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 ...
sorry. the debate is over.
“You guys lost. Get over it.”
The party line of the New Yankee Taliban.
Or maybe they are just part of Antifa.
Hard to know since they are all dedicated pulling down statues and battle flags.
“You guys lost. Get over it.”
You won the war. And lost the debate.
The speed of your exit reminds me of the Reverend Al Sharpton zooming by an IRS late-payment office.
There is no debate.
You guys seceded. We said you couldn’t. And we proved it correct.
What is there to debate?
It's foolish to impute post-hoc arguments like that. There is no way either side could anticipate the number of casualties or the degree of destruction the war would bring. But the responsibility for those losses must lie with hose who initiated and perpetuated the conflict. I notice that you don't include the responsible parties in your condemnation. Pity that.
The responsible parties are those in the north who in their hubris and greed conducted an offensive war against the CSA. They just couldn’t believe that the people in the South were serious about separation and were willing to kill hundreds of thousands to make their point and reap the financial rewards that accrued to a tiny sliver of the northern population. The blood is on the hands of the Yankees that were determined they were going to keep control of their cash cow. So do you think conquering the CSA was worth the casualty count and the destruction and the general corruption that came with it?
War is hell.
That is a cop out. You know it as well as I.
I’ll take my “cop out” over your blatant apologist revisionism any day.
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.
I can cite any number of quotes in which he says he had no intention or authority to interfere with slavery. I’ve cited quotes that show he was willing to offer strengthened federal fugitive slave laws. He publicly supported the Corwin amendment. Nobody was under any illusions about him attacking the South or slavery had the Southern states remained in.
You guys long for your slaves.
And you wonder why the libs call you racist.
You are so blinded by keeping some delusion of Southern Glory that you cannot see it. It’s plain as day for everyone else.
So, yeah...the North is the Taliban. We don’t want slaves any more. Why do you.
U.S. Representative Thomas Corwin, Ohio 7th District, sponsored the proposed Corwin Amendment.
Representative Corwin was a Republican.
“What is there to debate?”
Your claim that your family and the north “fought to free the slaves.”
Is that true?
“And you wonder why the libs call you racist.”
That is an interesting comment. Do you know who said this:
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
“Nobody was under any illusions about him attacking the South or slavery had the Southern states remained in.”
The South was in the union in 1859 but they were attacked by John Brown in a murder raid financed by prominent northerners. The financial backers were given sanctuary by politicians in the north.
The South was in the union in 1860 but they were attacked by northern business and political interests in the form of confiscatory taxation - with higher rates promised by regional candidate for president A. Lincoln.
And in his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln had said slavery would end by hook or by crook. Southerners were alarmed by his reckless disregard for the benefit of the bargain provided for in the constitution.
It is true slavery could not be legally abolished by the North through constitutional amendment without southern support. What southerners feared going forward, and rightly so, was extra-constitutional methods, including economic warfare and violence.
The South was in the union in 1859 but they were attacked by John Brown in a murder raid financed by prominent northerners. The financial backers were given sanctuary by politicians in the north.
The South was in the union in 1860 but they were attacked by northern business and political interests in the form of confiscatory taxation - with higher rates promised by regional candidate for president A. Lincoln.
And in his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln had said slavery would end by hook or by crook. Southerners were alarmed by his reckless disregard for the benefit of the bargain provided for in the constitution.
It is true slavery could not be legally abolished by the North through constitutional amendment without southern support. What southerners feared going forward, and rightly so, was extra-constitutional methods, including economic warfare and violence.
That I completely agree with. It wasn’t so much “slavery” being attacked as it was they knew they’d been getting screwed bigtime and that it was going to get much much worse as they balance tilted ever more in favor of Northern business interests and the Northern politicians they had in their pockets.
Yeah well there's you, and there's DiogenesLamp. But I'm talking about people who did an in-depth study of Chief Justice Taney and wrote detailed biographies of the man. And none of them apparently found enough evidence to support Lamon's claims because none of them included the arrest warrant in their books. Not one. Why do you think that is? I know why DiogenesLamp thinks they all ignored it but I'm curious why you think so.
Then name them.
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.