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 ...
As you say, the footnote details a second proposition, that the Fugitive slave law should be amended by granting a jury trial to the fugitive, which was rejected. And a third proposition, that Congress should recommend that the states revise legislation concerning persons recently resident in the state and repeal all in conflict with the constitution, that was also rejected. But what makes me think that the proposals were Seward's is that the footnote continues, "Whereupon the Republican members of the committee, together with Trumbull and Fessenden, met to consider Lincoln's resolutions..." If the proposals listed above were Lincoln's then why meet to consider them again when they had already been voted on? I think it's an indication that the proposals for the amendment and other two originated with someone other than Lincoln, probably Seward. And that Lincoln's three proposals were the ones listed in his letter to the Committee of Thirteen, none of which called for an amendment protecting slavery.
Sez the guy who ate paint chips as a child...
Redmen4ever: ***”Presidents need to choose how to respond to provocations, so as to avoid getting sucked into other people’s wars, such as happened with the War of 1812 and WWI, and so as to only wage war when our vital national interests are at stake and the calculus of war is favorable.”***
You seem to suggest US “vital interests” were not involved in 1812 and WWI.
I think vital interests were at stake in both wars even if it may not be so obvious today just what those were.
Redmen4ever: ***”in real time, war was not inevitable.
We don’t know what would have happened if South Carolina didn’t fire on the place.
The calculus of war was not favorable to the Confederacy.”***
Quotes from Jefferson Davis often posted on these threads clearly show he understood the calculation of War — Virginia and other Upper South states refused to secede over slavery alone.
They needed obvious “oppression” “injury” or “coercion” to declare secession and Davis was more than happy to provide it, at Forts Sumter or Pickens or both if necessary.
Davis needed war to double his little Confederacy.
Lincoln by contrast promised Confederates they could only have war if they themselves started it.
So Fort Sumter was promises made promises kept for both sides.
Redmen4ever: ***”Perhaps the Confederate’s miscalculated on the belief that King Cotton was going to force Great Britain to intervene on their behalf.”***
I’m satisfied that Davis miscalculated only one thing of importance: Lincoln and the North’s determination to fight to preserve the Union.
That’s what kept the Brits at bay, kept Border States in the Union and kept Western territories from falling to Confederate forces.
Had Davis faced a different Republican, Seward for example, the outcome could be much different.
Redmen4ever: ***”The proper way to secede involves an adjudication of formerly jointly-owned assets and liabilities.”***
Our Founders practiced a form of “secession” under two but only two conditions: from “necessity” as spelled out in their 1776 Declaration and by mutual consent as happened in 1788 with ratifying their new Constitution.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession “at pleasure”, which is what Fire Eaters began in 1860.
Redmen4ever: ***”When that initial invasion was repulsed, he needed to raise the moral stakes.”***
“Contraband of war” was not originally a “moral” matter so much as military necessity — winning over Fugitive Slaves was better than killing Confederates, because they lost and the Union gained for each “Contraband”.
That Lincoln raised it to a moral issue, motivating not only Americans but also Europeans to support the Union cause is all to his credit.
Redmen4ever: ***”I would say if you think WWII was a good war but think WWI was a bad war, you’d appreciate my point even if you don’t agree with it.”***
I don’t consider any war a “good war” because all include great losses of blood & treasure.
And cynical declarations that a certain war was “unnecessary” nearly always come long after the fact, when any idiot can tell if things went according to plan.
So any such exercise could only involve separating the “necessary evil” wars from defeats.
The USA has known defeat and those should be instructive along with victories which turned bitter later, i.e., WWI.
Must be hiding really well because I can’t see why that ruling resulted in none of his biographers mentioning any arrest warrant on Taney.
Gosh, others sure mentioned it.
I’ve gone back through the relevant parts of my Lincoln biographies by David Herbert Donald, Ronald C. White, and Doris Goodwin, and in none of them do I find anything about Lincoln orchestrating the Corwin Amendment. Nothing at all. Can you please point me to the hagiographers biographers that detail Lincoln’s involvement? Thanks in advance.
Still trying to play the standard trolling 101 game huh? Its not gonna work for you. Its been noted by several authors and several sources.
It’s complete nonsense to claim the Deep South seceded for any major reason other than protecting slavery.
Slavery is what they said at the time and any other reasons listed are clearly secondary, clearly just “politics as usual”, nothing powerful enough to motivate millions of otherwise loyal Americans to declare secession.
Only slavery could do that, and so that is what Fire Eater leaders emphasized, regardless of what else might be their hidden “real reasons”.
Its complete nonsense to claim they seceded to protect slavery when slavery was not threatened in the US. They were happy to cite the fact that the Northern states violated the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, but their real concern - like people always - was money. The tariff and unequal federal expenditures touched every person’s wallet in the Southern states be they the small minority who owned slaves or the large majority who did not.
Right, it’s complete nonsense, like so much of our Lost Causers’ mythology.
In fact, the proposed Corwin Amendment began with Democrats like Senator Jefferson Davis as an effort to reassure Southerners slavery was safe in the Union.
It was pushed by Democrat President Buchanan, passed by Democrats in Congress, with Republicans opposed, and signed by Buchanan.
It was strictly a Democrat effort to preserve the Union by protecting slavery.
Lincoln didn’t oppose it because, as he said, Corwin didn’t really change anything already in the Constitution.
So Corwin was ratified by just four states — two Northern and two Border states.
By stark contrast, the 13th Amendment with Lincoln’s full support passed Congress with Republican support and Democrat opposition and was soon ratified by the 3/4 of states constitutionally required.
Nope! Its complete nonsense to try to claim that the de facto leader of the party knew nothing about, was not consulted about, had no hand in something as important as a proposed constitutional amendment. The PC Revisionists, trying to maintain their little fantasy about “honest Abe” and the myth of the virtuous North are desperate to try to gloss over the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US and that Northerners were only too happy to enshrine explicit protections for slavery in the Constitution effectively forever, but the facts are plain to see. Anybody can read the Corwin Amendment or Lincoln’s inaugural address and see that this is so.
See my post #229 above.
Confederates in five of the original seven secession states listed slavery as their major or only reason.
Two more Deep South and two Upper South states gave no reasons, period.
Two Upper South states -- Virginia and Arkansas -- said they seceded over "injury", "oppression" or "coercion".
Note again the link in my post #229 to some very interesting analysis of "Reasons for Secession" documents.
FLT-bird: "They were happy to cite the fact that the Northern states violated the compact by refusing to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, but their real concern - like people always - was money. "
Then you are effectively accusing Confederate leaders of lying in 1860 & early 1861 when they said it was slavery.
I'm sure you may be correct regarding the top 1% of 1% of Southerners who were concerned about issues of finance or "money flows from Europe", but all of that was politics as usual, had been since Day One in 1788.
Only slavery had the emotional power to move millions of otherwise patriotic Southerners to declare secession & war on their own country, the United States.
Sorry, but Corwin's amendment originated with Democrats like Senator Jefferson Davis, was pushed by Democrat President Buchanan, passed by Democrats over Republican objections and signed by President Buchanan.
Lincoln's role in it was minimal to non-existent.
So it was ratified by only four states -- two Northern and two Border.
By stark contrast the 13th Amendment was fully supported by Lincoln and quickly ratified by the required 3/4 of states.
FLT-bird: "The PC Revisionists, trying to maintain their little fantasy about “honest Abe” and the myth of the virtuous North are desperate to try to gloss over the fact that slavery was not threatened in the US and that Northerners were only too happy to enshrine explicit protections for slavery in the Constitution effectively forever, but the facts are plain to see."
Sorry, but the only "desperate" I see is from you Lost Causers, typical Democrats, so desperate to deny the truth you'll concoct any lies necessary to make it go away.
Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis worked to reassure Southerners by protecting slavery, until his own state seceded.
Other Democrats took up the baton and brought enough Republicans, i.e., Corwin, to pass their amendment.
Again, Lincoln's role was little to non-existent.
Confederates in five of the original seven secession states listed slavery as their major or only reason.
Two more Deep South and two Upper South states gave no reasons, period.
Two Upper South states — Virginia and Arkansas — said they seceded over “injury”, “oppression” or “coercion”.
Read numerous posts I’ve made including quotes and sources showing violation of the compact over slavery and the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was merely the pretext for the Southern states to get out from under the partisan sectional legislation of the federal government that was draining their pockets. Had slavery really been their main concern, they would have been only too happy to accept the North’s “slavery forever” constitutional amendment and returned to ratify it. They refused.
I am accusing Southern Political leaders of being just as duplicitious as all politicians are and have always been. Of course they were only too happy to lie if it would get them what they really wanted. The Northern political leaders for their part were equally cynical. They didn’t really give a damn about slavery. What they really cared about was the huge amounts of tax revenue for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects in the North that the South provided as well as the huge captive market that would fuel the growth of their manufacturing industry.
Note, I am not saying either side was in any way pure or honest here. Everybody’s real concern was money - as always.
Sorry, but Corwin’s amendment originated with Democrats like Senator Jefferson Davis, was pushed by Democrat President Buchanan, passed by Democrats over Republican objections and signed by President Buchanan.
Lincoln’s role in it was minimal to non-existent.
So it was ratified by only four states — two Northern and two Border.
Sorry but it was named after Thomas Corwin...a Republican. Lincoln fully knew about it and endorsed it. As he said many times, he was only to happy to protect slavery. His real interest was in high tariffs and massive corporate subsidies overwhelmingly going to Northern business interests.
Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis worked to reassure Southerners by protecting slavery, until his own state seceded.
Other Democrats took up the baton and brought enough Republicans, i.e., Corwin, to pass their amendment.
Again, Lincoln’s role was little to non-existent.
Nah, the real desperation is among you PC Revisionists who have consistently sought to deny that Lincoln’s main concern was in reviving Henry Clay’s “American system” of high tariffs and corporate welfare and that he was only too happy to protect slavery.
Jefferson Davis was quite clear in saying multiple times that the Northerners’ real interests were totally in getting legislation passed that would line their pockets at the South’s expense AND that any concerns they expressed about slavery were a mere pretense to further the partisan sectional legislation that would benefit them.
Arguing the Civil War on Free Republic with facts. You are a brave, but misguided human.
Don’t you know that these folks would STILL die in order to get their slaves back.
But my folks DID die to take them away. So we win.
Why were people in the north so upset over seven slave states leaving the Union? Why was peaceful separation so enraging.
I'm going to couple these two because they are conjoined anyway. It is my opinion that much of the reaction of the north wasn't due to the act of secession but of the tactics of secession. It was anything but peaceful. The rebels initiated their "peaceful secession" by raiding (at gunpoint) federal treasuries and mints, armories, and stock houses in a frenzy of theft. The rebels didn't negotiate their way out of the union - they chose to fight their way out.
It (secession) would seem like a good solution to the issue.
Possibly, but not probably. For 400 years the new continent had been subjected to constant struggles for acquisition and dominance. There is no reason to believe that those struggles would not continue - or increase now that one half of the nation had taken up an adversarial position to the other half. Lincoln, like his predecessor Buchanan, believed that he did not have constitutional authority to interfere with secession. He favored negotiation in the hope that cooler heads would prevail and the secessionists would abandon their foolhardy plan. The south's actions at Sumter ended any hope of that.
The likelihood is that what we knew as The United States would cease to exist with nations like Great Britain devouring us - starting with the confederacy. "We must hang together or we will certainly hang separately"
Claiming that no state or group of states can ever leave the union sounds more like the former Soviet Union than the union of free and independent states that formed the constitutional union.
I don't know anyone other than lost causers who make that claim. I certainly do not believe it to be accurate. But secession as practiced by the would-be confederates was certainly illegal and dishonorable.
“It wasn’t called Article IV, Section 2 prior to 1863?”
I guess after your flub in your post 165 you are posting anything to distract.
That’s not necessary. There were things your union teachers kept from you in history class. So what? They tried that with everyone.
And it is not necessarily your fault.
We are all here to learn.
“But my folks DID die to take them (slaves) away. So we win.”
I leap to the conclusion Lincoln and the North, including your folks, “fought to free the slaves.”
Is that what you have written?
Lincoln said he wanted slavery to be safe, rare, and legal.
What he actually wanted is anyone’s guess. He said enough stuff on the record to prove anything.
Many southerners felt Lincoln, if elected, would look for a pretext to attack and destroy the south. For some reason they did not want this to happen.
“Then, you brought up Florida, conceding the point about Texas as well as some other states.”
I don’t remember “conceding the point about Texas.” Either you are confusing me with someone else or you are in hopes of legitimizing your own inference.
You made a broad generalization about “other” Southern states which was not quite right. For some reason, I knew Florida didn’t mention slavery in their ordinance of secession and brought it to your attention.
Yes, in 1860 Florida was a southern state.
The Florida ordinance of secession may be a small thing - but why not get it right?
You guys lost. Get over it.
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.