Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote
WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,261-1,267 next last
To: robowombat; rockrr; DoodleDawg; x; Bull Snipe
robowombat: "I suspect the US as we know it would not exist.
That would not be a bad thing.
The world saving crusading the US has engaged in as front for the NE elites financial interests and cultural attitudes would not have happened or happened in a more muted fashion..."

By the way, we should take a moment to notice this entire anti-American diatribe sounds like something we could expect from the Cold War's Soviet Pravda, or from our socialist besotted Democrats today.
And yet we see it posted here by a presumed conservative.

Astonishing!

Is this what Ron-Rand Paul talk looks like when reduced to a Free Republic post?

381 posted on 01/15/2019 5:54:04 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; FLT-bird; DiogenesLamp; rockrr; DoodleDawg; x
jeffersondem: "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."

I have no problem with this particular argument, since it emphasizes the true root cause of secession -- Southern fears over what "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans might do against slavery.

But we should also note that many Lost Causers posting here -- including DiogenesLamp, FLT-bird and robowombat -- deny the centrality of slavery and instead focus our attention on whatever shiny objects they can conjure, be it tariffs, "Northeastern power brokers" or "money flows from Europe".

So, in the time honored tradition of jeffersondem responses, may I invite critic to answer critic?

;-)

382 posted on 01/15/2019 6:09:24 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird; DoodleDawg; rustbucket; rockrr; Vermont Lt
FLT-bird to DoodleDawg: "You failed again and you’re going to fail every time you try this most basic of trolling gambits."

In fact, DoodleDawg is a scholar, or at least "history buff" of considerable learning, more adept at arcane details of historiography than pretty much any of us here, certainly in a class with rustbucket.

So DoodleDawg's challenge for FLT-bird to support his claims with real data is not a "troll", but rather in the interest of simple historical accuracy.

Now it appears that FLT-bird doesn't really have the "goods" and so huffs & puffs to blow smoke in our faces.

383 posted on 01/15/2019 6:23:16 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "You can be stupid and obtuse but you don’t get to redefine words."

But I've redefined nothing.
For as long as I can remember, and I'm not a young man, American Conservative has meant, at its core: the Constitution and Bible, as originally intended.
To the degree you support those, you are truly Conservative.

To the degree you oppose them you are "progressive" or "liberal" or "moderate" or "loose construction" or "reformist", etc., etc.

American Conservatives are not monarchists or supporters of state churches, as in Europe, and we are certainly not fascist authoritarians.
Instead, what we want to conserve is the Bible and Constitution, we think they're great treasures from our past and we'd like to pass them on as unsullied as possible.

You disagree?

384 posted on 01/15/2019 6:44:37 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
“You couldn't be more wrong . . . About 75% of the founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, were involved in the abolitionist movement.”

Wrong about what? Benjamin Franklin was a slave owner. He published abolitionist literature late in life.

I'll grant his near deathbed repentance.

385 posted on 01/15/2019 6:57:37 AM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
Which laws would those have been?

Here we go again.

The navigation act of 1817. The Warehousing act.

This was the result. Vast bulk of all export cargo left southern ports. Virtually all the import cargo came into New York.


386 posted on 01/15/2019 7:03:44 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
In fact, DoodleDawg is a scholar, or at least "history buff" of considerable learning, more adept at arcane details of historiography than pretty much any of us here, certainly in a class with rustbucket.

So DoodleDawg's challenge for FLT-bird to support his claims with real data is not a "troll", but rather in the interest of simple historical accuracy.

I thank you for your kind words but I really think there are many others around here far more knowledgeable about the rebellion than I am. Yourself included.

387 posted on 01/15/2019 7:05:03 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever
Redmen4ever: "Jeffersonian Republicans (renamed Democratic Republicans by historians) favored state versus federal government, and freeholders versus manufacturers and bankers.
They also favored free trade and the commodity money."

Well... first, through the life of Jefferson himself I consider the following parties to be all one, all Democrats:

  1. Anti-Federalists, including Jefferson, opposed to ratifying the Constitution.
  2. Anti-Administration, lead by Jefferson, opposed to the Federalist governments of Washington & Adams.
  3. Democratic Republicans, founded by Jefferson to oppose President Adams, won in 1801 as the "Negro President".
  4. Jacksonian Democrats, as opposed to John Quincy Adams National Republicans & Whigs.
  5. Today's Democrats.
Of course you can distinguish among these incarnations of the Southern power, just as you can between Federalists, National Republicans, Whigs & Republicans.
But the fact is that both great rivers of American political history trace their origins back to Day One, in 1787, when one side supported ratification and the other opposed ratifying the new US Constitution.

Until very recent decades Democrats were based in the Solid South, Republicans in the less-than-solid North.
Today Democrats still have a Solid South component, but flipped from whites to African Americans.

I say that it's vastly more helpful to think of Democrats as one long history from 1787 to today -- opposed to the Constitution, favoring more Federal power when they rule, berserk lunatics when out of power, and often favoring party over country.
Federalists-Whigs-Republicans have nearly always been the more Conservative constitutionalists, certainly when compared to radical Democrats.

You disagree?

388 posted on 01/15/2019 7:07:22 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
Force was authorized only if the resupply mission was opposed by force.

Which was a given. You keep trying to ignore the fact that opposition was guaranteed, and therefore the orders required an attack.

You don't want to admit that Lincoln started the war when he sent those warships with their defacto orders to began an assault against the Confederates who were blocking them.

Mercer was to take command and lead the response in force. Unknown to the rest of the fleet, Mercer had been secretly relieved of command, and his warship had been placed under the command of Lieutenant Porter who's instructions, based on his efforts, appeared to have been "deliberately start a war" in Pensacola.

Two different plans to start the same war, and you just want to pretend this is all accidental, or a misunderstanding.

389 posted on 01/15/2019 7:10:03 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
And the reason behind that being?

The reason behind it is partisan. They want to support the notion that the Union bears no blame for triggering the war, and it was all those hot head Confederates who attacked Sumter for no reason whatsoever.

Calling it "supply ships" supports this fiction. Calling it what it was, a belligerent War fleet with orders to attack them, calls into question the narrative that the South started it.

They don't want to confuse people with facts that cloud the narrative.

390 posted on 01/15/2019 7:12:46 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Redmen4ever
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln did not launch the war to end slavery.
He launched the war for the specific purpose of maintaining economic control over the revenue producing South, and to prevent Southern industries from using the additional capital that independence would give them to build competing industries to the northern power barons that were his financial backers for the Presidency."

You have no quotes from Lincoln saying anything remotely like that.
You have only your own opinions to support your unwarranted speculations.

391 posted on 01/15/2019 7:13:36 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The reason behind it is partisan. They want to support the notion that the Union bears no blame for triggering the war, and it was all those hot head Confederates who attacked Sumter for no reason whatsoever.

While you, on the other hand, want to promote the myth that it was all Lincoln's fault and the South was blameless. So where does that leave us?

392 posted on 01/15/2019 7:16:25 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

‘American Conservative’ - Nice dodge, the word conservative and the word conservatism, look them up and get back to me.


393 posted on 01/15/2019 7:18:40 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
Unarmed, a civilian charter vessel.

It had 2 or 3 hundred riflemen on board, so it was hardly unarmed. I do not know if they had put ships cannons on it, but it definitely could have shot up a deck crew if a ship got close enough.

Tugs only armed in your imagination.

I deferred to your claim that the Thomas Freeborn might not have been armed on this particular date, but i've found proof that the "Yankee" was armed on April 26th of 1861. We know the Thomas Freeborn was armed at a later date because i've posted the pictures of it sporting a cannon.

As far as orders, you have read Powhatan’s orders. No force authorized unless the resupply mission was opposed.

Which was already baked into the cake. They would be opposed, and they knew it, as did everyone in Washington DC knew it at the time. Therefore their orders required them to use force against those who opposed them.

The fleet was going to attack if the Powhatan had shown up prior to the engagement with Fort Sumter. You may not believe me, but can you not believe what Admiral Porter said about it in that memoir of which a page I recently showed to you says this?

Escorts is what they were.

Four warships escorting a passenger ship loaded with troops? It was the troop transport ship that was doing the "escorting." The warships were the bulk of the expedition.

394 posted on 01/15/2019 7:21:32 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
You have no quotes from Lincoln saying anything remotely like that.

He would hardly say so now would he?

We know he gave secret orders to Lieutenant Porter, because Porter seized the flagship of the Sumter expedition and took it to Pensacola where he tried his best to provoke the Confederates into fighting with him, up to and including firing on their ships.

He received no court marshal for this behavior, no disciplinary action of any kind, and was indeed promoted to Admiral within the span of the war. He says Lincoln gave him secret orders, and his behavior along with the fact that he got away with it pretty much confirms that Lincoln did in fact give him secret orders.

And those orders have never seen the light of day among the greater public, and one can only wonder why?

"Incriminating" is the only answer that comes to my mind.

395 posted on 01/15/2019 7:26:54 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Pardon me, I must have missed the part of WBTS history featuring Bedford Forrest'ssMarch through Illinois and the burning of Chicago as well as the ANV’s sacking of Philadelphia.
396 posted on 01/15/2019 7:27:11 AM PST by robowombat (Orthodox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; rustbucket; Bull Snipe; DoodleDawg
DiogenesLamp quoting on Corwin: "...the amendment’s adoption by the narrowest of two-thirds majorities came only because of 'some careful manipulation, as well as the direct influence of the new President.' "

Ignoring the fact that Lincoln was not yet "the new President", such "influence" totally unspecified.
Judging by his actions elsewhere, I'd suppose that "influence" consisted of Senator Seward telling his fellow Senators & Congressmen that Lincoln supported "X" or "Y" and so they should too.

In fact, direct evidence of Lincoln's support for Corwin is lacking.

397 posted on 01/15/2019 7:30:06 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Where does D D Porter report this? True question. He wrote or more likely edited a huge history of the US Navy in the WBTS. He also wrote a much shorter memoir of his life. I recall he did remark on his great satisfaction with bombarding Vicksburg several times as he had been drugged, beaten and robbed by wharf rats there when he was a young officer in transit to the west coast to meet his assigned warship.
398 posted on 01/15/2019 7:32:16 AM PST by robowombat (Orthodox)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
While you, on the other hand, want to promote the myth that it was all Lincoln's fault and the South was blameless.

A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not. It is his prerogative to demand that "guests" leave his house.

The entire crux of the matter is whether States have a right to be independent of a government they see as no longer serving their interests, and the foundation document of this nation answers that question in the affirmative.

If they do have the right to be independent, then what they did was reasonable and proper. Lincoln had no right to force them to continue abiding by his rule.

And you never did answer my question as to why anyone would want those D@mn slave states in their union anyway?

Why would anyone want those D@mn slave states in their Union?

399 posted on 01/15/2019 7:32:40 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not. It is his prerogative to demand that "guests" leave his house.

And you answer by promoting additional myths. This is going nowhere fast.

400 posted on 01/15/2019 7:39:41 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,261-1,267 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson