Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[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.

[BroJoeK]

Redmen4ever: "Kentucky provided for gradual emancipation prior to the 13th Amendment and Delaware was debating what to do with old slaves, which almost all their few remaining slaves were."

Right and some estimates say that by the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, in December 1865 -- ratification which both Kentucky and Delaware opposed -- about 90% of former slaves in those states had already been freed, by one method or another.
And since Maryland, West Virginia & Missouri had already freed their slaves in early 1865, it means: of about 4 million slaves in 1860 only a few thousand remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

Curiously though, Delaware & Kentucky were among the last three states to ratify the 13th (Mississippi was the last).

• 34. Delaware ratified in 1901
• 35. Kentucky ratified in 1976
• 35. Mississippi ratified in 1995, certified in 2013!

Redmen4ever: "I would like to return to the topic of the difficulty of freeing the slaves in states like South Carolina, which would throw a mass of uneducated and poor persons into the body politick and upset the balance that is needed for democratic government to actually work."

Maybe, but what percent of slaves chose to remain in effect slaves after emancipation?
A few, yes, but was it 1% or .1%, I don't know, but the vast majority chose freedom over slavery regardless of the risks.
They also chose to vote Republican thus earning the undying hatred of former Confederates and their descendants.

Redmen4ever: "At the Founding, most states had a moderate property qualification..."

This may sound overly burdensome and today it certainly would be, but remember, in those days nothing was cheaper or more abundant than land, so anyone who seriously wanted it could in due time have it.

Redmen4ever: "Of course, those freemen gaining the qualification to vote would no longer be poor and uneducated."

And so more likely to vote Republican, all the more reason to hate them!

Redmen4ever: "The composition of the electorate is not simply an historical problem of the reconstruction period, but is a perennial problem."

Right, again remember that Southern Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, almost continuously from 1801 until secession in 1861.
They did so by remaining the majority of the majority Democrat party and Democrats remained the majority thanks to continuous inflows of migrants from Europe to America's big cities.
Democrats were the party alliance of the Southern Slave Power with Northern big city immigrant bosses, that alliance gave them majorities and with majorities they ruled the Washington, DC, swamp.

Their problem was the Southern majority within the Democrats was not always united (i.e., over tariffs), and even when united were becoming a minority in their own Democrat party.
In 1860, for example, Northern Democrat Douglas got over 500,000 more votes than Southern Democrat Breckenridge, even though Douglas carried only one state with 12 electoral votes and Breckenridge carried 11 states with 72 electoral votes.

Again, my point is: Southerners ruled in Washington, DC, since 1801 by being the majority of the majority Democrat party, but by 1860 they were reduced to the minority within minority Democrats and were simply unwilling to let their Northern allies take the lead, especially on slavery.

Today Democrats still depend on immigrants & Southerners (now blacks) as their most reliable voting block, it's why they want so many more immigrants, legal or illegal, indeed they prefer illegal immigrants since those, like antebellum slaves, serve to increase Democrat representation without the need of winning their votes!
What could be sweeter, if you're a Democrat?

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: " am amused by the poster at your link. It doesn’t say 'We are peacefully leaving the Union' It proudly and provocatively proclaims 'The Union Is Dissolved!'
So much for 'we just want to go our own way' "

Right, and some posters here even claim the Union itself was dissolved when South Carolina & others declared secession.
They say that's what makes Lincoln's "aggression" against Confederates soooooo unconstitutional.
Of course, it also made Northerners who disagreed that SC could dissolve the Union on its own hopping mad and willing to fight against Confederates.

[DiogenesLamp]

They're all biographies of Taney so they may have mentioned Sumter in passing, if at all. Taney really had nothing to do with it.

Let's not limit it to Taney's biographers, how many authors of any of those civil war books mention the war fleet? Why is it seemingly the best kept secret of the Civil War?

Resupply effort, supply ships, something like that.

Which is intentionally misleading. Five warships that were clearly not designed to carry cargo. I've posted pictures of the deck of the Pawnee numerous times, and it is just numerous rows of cannons. Big cannons.

A passenger ship (The Baltic) filled with 200-300 riflemen, (I've seen both numbers claimed.) plus munitions. In effect, a troop carrier.

Calling this force a group of "supply" ships is a deliberate attempt to mislead as to it's nature. It was a belligerent fleet that had been ordered to use it's entire force to put men and supplies into Sumter.

Had the Powhatan shown up as it's original orders had required, there would have been a bloodbath.

[DoodleDawg]

Who benefits from the passage of this amendment? Would not the most obvious beneficiary be Lincoln? Who else stood to lose anything if the Southern states seceded?

Are you not aware that the seven Southern states had already seceded long before the Corwin amendment had been proposed much less voted on?

[BroJoeK]

rockrr to central_va on John Brown: "Except that you are wrong.
He would not support or vote for Lincoln."

I can find no evidence that either John Brown supported Republicans or that Republican officials (i.e., Lincoln) supported Brown.
The fact is that Brown was an extremist beyond the pale of normal political discourse.

[central_va]

It is safe to say the John Brown was not a Democrat. Ask 10 historians and you will 10 affirmations on that.

[Bull Snipe]

“Had the Powhatan shown up as it’s original orders had required, there would have been a bloodbath.”

Nothing further from the truth. You know what Powhatan’s order were. No force authorized unless the resupply mission is opposed by force. If the Charleston authorities had allowed provisions to be taken to Fort Sumter, without opposition, The “War Fleets” order were to return to their ports. But the point was moot. Beauregard had already opened fire on Sumter per Davis’s orders.

[DoodleDawg]

Let's not limit it to Taney's biographers...

Taney biographers were what was being discussed.

...how many authors of any of those civil war books mention the war fleet? Why is it seemingly the best kept secret of the Civil War?

Just about any book I've every read that deals with Sumter in any level of detail talks about the resupply effort. It isn't a secret at all.

Calling this force a group of "supply" ships is a deliberate attempt to mislead as to it's nature.

Calling it a war fleet is the misleading label, just as calling them all warships much less battleships. Its purpose was resupply. It was a war fleet only if the South wanted it to be. Just about every book I've read makes that clear, too.

[rockrr]

It is safe to say the John Brown was not a Democrat. Ask 10 historians and you will 10 affirmations on that.

It is safe to say the John Brown was not a Republican. Ask 10 historians and you will 10 affirmations on that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not sure what you read for Civil War History, but Nevins in his 9 volume opus, Foote in his 3 volume work, Hattaway in several of his books all mention warships being sent to escort the supply ships to Sumter. Now they do not employ the melodramatic “war fleet” as you do, but they state warships accompanied the supply ships

"Escort"? :)

Does it go into their orders? Does it mention the riflemen on board the Baltic, along with the nature of the munitions and other military supplies they carried? Does it address what would have happened had the Powhatan showed up along with the fleet before Sumter was attacked?

Was this just glossed over, or were the very real implications of what was happening addressed? I can see why Foote would mention it, but I do not know to what degree he did, but I doubt anyone went into depth about the details of this war fleet.

Oh, and while we're at it, which ships were the "supply" ships. Saying "warships accompanied the supply ships" implies that the supply ships are more numerous and being escorted by the lesser numbers of warships.

It is more accurate to say the "supply ships (was there more than one?) accompanied the Warships."

Let's see. From memory.

Powhatan. Warship.
Pawnee. Warship
Pocahontas. Warship.
Harriet Lane. Armed revenue cutter, i.e. Warship.
Baltic. Leased passenger ship carrying at least 200, possibly 300 riflemen and munitions as well as other military supplies. Warship.

Yankee. Tugboat, possibly not yet armed at that time, but known to be armed by April 26, 1861.

Uncle Ben. Tugboat, unknown if armed.
Thomas Freeborn. Tugboat, possibly not armed at the time. Definitely armed later.

So was it one "supply" ship, definitely four warships, and maybe the tugs were carrying some supplies?

[DiogenesLamp]

The south lost. Hence, firing on Fort Sumter was a mistake. ... Here’s a rule: starting a war that you lose is a bad idea.

Have you ever heard of David Dixon Porter? Can you tell me what this man was doing during that April of 1861?

[central_va]

There is nothing about the Republican Party in the mid 19th century that John Brown would disagree with, nothing. Again you sound foolish, petty and defensive.

Here is some of the Republican Party platform of 1860. What part do you think John Brown would have a problem with?

---

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

[DiogenesLamp]

You forgot to add that Davis’s cabinet told him firing on Fort Sumter would cause a war.

I didn't forget it. It is irrelevant to the fact of how and when the war was began. Davis' order was in response to the notice that a war fleet was coming to force supplies and men into Fort Sumter.

No war fleet, no war. No Davis order to attack fort Sumter.

The facts on the ground at the time were that the Confederacy had informed Anderson that they would give him as much time as he needed to evacuate without beginning any hostilities against him, if he would but identify a date on which he was willing to leave.

Anderson had already written up the order to evacuate, if I recall properly, and then someone threw a monkey wrench into the whole affair by sending warships to force compliance with diktats from Washington DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution only protected the south while the south was in the union.

Was it not the position of Lincoln that the South could not leave the Union, and therefore all those states remained part of the Union throughout the entire war?

Was his authority to send troops based on the idea he was stopping a rebellion or an insurrection?

Lincoln never recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation, his every legal claim was that they remained part of the Union, and if this was his stance, than the people of those states retained all the protections of the US Constitution. Or should have, if he was consistent, but it is clear that he himself didn't even believe his own lie on this point.

As I have stated numerous times, so far as Lincoln was concerned, the South existed in a perpetual state of quantum superposition, being both "in" the Union and "out" of the Union at the same time, depending upon what power Lincoln wished to utilize, or what legal argument he wished to put forth to justify what he was doing.

He played it both ways. When it suited him to regard them as "out", they were out. When it suited him to regard them as "in" they were in.

They were whatever he wanted them to be at any given time.

If they were "in" the Union, he couldn't free their slaves. For that he declared them "out." For justifying invading them. They were "in."

[Redmen4ever]

I reviewed the thread, and I don’t see where you posted a link to Virginia’s ordinance. In post #90 to me somebody else posted a link to Florida’s.

In post #121 you concede that Texas along with several other states specifically identified slavery as the cause or one of the causes of secession. So, there is no debate. This thread has meandered all over the place, but the thread concerns a news item from Texas concerning a plaque that was a lie.

With regard specifically to Virginia, I have already expressed myself several times in this thread. I think we (by “we” I mean the people of Virginia) could have worked something out and avoided a war in ending slavery in Virginia if the Civil War had not happened, and would have had some impetus to doing this because of the continuing growth in population and wealth of the free states.

The federal government might have been helpful by offering to bear some or even all the cost of compensated emancipation. Virginia had a long history of free men of color. Voting qualifications could have prevented the kind of foolishness that occurred during reconstruction.

I can be convinced that some states, while having slaves, got sucked into the sectionalism that characterized the country until recently. There were also legitimate concerns for property and for the proper checks and balances between the states and the federal government in our federal set-up.

I suspect one of the reasons South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter was to force the border states such as Virginia into the war on the side of the states of the deep south. Again, as I have already discussed, the South thought King Cotton would force Great Britain into the war on their behalf.

[FLT-bird]

I’m saying none of Taney’s biographers have cited it. Men like James F. Simon, Charles W. Smith, Bernard Christian Steiner who researched and wrote books devoted to nothing but Taney’s life and career, and who did not mention the alleged arrest warrant at all. Why not?

But others have mentioned it - have they not?

[FLT-bird]

I’m just trying to establish that you’re making claims without any supporting documentation, and it appears I’m being very successful at that.

Nah. You’re just trying to troll - and you’re failing miserably.

[FLT-bird]

You know, it occurs to me that perhaps the best proof that Lincoln was behind it can be demonstrated by asking the question “To whom was the benefit?”

Who benefits from the passage of this amendment? Would not the most obvious beneficiary be Lincoln? Who else stood to lose anything if the Southern states seceded?

Did the Senator from Ohio really care if the Southern states left? Did any of the Northern states really care?

Who cared? Well Lincoln did. He was the only person that would have reaped a reward from this thing, wasn’t he?

Lincoln and the Northern business interests who backed him stood to lose a lot of money. Most Northern opinion favored letting the seceding states go in peace until major business interests pointed out that it was the South that was providing the overwhelming majority of the exports, paying the overwhelming majority of the tariffs used to pay for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects that were done mostly in the North and it was the Southern market their manufacturers hoped to squeeze huge profits out of once foreign competitors were effectively driven out of the market.

[DiogenesLamp]

So according to you, he was the only person, out of the 22 million people living in the North, concerned that seven states had seceded from the Union.

Don't put words in my mouth. He was the one who would benefit the most from the South being enticed to remain in the Union, which is exactly what the Corwin amendment was designed to do.

We have contemporaries and familiars citing his involvement in it, and he is the one who would most benefit from it, so Occam's razor certainly implies that we should accept the idea he was supporting it. As I have pointed out before, the very fact that the new President has voiced support for the amendment in his first inaugural gives his party membership an excuse to go along with it.

Can you show me any efforts of his to fight it?

Exactly what reward would Lincoln have reaped from the ratification of the XIII Amendment.

Breaking the economic power base of the South? Making certain that their then considerable economic power could never be used to work towards some sort of economic revenge against the people who had destroyed their lives and families?

You see, I look at potential alternative time lines.

Let me ask you, what would the wealthy plantation owners have done if they had retained their slaves? Would they have gleefully accepted rapprochement with the Northern industries with which they had previously done business, or would they have attempted to buy their own ships, traded with Europe themselves, and worked towards every means of cutting out any money going to the people who had invaded them?

Well you may have more optimism in human nature than have I, for I firmly believe they would have done everything they could to separate themselves economically from the North and Washington DC, and they would have worked to enact any sort of revenge of which they could think.

As a practical matter, it was definitely in Lincoln and the North's best interest to break their economic power base. Yes, it may have caused the people in the South immense suffering, but it enhanced the future security for the people in the North who had destroyed them.

Did they free the slaves because they cared about black people? I have come to think cynically that they did it primarily to break the South's economic back.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you want to argue seriously, argue seriously. Tossing out silly potshots isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. I’m pretty much immuned to mockery or insult, and I don’t much care what people call me or insinuate about me.