.

The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only “aggression” I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a “bitter ender” would assert that LT Slemmer’s defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was “aggression,” or that the burning of the Harper’s Ferry Armory by 1LT Jones was “aggression.”

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If you read the original United States constitution, it enshrined slavery."

Far from "enshrining" slavery, which the Confederate constitution certainly did, our Founders' Constitution never mentioned it by name and referred to it specifically only once (3/5 rule).
By stark contrast, the Confederate constitution used specific terms like "slavery", "slaves", "institution of negro slavery", "right of property in negro slaves" and "African race" 17 times.

jeffersondem: "Did you know the Union forces, ostensibly, were fighting to preserve the pro-slavery U.S. constitution? (Arguably, Union forces were fighting to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution.)"

Civil War began over Confederate "rebellion" at Fort Sumter and other Union properties, which Lincoln called up 75,000 troops to suppress, according to the 1792 Militia Act, first used by President Washington to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.

Slavery soon became an issue in the war and "Contraband" a Union strategy for winning it.

jeffersondem: "But, after the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln actually did add another slave state to the Union."

West Virginia was accepted on condition it abolish slavery, which it soon did.

jeffersondem specializes in distorting history in his own unique & humorous way.

[BroJoeK]

Uncle Sham: "As to the issue of whether or not secession was legal or illegal at the time, the North deemed it so by allowing West Virginia to remain a state after the war.
You can’t have it both ways."

But there's no "both ways" about it -- West Virginia was approved according to the Constitution, which required mutual consent.
No Confederate secession was ever approved constitutionally.

Uncle Sham: "Anyway, who gave the north ownership of what was legal or illegal as it pertained to secession?
That they claim ownership of it’s viability is a good window into how they claimed ownership of everything the South wanted for itself at the time.
It is no wonder why the South wanted to end the relationship."

But it wasn't about "North vs. South" so much as, basically, Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, meaning those who supported the original Constitution versus those who opposed it.
In 1861 the Democrat descendants of anti-Federalists claimed they didn't need to follow Constitutionally recognized procedures for secession -- meaning mutual consent or material necessity.
Their arguments were indeed strong enough to keep both Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln from attacking Confederates for secession alone.

But both Buchanan and Lincoln announced that Federal properties would not be surrendered and would be defended if necessary.
Jefferson Davis saw that as his opportunity to flip Virginia and other Upper South states from Union to Confederate, and so attacked Fort Sumter.

When Lincoln responded, the Confederate Congress formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Secession did not cause war, but Fort Sumter did.

[BroJoeK]

Uncle Sham: "The light of truth has broken through the historical narrative handed down over the years by those who want to hide what actually happened back then."

But your "light" is total lies, the Lost Cause Myth, invented decades after the fact by Democrats eager to reunite with their erstwhile Northern Democrat allies.

Uncle Sham: "Anything reminding us of this truth, such as monuments, plaques, etc. must be removed if these handed down falsehoods are to remain the primary story.
North good, South bad. It actually is the total opposite."

Nobody on this site wants to remove your old monuments & plaques -- keep them to honor your own ancestors and your vision of their "truths".
But when you cross the line into inventing your own "facts" and distorting actual events, then you'll be called out on that.

Count on it.

[rockrr]

Clever? Hardly. Just another half-witted attempt at sophistry by demojeff.

[rockrr]

Anyway, who gave the north ownership of what was legal or illegal as it pertained to secession?

It wasn't "the north's" property - it was the property of the United States.

[rockrr]

North good, South bad.

No one is saying that and it is dishonest to imply anyone is.

[Uncle Sham]

What difference does it make whether or not these actions took place before or after official secession? Those properties belonged to those states once they left the union. There was no longer a "federal" anything and that the north insisted on retaining their military presence in the South was a direct act of provocation. Let's compare your list to one of the military places claimed by the South that were not in the South.

The South had every right to reclaim it's defensive fortifications rather than outsource their protection to another country, especially one that had repeatedly violated the relationship.

Remember, slavery was not at risk. The north had offered the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution as proof of this. There had to be ANOTHER reason the South was so pissed off that they decided to end the contract. You had to be really pissed off to do what they did. That they were this angry about something tells us that whatever it was they were angry about must not have been a good thing for them. That the North was willing to KILL 750,000 young men in the prime of their lives to FORCE the South back into a relationship it had already had enough of tells us that whatever the South was angry about must have been really good for the north. North good. Bullshit.

[OIFVeteran]

There is no process for states to leave the Union in our constitution. There is only a process to add states. If the founding fathers wanted States to be able to leave the Union they would have put in such a process. Don’t believe me? Here is what James Madison, father of the constitution, said about secession during the nullification crises in 1832.

James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, 23 December 1832

Montpr. Decr. 23. 1832

Dear Sir

I have recd. yours of the 19th. inclosing some of the S. C. papers. There is in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print, namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the Union. Until of late, there is not a State that wd. have abhorred such a doctrine more than S. C., or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Govt. & Govts. not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold him to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia Resolutions of +98. adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense & common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties, to the Constitutional compact of the U. S. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or be absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virga Resolutions & Report, the plural number, States, is in every instance used whenever reference is made to the authority which presided over the Govt. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that it was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virga. is the word respective prefixed to the “rights &c” to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c. should unite in contending for the security of them to each—

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers, who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes & lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly & emphatically agst. them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington ps. 43 & 202. Vol 2d with respect to the power of the old Congs. to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover his remark that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce, in the Federal Articles; that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is hightime that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm agst. the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself, by assuming the high character of Mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it

If you can fix, & will name the day of your arrival at O. C. house we will have a horse there for you; and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the State of the roads produced by the waggons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes With cordial salutations

James Madison

[jeffersondem]

“Far from “enshrining” slavery . . . our Founders’ Constitution never mentioned it by name and referred to it specifically only once (3/5 rule).

And even then, it was not mentioned in the United States constitution until Article I - simply to serve as the cornerstone for representation in Congress.

The mention of slavery in the United States constitution happened because the original slave states voted to include it, those states being New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland - and North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

I doubt slavery would have been enshrined - er, I mean included - at all if it had not been in the economic and political best self-interest of those voting yea.

[jeffersondem]

“Far from “enshrining” slavery . . . our Founders’ Constitution never mentioned it by name and referred to it specifically only once (3/5 rule)."

And even then, it was not mentioned in the United States constitution until Article I - simply to serve as the cornerstone for representation in Congress.

The mention of slavery in the United States constitution happened because the original slave states voted to include it, those states being New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland - and North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

I doubt slavery would have been enshrined - er, I mean included - at all if it had not been in the economic and political best self-interest of those voting yea.

[jeffersondem]

“. . . Lincoln was thought an ardent abolitionist by Confederates and was feared by them as someone who would impose it on them, if possible. And indeed, turns out their fears were 100% justified.”

Comes now Brother x: “Realistically, Southerners didn’t have much to fear, but in those days the country (and slaveowners in particular) cultivated wild and unrealistic fears.”

And so, critic answers critic.

[jeffersondem]

“Was it over “money flows from Europe” or “Northeastern power brokers” or Northerners “raping” the South economically or “confiscatory tariffs”? Naw, it was none of that because not one Southerner in a thousand understood or cared about such things.”

I have heard a lot of charges made against Southerners - one expert wrote that James Madison was a yapping dog, for example - but I don't remember it ever being said that southerners didn't care about excessive taxation.

[x]

It turned out that Southern fears were justified because in the war they started Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and helped put the 13th Amendment in the Constitution. That does not mean that if they did nothing that he would have or could have forced Emancipation on them.

But you quoted me out of context. My point was that if Southerners had stayed in Congress, they could have limited the increase in the tariff through tactics like the filibuster, if they had really wanted to. But they didn't care as much about the tariff as later mythmakers want to believe they did.

[jeffersondem]

“My point was that if Southerners had stayed in Congress, they could have limited the increase in the tariff through tactics like the filibuster, if they had really wanted to.”

I hate to be persistent but the filibuster is not a constitutional provision. That means it is not in the constitution.

The filibuster is a rule of the Senate. Changing the rules of the Senate does not require a constitutional amendment. Senate rules can be changed relatively easily, especially when the majority wants to “get” the minority.

Your use of the term “if they had really wanted to” provides an insight into your understanding of the nation's prewar dynamics, and contrasts with the understanding of world historians - like Winston Churchill - who called the North/South conflict the “least avoidable war.”

[x]

My point was that historically, Senate rules change very seldom and very slowly.

Realistically, it would have taken more than one congressional session for Republicans to change the Senate rules.

If the Civil War was unavoidable, it was likely because those involved didn't want to avoid it or couldn't be bothered figuring out how to.

And even an "unavoidable" war didn't have to break out at one time, rather than another.