Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[OIFVeteran]

Your as full of it as a bag of manure. The Republican Party was formed as a party against slavery. If you don’t believe it here is the first republican party platform in 1856, you should really take the time to read it.

Republican Platform of 1856

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

Resolved: That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people, in order to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty,” and contain ample provision for the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, the dearest Constitutional rights of the people of Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them.

Their Territory has been invaded by an armed force;

Spurious and pretended legislative, judicial, and executive officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the military power of the government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced;

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been infringed.

Test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office.

The right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been violated;

They have been deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law;

That the freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged;

The right to choose their representatives has been made of no effect;

Murders, robberies, and arsons have been instigated and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished;

That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign that Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment thereafter.

Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a state of this Union, with her present Free Constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.

Resolved, That the highwayman’s plea, that might makes right,” embodied in the Ostend Circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any Government or people that gave it their sanction.

Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean by the most central and practicable route is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction, and as an auxiliary thereto, to the immediate construction of an emigrant road on the line of the railroad.

Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of the Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

Resolved, That we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared; and believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.

[jeffersondem]

“They initiated a war that led to their own destruction.”

Abraham Lincoln initiated a call for troops for an invasion that led to his own . . . forget it.

[jeffersondem]

“That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign that Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment thereafter.”

Sounds like something written by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Then there was the coastwide trade whereby goods would be shipped to other ports once arriving in NYC or Boston etc and being subject to duties there.
In any event, the end customers did not pay most of the cost of the tariff."

Seems to me this is the crux of the FLT-bird/DiogenesLamp economic argument -- that somehow it wasn't end-user customers who ultimately paid US import tariffs, but rather those cotton planters who exported to Europe.
F-b & DL tell us the exporter-planters paid tariffs, not the end-use import customers.

Of course that's nonsense because sales-taxes, even value-added taxes, are always paid ultimately by end-user customers.

FLT-bird: "The whole point of the protective tariff was to price foreign goods out of the market.
Northern manufacturers could undercut foreign goods on price once foreign goods were subject to huge tariffs."

Right, and there are political terms for that, you may have heard them?

"Put Americans first" and
"Make America great" -- by protecting manufacturing jobs

You may be interested to notice that protecting manufacturing was indeed what the First Congress in 1789 intended with its first tariff.
Of course, that included manufacturing anywhere, not just in the North.

FLT-bird: "The importer could not pass on most of the cost to customers in the form of higher prices.
Their profit margins were squeezed severely as they were forced to eat most of the cost and they lost market share."

Exactly, that was the intention of our First Congress in passing its first tariff in 1789, the act signed into law by our first President, George Washington.
And nothing seriously changed from that day until the globalists took over a few decades ago.

FLT-bird: "Goods arrived often in New York, paid the tariff and then were trans-shipped via railroad, via canals, via coastwide shipping to other ports."

Right. Goods shipped to wherever end-use customers happened to be, very few of whom were Deep South cotton planters.

FLT-bird: "Since coastwide trade had to be carried in American ships under the Navigation Acts, what tended to happen was that foreign ships arrived in NY, paid the tariff on their goods and the goods were then trans-shipped from NY being loaded onto the required American ships bound for other ports or the goods were loaded onto trains, sent on barges through the Erie Canal and onto the Great Lakes, etc etc"

Right, and this tells me that FLT-bird does have some basic understandings of how things worked.
He understands that imports to New York shipped to end-use customers all over the country, including some in the South, but he wishes us to think import tariffs on those goods were somehow "paid for" by cotton planter exports.

FLT-bird: "with the distribution system centered on NY and to a lesser extent, Boston and Philadelphia......foreign ships tended to land at those ports quite frequently though New Orleans was also a major port."

Right, New Orleans was basically tied with Philadelphia as our third largest port.
About half of US cotton exported from New Orleans and returning ships brought huge volumes of imports for sale in the Deep South and the million-square-mile Mississippi River basin.

FLT-bird: "Just saying the customers were in the North (they weren't all by a longshot) does not mean those customers were bearing the cost of that tariff.
They bore some costs as prices rose for manufactured goods, but the importer was obliged by the market to eat most of the cost which slashed profit margins."

First, notice, when it suits FLT-bird he defines "the North" as everything north of South Carolina, but here it suits him to restrict "the North" to just New England.

Second, when you look at what, exactly, was being tariffed, you see all the major items, in descending dollars:

• woolens from England
• brown sugar from Caribbean
• cotton from Europe
• silks from China
• iron from Europe
• coffee from South America
• molasses from Caribbean
• flax from Europe
• tea from China
• wine from Europe

Note that some of these items were used as raw material in manufactured goods "exported" to the South.

My point is that tariffs on all these commodities were paid for by end-use customers, not Deep South cotton exporters.

[DoodleDawg]

Abraham Lincoln initiated a call for troops for an invasion that led to his own . . . forget it.

Still historically challenged I see.

[rockrr]

But, just like bird-brain and degeneratelamp, authentically anti-American at every turn.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

1st attempt.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good graphic. *THERE* is your distribution system for Southern imported goods that would have destroyed the Northern manufacturing profits.

There is your other dominant reason for the money war against the South. The South would have supplied goods and services to that vast expanse of territory reachable by those waterways, and the Norther train owners and the Northern industrial manufacturers (All the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age) would have lost their fortunes and control of their empire.

New Orleans would have become New York.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK on John Quincy Adams: "...whatever quote you think you have is certainly phony baloney..."

FLT-bird: "Try reading rather than just responding to respond some time.
Speech of Mr. J. R. Underwood, upon the resolution proposing to censure John Quincy Adams for presenting to the House of representatives a petition praying for the dissolution of the union.
This is not the first time I've posted it."

So, turns out you don't have a quote, even though claiming you posted it now more than once.
Your link goes to the title of an 1842 anti-Adams speech, not to a quote from Adams.

But with some digging, I was able to turn up a tiny bit of information on this.
So let me say first, I like John Quincy Adams, an amazing fellow.
As a young man in 1781 he was a diplomat in the Revolutionary War and as an old man in 1847 he passed on its principles to a young Illinois Congressman named Abraham Lincoln.
Adams opposed slavery and fought it with everything he had in Congress from 1831 until his death in 1848.

Some of Adams' tactics in Congress were quirky & convoluted, especially in trying to oppose slavery despite the "gag rule" against that.
These tactics won Adams froth-at-the-mouth hatred from Democrats, on a par with what we see today against our President.

In 1837 [some say 1842] Adams was arguing against slavery despite the "gag rule" and presented a petition from 46 citizens in Haverhill, Massachusetts calling for disunion rather accepting slavery.
Some say Adams himself claimed disunion preferable to slavery, and that drove Democrats insane with rage and calling for Adams censure on grounds of "perjury" and "high treason".
The vote failed, 106 to 93.

So the key point to note from this, whether or not Adams himself proposed disunion, is that in 1837 (or 1842?) Southern Democrats considered even a suggestion of secession "high treason".

So why, by 1860 was secession no longer "high treason"?
Answer: because they were typical Democrats.

Young & old John Quincy Adams:

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

2nd attempt.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Jesus H. Christ."

Somehow I doubt if He will help you when you address Him like that.

FLT-bird: "No, what he [Lincoln] said was to hand over tax money or he'd use violence against them."

Lincoln promised to do his job as President, a matter of some importance to those who elected him.
He also promised there'd be no use of force:

"While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."

So there was an olive branch for anyone who wanted to accept it.

FLT-bird: "Your money or your life.
There will be no violence unless you refuse to hand over your money.
See? I didn't start it, Officer. I'm innocent."

Federal revenues from Charleston Harbor were miniscule, a matter of negotiation for anyone who wanted peace.

FLT-bird: "The same chance for peace I offered you above. Your money or your life.
I really DO mean there will be no violence so long as you hand your wallet over to me.
See? I gave you a chance for peace."

Nonsense.
Our Internal Revenue Service does insist I pay up, but it'll never threaten my life unless I go insane and start killing them.

FLT-bird: "Well of course HE claimed it wasn't aggression, HE claimed sending a heavily armed fleet was merely a "resupply mission" and claimed firing to drive an armed invader away was aggression.
Surprise Surprise."

But there was no "heavily armed fleet" when Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced", so that's all nonsense.

FLT-bird on Jefferson Davis: "No he didn't.
He would have been perfectly happy to go along on his merry way without ever firing a shot had Lincoln not sent a heavily armed fleet into the CSA's sovereign territory in an effort to collect taxes from them."

Lincoln's resupply ships had nothing to do with tax collection.
So your words are typical Democrat lies, because you refuse to read & comprehend what Davis actually said, now posted several times on this thread alone.
Davis clearly intended to capture both Sumter and Pickens, by force if necessary, even if Davis had to attack them.
Here is another example where your Lost Cause Myth is simply a fact-free zone.

FLT-bird: "you have GOT to be kidding in thinking that the percentages of where the tariffs are collected in any way reflects the value generated in that port."

In 1860 about one tenth of one percent of US tariffs were collected at Charleston Harbor.
There's no reason to think that number would be any different in 1861 or later.
So taxes were irrelevant to events at Fort Sumter.

FLT-bird: "In other words, were the CSA to go its own way - even just the original 7 seceding states - the amount of exports generated for the USA would be dramatically slashed.
Thus also the amount of tariffs paid in New York would correspondingly be slashed.
EVERYBODY knew this"

Right, you'd think exports would decline about 50% with the loss of Confederate cotton.
And, in 1861 US exports did decline from lost cotton, but it wasn't 50% decline, only 35% and the reason is other commodities increased their exports.
By 1865 Union tariff receipts had doubled over 1860.

Point is, Fort Sumter wasn't "all about money".
Money was a secondary issue at best.

FLT-bird: "If you mean to imply that George Washington or that the 13 colonies would have tolerated the British maintaining a large garrison in the middle of New York Harbor - along with an expressed objective of collecting taxes from the colonies at said fort - I will to ask that you submit to a drug test before posting further."

You might want to check your own blood-alcohol levels, because General Washington certainly did tolerate the British in New York for years after their "unconditional surrender" at Yorktown and for months after they agreed to withdraw by treaty.
Further, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with collecting taxes, so forget that.

The real distinction is that Fort Sumter was totally harmless to Confederates whereas British forts in Ohio & Michigan supplied & supported Indians who attacked American settlers & militia.
St. Clair's defeat in 1791 cost ~1,000 US lives, the largest bulk of the US Army at that time.
No battle in the Revolutionary War exceeded the US numbers killed in St. Clair's defeat and no battle in American history exceeded the percent killed vs. total US Army.

And yet, our Founders didn't declare war over those British forts.
Instead years later they sent John Jay to Paris negotiate their withdrawal, in 1796.
So our Founders could no-way be happy about British forts on US territory, but they did not insanely start a war they couldn't win over it.

This map shows nearly a dozen British forts in New York, Ohio and Michigan after the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

FLT-bird: "As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, 'Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor' by reprovisioning Fort Sumter."

Of course anti-Republicans, Democrats always put the worst spin possible on whatever a Republican President does.
But that was not in fact Lincoln's intention.

FLT-bird: "Had they not fired, Lincoln would have only sent more and more expeditions to occupy more and more forts until he was able to control all ports and strategic locations."

Not necessarily, peace could have produced surprising results, enough to support those who wanted to, ahem, "give peace a chance."

FLT-bird: "Without that, Sumter would have been handed over peacefully, the original 7 seceding states would have gone their separate way peacefully and there would have been no war."

A complete lie since Davis already ordered Bragg to start war at Fort Pickens, regardless of what happened at Sumter.

FLT-bird: "Lincoln let it be known he was sending a heavily armed fleet to force its way into South Carolina's sovereign territory.
He then sent it."

Right, Davis ordered Fort Sumter be "reduced" not because Fort Sumter fired on Confederates, not because a "war fleet" arrived in Charleston Harbor, not because a "war fleet" had even set sail, but because Davis received Lincoln's notification that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter.
It was a simple piece of paper that drove Davis insane.

Typical Democrat.

FLT-bird: "Several historians have said the same as did both of Lincoln's personal secretaries as I posted above.
It is rather you PC Revisionists who try to deny the obvious - that Lincoln knowingly started the war and that he did it for money."

Jefferson Davis never claimed he was "tricked", that should matter to you.
After the war Davis also said the next time they'd wait for the Union to start it.
Are you calling Davis a liar?

As for "he did it for money" that is only a fantasy of Lost Cause liars and other Marxists.

FLT-bird: "Funny how you automatically claim all of the voluminous quotes from Northern newspapers I cited were anti Lincoln....and you conveniently leave out a lot of those quotes whenever you pick one to respond to. "

Sorry, I thought I'd methodically demolished all your alleged quotes.
So please feel free to point out any in inadvertently missed.

Now I'm out of time, must run...

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

3rd attempt.

[x]

Tariffs are usually paid by the end consumer. However, it is true, that if an importer can't sell the goods, he can't pass the import tax onto the end consumer. If there is no buyer to pass the tariff cost on to, the importer gets stuck paying the cost of the tax himself. Most of the time, though, the merchants would be up on what they could sell and what price they could sell it for, so most of the time, they wouldn't get stuck paying the tariff.

But why would the importer be the cotton planter who exports goods to Europe? The cotton planters did not own or staff or finance or insure the ships. If most goods came in through New York, it stands to reason most of the importers would be New Yorkers, not Southerners.

The end consumers would not necessarily be New Yorkers, but the fact that so much of the taxable imports were sugar, coffee, and tea suggests that states with larger populations were importing more and paying more of the tariffs. Because coffee and tea didn't grow in the US (and wine production was also limited) you weren't going to find domestic producers undercutting the imported goods. So you weren't going to find importers getting stuck with the merchandise and having to swallow the cost of the tariff.

A large share of those woolens probably went to the chilly Northern states as well. rather than to the South. If European fabric was truly of better quality, it's unlikely that a moderate tariff would keep them from being sold. "Cotton from Europe" more likely refers to fabric and thread, rather than bales of the white stuff, and what was true of wool and flax would be true of cotton goods.

[rockrr]

Dude - this is your 3rd attempt! You realize that one more and you'll be in line for double secret probation?!

[OIFVeteran]

You win the internet for today.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: ***”Your repetitive responding...”***

If you look, you’ll notice I’ve methodically worked my way down to your post #605, trying to answer every lie from you with the truth, as best we know it.
So, if it seems to you that my responses are repetitive, that can only be because you keep posting the same lies, over & over, regardless.

That means there’s a quick & simple solution for you — if you stop lying, you won’t see the truth repeated endlessly.

Any chance of that?

FLT-bird: ***”while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue...”***

Nooooo, I read every lie you post quite closely in order to see just what is the wool you’re pulling & smoke you’re blowing.
In nearly every case, that’s not hard to spot.
Turns out nearly always that if your quote is valid, it doesn’t really mean what you claim, and if it does say what you claim, then the quote itself is suspect.

I should also note there was lots of anti-Lincoln fake news in 1861, Democrats who lied just as passionately then as they do today.
So the question with such lies is not did people say them, but was there any reason to think them true?

Usually, not so much.

[BroJoeK]

X: ***”Tariffs are usually paid by the end consumer.
However, it is true, that if an importer can’t sell the goods, he can’t pass the import tax onto the end consumer.
If there is no buyer to pass the tariff cost on to, the importer gets stuck paying the cost of the tax himself.”***

Sure, but after many years merchants know what sells and what doesn’t.
You would not expect them to invest in imports without profits, would you?

That implies everything imported year after year had solid customers and were sold at profit.
So key points to remember include that some imports (i.e., coffee & tea) shipped directly to end use customers, but others (woolens, iron) became raw materials for manufacturers who then “exported” to other regions, including the South.

Such Northern “exports” to the South are said to have totalled $200 million/year and thus soaked up whatever surplus cash planters earned from cotton.

Posters like Diogeneslamp and FLT-BIRD tell us the Union absolutely depended on “Southern” exports, and would collapse economically without them.
That, they say, is why Lincoln “started war” at Fort Sumter.
Their problem is, 1861 proved them wrong — Confederate exports zeroed out and yet Union exports fell only 35% in 1861, rose in years after.

Their arguments are especially weak in claiming Lincoln “attacked” Charleston to collect tariff revenues — weak because Charleston tariffs amointed to only one tenth of one percent of total tariffs.

[DiogenesLamp]

Posters like Diogeneslamp and FLT-BIRD tell us the Union absolutely depended on “Southern” exports, and would collapse economically without them.

We say no such thing. We said they would lose control of 238 million dollars per year in European trade, and we say they would lose more from market competition of European goods flooding the nation through New Orleans. They would lose still a third way, when the great increase in capital in the Southern states would fund rival industries to theirs.

But you misreport what we claim, and from anyone else I would say they are a liar, but you are so obsessed and delusional about what you desperately want to believe, that your brain automatically misinterprets everything we say so that it resembles something more to your liking.

You suffer from cognitive dissonance, and it creates these weird effects where you read stuff we don't write.

Independence for the Southern states was a grave financial threat to the North, but nobody said it was going to "collapse economically without them."

It was going to collapse economically if the South was allowed to compete with them. Destroying the South prevented this economic competition, and that's why they did it. If they couldn't control the Money and Economics of the South, they HAD to destroy it, and I think freeing the slaves had more with revenge and destroying the South's economic threat to them than it did with any concern about the well being of slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Their arguments are especially weak in claiming Lincoln “attacked” Charleston to collect tariff revenues — weak because Charleston tariffs amointed to only one tenth of one percent of total tariffs.

And here is another bit of idiocy. NO ONE SAID THAT!

He attacked Charleston to PREVENT them from taking away New York's business by charging lower tariffs than did the Union.

Our arguments are not weak at all, but your stupid strawman pretense of our arguments is weak because you made it so when you deliberately misstated our arguments.

Charleston charging 10% tariff and getting rid of the ban on foreign ships carrying cargo between ports, would have resulted in an ENORMOUS diversion of traffic from New York to Charleston.

Lincoln sent his attack fleet and his subsequent blockade to stop the Europeans from ever getting a taste of the greater profits they would make from bypassing New York and incidentally, his Federal tariffs.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: ***”[The North] was going to collapse economically if the South was allowed to compete with them.”***

First you claimed I misrepresented your posts, and called me all kinds of nonsense, “cognative dissonance”!, then you repeated what I said only in stronger terms.
So what’s up with that?