Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Fort Knox...1969-1970...BCT and AIT.In out basic company I was one of three "Yankees"...all the rest were from Tennessee,Mississippi and Texas.
only in your mind
text of Lincoln’s cover letter
“I transmit an authenticated copy of a joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States adopted by Congress and approved on the 2nd of March 1861 by James Buchanan, President.”
A copy of the amendment and it’s cover letter were sent to all state governors, including those governors of states that had seceded from the Union.
And you have asked.
Let’s see. About “lying,” you yourself “lie” because you agree with me that Texas, the state giving rise to this thread, said itself that was seceding because of slavery, Also, because you said “other states” said the same thing. You say three or four other states also said this. As you say, once you are immoral, you can’t be moral again.
You claim that Florida and the other states seceded for no reason at all. This is not true and you know it. You could at least say Florida seceded because they wanted to legalize marijuana or because the people of that state wanted open borders, and then provide a source. But, no, you refer me to a source that doesn’t give a reason.
Florida had to have a good reason to secede because it was a debt-repudiator. Back in those days, countries that repudiated debt opened themselves up to “gunboat diplomacy.” But, as a state of the U.S., Florida was protected by the Union. The British considered invading Florida (and Arkansas and Mississippi), but they didn’t want to tangle with the entire Union, most of the states of which honored their debts instead of spouting off about states’ rights and repudiating their debts.
I being a Christian, believe in repentance and forgiveness. So, I can think that people, individually and collectively, can right themselves. Go from being immoral to being moral. You, on the other hand, think once you are immoral, you can’t change and become moral. Brother, I invite you to an altar call.
Consider the immorality of slavery. And, in particular, Ex. 21:16. Chattal slavery is a capital offense. But, through all of history, this form of slavery was commonplace. We did not, as a nation, invent this form of slavery. We were part of a movement that ultimately put an end to it. Would that we had done so peacefully, like Britain did. But we didn’t. For us, it took a civil war. In that war, we put as many people into the ground as we freed. The scars of that war and of its aftermath remain with us to this day. And who got killed in that war? The military-age men on whom each side called. The very flower of the nation.
I believe that I and my son will one day be joined with my father and my uncles (sorry, that’s my only lineage in this country) and all others who have risen to the defense of their country (the goodness of this is also found in the Bible) who fought with honor. My father once brought me to Arlington and said to me this is the happy hunting grounds of soldiers. He had the honor to guard the tomb of the unknown back in his day. I believe there will be peace in the valley one day.
But, until that day comes, we need a President like Trump, who understands the enormous cost of war, and keeps us out of war except if and when that is absolutely necessary and then who prosecutes war with fury.
“I have to ask: if the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?”
The conventional wisdom is that the slave state of Maryland sent troops to fight the slave state of Virginia for the purpose of fighting slavery.
And, the slave state of Delaware sent troops to fight the slave state of North Carolina for the purpose of fighting slavery.
And, the slave state of Kentucky sent troops to fight the slave state of Tennessee for the purpose of fighting slavery.
And the slave state of Missouri . . . and so forth and so on.
And after the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln added a slave state to the Union . . . for the purpose of fighting slavery.
But I don’t understand conventional wisdom. It sounds like something the victors made up.
So...the South didn’t leave over slavery, but...what? The US government has grown immensely and excessively, but just HOW had it become an enormous monster in the 70 years since the Constitution had been adopted?
Seems to me the problem was that the slave owning states no longer were represented in parity with the non-slave states. Their population meant they were a minority in the House, and with the admission of Minnesota, they became a minority in the Senate and in the Electoral College. And would become more so, with each new non-slave state.
There is only one sentence in the Virginia statement that discusses the reason they left: “ and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.”
“the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States”
That is the ONLY reason given by Virginia. Not that taxes were being passed without representation, but that the majority of the country was oppressing the minority of SLAVEHOLDING STATES.
Yet Slavery was not the problem?
To be clear: Are you saying the North was fighting to end slavery and the south was fighting to keep slavery?
Regarding the conflict between northern manufacturing interests (and finance) and rural interests, this was a contributing cause, along with slavery. While I don’t know how to construct a meaningful test of the extent to which each were causes, it seems to me that almost all wars result from miscalculation. Clearly, the cost of the civil war was way disproportionate to the benefit of the civil war. The number of lives lost, and the enmity consequent to the war was multiple times the market value of the slaves of the south.
Ending slavery in the south by gradual emancipation or by compensated emancipation might seem logical, but you have to remember that slaves were a large percentage of the population in many of the southern states. Democracy only works well when the vast majority of voters are in the middle class, not when the majority of voters are ignorant and poor. Look what’s happening in California and other open-border states, with the influx of poor and uneducated people from other countries. I don’t care about color, but about education and job skills, and also their work ethic, family values and patriotism. Latin Americans turn into great citizens, but only a certain percentage can be absorbed at any given time.
So, ending slavery in the north through abolition as in Massachusetts, or gradual emancipation as in Pennsylvania, was easy because there weren’t many up there. Ending slavery in South Carolina or Mississippi was always going to be difficult.
Our country has always and will always deal with the tension between freedom and equality, because we’re democratic. Trump intuits this and desires reform of our immigration laws and to restore the American dream for our people.
Like so many other posts, this falls into the “he sees only what he wants to see”. No reasonable reading of the address, the surrounding correspondence, or reporting from the time would come to the conclusion that Lincoln “supported”, advocated”, or “pushed” the amendment. His stated position was neutral.
It’s such a silly argument, and really only serves to illustrate a non-serious person.
secession
Lincoln did not believe the Corwin amendment was necessary. He believed that the Constitution, as written and interpreted, was sufficient protect slavery in the states where the institution was legal.
Kill? I wouldn't go that far, but sporting a Confederate flag patch would definitely bring a bunch of dirty looks anywhere inside a large city. Might even result in fisticuffs or a loud confrontation.
I still see folks sporting the stars and bars here and there, but I live on the outside edge of Dallas County.
Fort Knox...1969-1970...BCT and AIT.In out basic company...
Long time ago. The South has changed a lot since then.
Big cities down here are chock full of transplants from all over the country, as well as millions of foreigners. It's rare to even hear a southern accent in the big metro areas.
I don't think it is unusual for 30 or 40 people to be shot down on the streets of Chicago on a long weekend - and for doing a lot less than flying a Confederate flag. Sometimes it is over a 75-cent bet.
If there were reports of someone flying a Confederate flag in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised if a hundred people weren't shot down in 12 hours.
The toll would probably be less in a third-world type city in the South. But maybe not.
The toll would probably be less in a third-world type city in the South. But maybe not.
Ok, I won't laugh, but that's a ridiculously unreal scenario.
I told you what the reaction would be in a southern city. Could bullets fly over something like this? It's possible, but not likely.
There are people down here who sport the stars and bars all the time. They just don't normally hang out in the metro areas, and would probably refrain from such overt displays if they did. By the same token, they probably wouldn't bother peeling a sticker off their truck just to keep from offending any liberal snowflakes.
It ain't THAT big a deal.
Ping
No, they....the few which even issued declarations of causes...made it clear that slavery was the PRETEXT under which they chose to secede. The northern states really had violated the compact wrt enforcing the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. They made it clear that that was not their primary concern however when they rejected Lincoln’s offer of slavery forever by express constitutional amendment in exchange for returning.
There was no way in hell the northern states were going to fight a war over slavery. When it came to money however, they were all in favor of not letting their cash cow slip away. So you are exactly wrong about that. It was ALL about money for the North.
Had the Southern States’ main concern been the spread of slavery then seceding without any territories of the US and thus giving up any chance to spread slavery would hardly have been their solution - yet that’s exactly what they did.
There was no real support for banning slavery in the North and even if there had been it takes 3/4s of the states to pass a constitutional amendment. There were 15 slaveholding states at the time. 3 X 15 = 45. So 45 is how many states would have to vote to ban slavery over the objections of the 15 slaveholding states. 15+45=60. In order to do so, that would require that there be 60 states. There are only 50 today. There was no prospect of banning slavery over the objections of the slaveholding states. None.
So now that we’ve dispensed with this little fairy tale that slavery was the concern, what really did concern everybody? MONEY! Tariff policy, government expenditures and federal usurpation of ever more powers it was never delegated by the states. The morrill tariff which eventually tripled tariff rates had already passed the house by the time of secession and was certain to pass the Senate. Buchanan was in favor (he signed it) and high tariffs was THE central plank of the Republican Party in 1860. The Southern states saw what was coming just like with the Tariff of Abominations and chose to get out before their economies were wrecked again.
Yes they knew why they were leaving. Economics.
The only imports that were protected were those from where they had previously been allowed to be traded across state lines. The African slave trade was still banned.
and for some strange reason you left out Article I section 2
“Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.”
in which they reserved the power to ban importation from US states for the Confederate Congress.
Nope! As I showed, a proposal to make their admission impossible was voted down.
OF COURSE my description is valid. You really are trying to spin here if you’re claiming that Article IV section 2 clause 3 a “person held to service or labor” was not a fugitive slave clause. Everybody called it exactly that. Because it was. The 3/5ths clause of the US Constitution does not specifically say “slave” but everybody knows that’s exactly what it meant. Really poor attempt at spin on your part here.
No it didn’t. It allowed for non slaveholding states to be admitted.
Firstly, the provision against bills of attainder does not necessarily mean a confederate state could not choose to abolish slavery within its borders. Secondly, any state could of course leave the CSA at any time.
There is no such limitation. All the Confederate Constitution says is that tariffs must be uniform and could not be protective. They could not be imposed on states in violation of treaties. They could be applied to fund lighthouses and such.
Yes there is. It says only revenue tariffs and not protective tariffs are allowed. A revenue tariff does not allow for higher than a 10% rate.
It’s very debatable on how restrictive those were. The term limits applied to the president only. The constitution did allow for riders or amendments. The line item veto did exist in it.
Its not very debatable how restrictive those were. The constitution said a bill could only be about one thing and that must be expressed in the title. ie no riders.
Their objections went way beyond slavery.
Well....he was a little more cagey and weasel-like. He feigned ignorance and claimed he hadn’t actually seen the bill (an outright lie) and indicated he would support it. Of course as everybody at the time knew and as even his hagiographers today admit, Abe orchestrated the writing and passage of the Corwin Amendment.
This was entirely consistent with what he had always said. He was in favor of protecting southern slavery.
It would be fair for both of us to be clear.
It appears that you have conceded that Texas, the subject of this thread, said in its ordinance of secession, that it was seceding because of slavery. Also, that several other states of the Confederacy said this in their ordinances of secession and/or statements of causes.
You cite an ordinance of secession from Florida that is silent as to cause, but have not identified a source that gives a cause or set of causes for that state.
Here is my position:
Generally, people argue as to extent to which slavery and the conflict between the industrial north and the agrarian south were causes. I’m not going to be able to resolve that. My position is that there two causes, and I can cite observers of the new country who saw these conflicts well before the war. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his travels in our country in 1835, I think, saw these two conflicts. This is about as clear as I can be about the south.
Regarding the north, initially the response of the north to secession was to avoid striking at slavery on the hopes that a terrible war could be avoided. The Republicans barely held onto the House in the midterm elections of 1862, and this was without the representatives of the Southern states. Lincoln was desperate for a cause with which to rally the north to a long and very costly war of attrition with the South. “Preserving the union” was not a sufficient cause. So, following a claim of victory at Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves of the areas in rebellion, and offering the enlistment bonus to owners of slaves in the areas loyal to the union, if the men among those slaves joined the union army.
To complete the picture: The provision in the Emancipation Proclamation providing for a form of compensated emancipation in the areas loyal to the union, along with the state initiatives in Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri practically ended slavery in the country. Delaware debated the justice of ending slavery when most of the few slaves of that state were old and were being taken care of by the masters as was part of the deal that slavery involved.
While there were many aspects of the movie Lincoln starring Daniel Day Lewis that I enjoyed, it was wrong as to actual history of the 13th Amendment. The only disagreement in Congress concerned whether the 13th Amendment should be an abolitionist amendment or whether it should offer compensation to the few remaining slaveowners loyal to the union.
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.