Posted on 12/28/2006 11:31:38 AM PST by peggybac
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The new president of the University of Texas says he will appoint a panel to decide what to do with four bronze statues on the Austin campus that honor confederate leaders and have drawn complaints for several years. William Powers Jr., who took over as president this month, said the advisory committee would look into concerns about the statues, which include likenesses of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, and Gen. Robert E. Lee. "A lot of students, and especially minority students, have raised concerns. And those are understandable and legitimate concerns. On the other hand, the statues have been here for a long time, and that's something we have to take into account as well," Powers said in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman. The university's previous president, Larry Faulkner, wrote an open letter to the campus more than two years ago saying the statues convey "institutional nostalgia" for the Confederacy and its values. "Most who receive that message are repelled," Faulkner wrote. Statuary on the Austin campus has grown more diverse over the years, partly as a result of student-led efforts. A student fee raised funds to install a statue of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1999. Also in the works are statues of Hispanic labor leader Cesar Chavez and Barbara Jordan, the first black woman from the South elected to Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
R. E. Lee was indeed a great American. Like many other famous great men in history, he earned his fame fighting for what turned out to be a lost cause. And a cause that most today agree deserved to lose.
We do not have to agree with their beliefs to honor men who fought bravely for their beliefs.
I didn't make that claim. If you will check post 98, you'll see that I said the Northern objective during the first two years of the war was to preserve the Union, not end slavery.
Here is what Lincoln said in 1862 [Link]:
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Of course, even then it was for many, perhaps most, based more on a desire to punish the slaveocrats who started the war and caused so much suffering than on a feeling of brotherhood for the black man.
In 1861, Northern politicians realized that the border states might secede if they announced that the war was to free the slaves.
You may be right about a Northern desire to punish the South. It may explain things like the 18-month long bombardment of Charleston SC civilians by Union forces.
Or maybe the nature of a siege in warfare better explains the bombardment. War is rough. Maybe the idiot hotheads of Charleston should of thought of that before they troubled the nation. The British bombarded Charleston in the Revolution. Should have been no surprise.
But isn't this much the same objection of the South, which complained that the Federal government could pass laws without a state's consent? Indeed, wasn't a MAJOR factor in secession the "nullification crisis?" Again, the South remained concerned, much like the American Colonies, that a powerful foreign government could pass laws without its consent. How is that self-governing?
Moreover, the American political system was very similar to that of the British, especially prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment. How did the revolution change things as far as that went?
Their motivations for leaving were irrelevant. The states voted to leave.
The South seceded not over laws that had been passed by the federal government that it found objectionable, but over the potential for such laws to be passed now that it had lost an election.
Nullification was not an issue in 1860. That horse had died. Andrew Jackson killed it in the 1830s. To the extent that nullification was still an issue it was northern states that were implementing it, in practice if not in theory, with the various laws they passed to impede enforcement of the Fugitive Slave laws. The northern states doing so was a very major reason for southern anger.
Moreover, the American political system was very similar to that of the British, especially prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment. How did the revolution change things as far as that went?
The franchise was much more widespread in colonial and newly independent America than in Britain, where through 1832 less than 10% of the adult male population had the vote. Due largely to the much more widespread ownership of property, America had a majority of white men voting even at the time of independence, with very nearly universal white male suffrage by 1800.
So then why should every colony have to agree to a law to have it pass?
Why was it objectionable that the British government, which was certainly the "freest" and most prosperous in the entire world, make laws for its colonies? After all, wasn't that the law? Weren't colonies ruled by the home country?
Regardless of whether the South seceded over actuality or potential, it still seceded over basically the same issue: home rule. You seem to think that home rule was a perfectly acceptable reason for fighting a revolution in 1776, but not so much in 1860.
The action the South Carolinians took in seceding was was not outlawed in the Constitution. Indeed, New York, Virgina, and Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations mentioned in their ratifications of the Constitution that it was there understanding that their people could resume their own governance if it comported to their happiness.
South Carolina sent a delegation to Washington in 1860 to treat with the Federal government for forts, other property, and their share of the national debt, but were rebuffed.
IMO, it would have been wiser had South Carolina not fired on Sumter, even though Lincoln sent a armed fleet down to invade South Carolina's territorial waters. They should have let Lincoln try to collect import duties on imports to another country, an act of war.
Perhaps you've not seen my list of Charleston casualties during the Union bombardment of civilians.
Mrs. Hawthorne
In the afternoon, between four and five o’clock, the enemy again opened on the city. Sixteen shells were fired. One white woman, a Mrs. Hawthorne, was severely wounded by a fragment of shell striking her on the left side of the head. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 2, 1863)
Mrs. Hawthorne, the woman who was wounded Tuesday afternoon, was still alive up to seven o’clock Wednesday evening. Dr. Frost is the attending physician. Very little hopes were entertained for her recovery, as (the left side?) of the head is fractured, and the ----- (can’t read). (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 3, 1863)
Mrs. Hawthorne, Number 70 Church street, wounded by shell in right side, and died six weeks after (Official Records, Series 1, Volume 28, page 683)
Church in danger
Whereas the Congregation of the St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church are prevented from worshipping in their Sanctuary in consequence of the missiles of destruction which are being thrown into their vicinity by our remorseless and infidel foe; Therefore,
Resolved, That the above named Congregation be most earnestly and affectionately invited to worship with us in the Morris-street Lutheran Church, as long as their necessities or inclination may require. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 19, 1863)
Firemen, William Knighton, Miss Plane, John Doscher, Rebecca (slave), and others
Charleston, Dec 25 – The enemy commenced shelling the city last night, keeping up a steady fire which is still going on at 9 o’clock this morning. A fire broke out about 9 o’clock, destroying some ten or twelve buildings, and causing a few casualties. Heavy firing is heard in the direction of Stone. The shelling of the city has continued with only an interval of an hour at noon. One white man was mortally and a white woman slightly wounded by shells.
Three firemen were badly wounded by the falling of walls of burnt buildings, and some eight or ten others were slightly wounded. Affairs at Sumter remain quiet. (The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. December 28, 1863)
Mr. John Doscher, of German Fire Company, wounded at fire of December 25, and since died; Rebecca, slave of Mr. Lindsay, Numbers 5. Beaufain street, killed instantly by shell. At the fire of December 25, there were 1 fireman, 1 policeman, and 4 soldiers slightly wounded. (Official Records, Series 1, Volume 28, page 683, Report of Major Henry Bryan, Assistant Inspector-General, C. S. Army, Charleston, January 6, 1864)The gunners always increased their rate of fire when they saw a blaze, but in spite of the shells bursting near their engine, the firemen worked uninterruptedly. Four firemen and four soldiers were injured in fighting the fire, and a little further up the street, an 83-year old man had his leg shot off at the knee. It was a memorable Christmas night… (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 257-258, December 25, 1863)
An old gentleman named William Knighton, 83 years of age, was sitting by the fire on his hearth, had his right leg shot off below the knee, His sister-in-law -- a Miss Plane – also sitting by the fire, had her right foot severely crushed by a fragment of shell. [corner Meeting and Market – from OR reference above] (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 28, 1863).
Mr. William Knighton mentioned in our report of casualties caused by the enemy’s fire on Friday, has since died from the effects of his wounds. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 29, 1863)
Miss Plane, the lady reported as injured from a shell on Christmas morning, died on Wednesday from the effects of the injuries received. (Charleston Daily Courier, Dec 31, 1863, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Jan 17, 1864)
German man wounded
One man, a German, whose name we could not learn, was wounded in the right hand by a stone from the middle of the street, torn up by a shell on Wednesday morning. (Charleston Daily Courier, Jan 14, 1864).
School Children
The St. Philip Street school-house remained untouched. A frame house adjoining it has nevertheless been hit by one of the shells, and fears were entertained for the safety of the school-house. Shells were flying round it constantly during the bombardment. The teachers, however, still keep the school open and the little girls and boys attended it in great numbers very regularly. (From The New York Herald, as reported in The Daily Picayune, Feb 12, 1864)
Mrs. Kennedy
One white woman, a Mrs. Kennedy, was seriously wounded in the leg about three o’clock Thursday morning. She was asleep when a shell entered her house and in passing through, shattered the bed posts, the pieces striking her on the leg, fracturing the bone. It was believed that amputation would be necessary. (Charleston Courier as reported in The Memphis Daily Appeal [Atlanta, GA]. March 8, 1864)
Nine killed. Men, women and children wounded
There have been lately two large fires in Charleston, caused by our shells. Deserters say the city is now divided into two districts, viz: 'in range' and 'out of range,' and that no other expression is used. Nine persons were killed a few nights since, and a large number wounded, including men, women, and children, and twelve homes burned to the ground. (Washington Republican, Feb 26, 1864, as reported in The Daily Picayune March 11, 1864)
Firemen injured
…the engine of the Phoenix Company was struck by a shell and blown to atoms, injuring several firemen (The Siege of Charleston, 1861-1865 by E. Milby Burton, p 259, from Schirmer Diary, May 13, 1864)
Willie, between 12 and 13 years old
… the only casualty was "a white lad named Willie, between twelve and thirteen years old." (The Bombardment of Charleston 1863-1865 by W. Chris Phelps, page 101, reporting from the Charleston Daily Courier of June 3, 1864)
Colored woman killed
The firing since our last has been about as usual. Eighty-six shots have been fired from six P. M. Monday evening to six P. M. Tuesday, at Fort Sumter, and twenty-nine shots at the city, most of which were time fuse shells. A colored woman, named Adstine Rostersats (? hard to read the name) was mortally wounded about 12 M. Tuesday, by the fragment of a fuse shell, and died about four o’clock Tuesday evening. (Charleston Daily Courier, Aug 31, 1864).
Child’s arm shattered
Forty-two shells have been fired at the city since our last report. A child’s arm was badly shattered by one of these missiles. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 2, 1864)
Man and two children wounded
In the city three persons, one man and two children, were wounded by pieces of shell. One child was severely wounded. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 9, 1864)
Colored man killed
A colored barber named William, was struck in the head by a Parrott shell Friday morning and instantly killed. (Charleston Daily Courier, Sept 10, 1864)
Men and women wounded
During the twenty-four hours ending six o’clock Wednesday evening eighty-eight shots were reported fired into the city. A number of casualties occurred, but mostly from flying bricks or splinters.
Mr. A. W. Ladd was severely and dangerously wounded in the left shoulder by a fragment of shell, which exploded in the building where he was writing. Three other young men in the same room and building as Mr. Ladd, very narrowly escaped being killed. The shell passed through the desk of one (Mr. C. J. Porcher) just as he had risen to close a shutter of the window against the heat of the sun. It went under the desk, passing through the legs of Mr. W. Lambert, breaking the leg of the chair and leaving Mr. W with only a slight bruise on the ankle.
Another shell, which exploded in a building, wounded four females of the family of Mr. John Burkmyer, one of them seriously, breaking her collar bone, besides inflicting several slight bruises.
A man by the name of Collins, a laborer, had his leg taken off Wednesday evening by the explosion of a shell in the building in which he resided. (all above were from the Charleston Daily Courier of Sept 29, 1864)
On Charlotte Street, the Burckmyer family wasn’t as lucky. A shell entered their home wounding all five family members. (The Bombardment of Charleston 1863-1865 by W. Chris Phelps, page 120, about Sept. 29, 1864)
William Doran, lost arm, last casualty
… Mr William Doran … resided at present day 5 Bedon’s Alley, south of Broad Street in the "Shell District." … On the evening of February 14 [1865], as Doran was reaching out to strike a match on his dining room mantel, a shell passed through those walls and took off his extended right arm. (The Bombardment of Charleston 1863-1865 by W. Chris Phelps, page 131)
Do you favor a pointless bombardment of civilians, Colonel? Wouldn't the Federal bombardment have been better directed at Confederate troops and installations than at civilians? Charleston was not surrounded by Federal troops so the concept of the historical siege you mentioned doesn't quite apply.
The issue is not one of whether "home rule" is good or bad. It is one of defining what constitutes the "home" or "people" with a right to decide such questions for itself.
Southern states that had exercise their "right" to secede denied it to various areas of Union sympathy in TN, NC and other states. WV obviously was successful in its secession from VA.
Look, every governmental body has to decide which subgroup has the right to decide for itself whether it wishes to continue to remain within that entity. All governmental entities, by definition, deny this right to individuals. Some grant it to sub-groups of various sizes. Some deny it altogether, as being indivisible.
Southerners decided that each state had this right, but that the people of large sections of their own states did not, that these people were to be forced to remain within that state, even executed for treason, as many were, if they attempted to withdraw.
Unionists believed that only the "people of the United States" as a whole had the right to make these decisions. It is difficult to see, as Lincoln put it, how a government could "long endure" if any other system were practiced. I think by definition any major strain would crack a government apart if subgroups could withdraw at their option.
As just one example, consider the likely reaction of southerners when the federal government, correctly in my opinion, began to enforce constitutional protections for black Americans in the 50s and 60s. If it hadn't already been settled, don't you think Gov. Wallace and his ilk wouldn't have seceded then?
I therefore assume you equally condemn American actions in WWI that intentionally killed millions of civilians?
Unless Confederate civilians are worthy of protection and German/Japanese civilians are not? If so, on what do you base this theory of the laws of war?
Make that WWII.
WWI? I'm not aware that we killed millions of civilians, even in WWII. Many do recognize the intentional killing of civilians as barbaric, whatever its purpose. Are you saying that the killing of civilians during 9-11 was not barbaric?
You might be interested in the Lieber Code of 1863 issued under Lincoln for the conduct of Union armies.
Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.
..but they are proud of their motto Keep Austin Weird..
..and believe me, some of them are.
But it's not just Austin....it's everywhere now.....EVERYWHERE!
And I can say for sure, there are some great conservative, God fearing, American loving folk right there in Austin.
There are some great Evangelical churches who witness to the citizens of Austin by their deeds.
It was in Austin just last year that pro-life contractors took a stand and refused to build a new abortion clinic!
Don't write off Austin.
Admittedly, it's a different slice of the Texas pie, but it's the Capital and there are lots of proud Texans....
I personally think UT-Austin will be hardput to remove those statures!
I've seen them....was quite touched....they belong there!
Austin is proud of its heroes.
It is estimated that between 500,000 and 2M German and Japanese civilians died in Allied attacks on cities, rather than on military targets. Most of these attacks were carried out by American forces.
Attacks on cities are by definitions intended to kill the population, most of whom are civilians. Our intent was to demoralize the population, just as the German intent was in the London Blitz. Both failed.
From a US Marine Corps seminar: "Defense of a locality by troops against the assaults of their opponent render the locality subject to bombardments. Factories producing munitions and military supplies, ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military supplies, and other places devoted to the support of military operations or the accomodation of troops may be attacked and bombarded even though they are not defended."
I do believe the city of Charleston was being defended against assault. As such, it was a legitimate target, even using today's standards. I believe most of Charleston was attacked by Union guns at their extreme range, which at the time meant marginal accuracy. Were not Confederate batteries emplaced at many locations in the city and the entire city occupied and held as a fortress against assault?
BTW, do you have any compilation of the total number of dead civilians in Charleston during the siege?
I agree with this statement. So doesn't that mean that the British Crown had the right to decide whether or not the American Colonies could secede? Doesn't that make the American Revolution illegal (or, at the very least, unjust)? Again, my contention is not that there is an absolute right of secession; my contention is rather that people who contend the South unjustly left the Union in 1860 whitewash the very obvious parallels to the American Revolution, which was less than a century before.
I don't disagree with your overall premise that eventually the right of secession has to stop someplace, since we can't really have groups of individuals deciding to secede from the United States, a la the Freemen in Montana. However, if there is ANY right to secession at all, certainly such a right would extend to the states, which were the original political entities created by the People to protect rights.
As just one example, consider the likely reaction of southerners when the federal government, correctly in my opinion, began to enforce constitutional protections for black Americans in the 50s and 60s.
I'm not sure that these decisions were correctly decided, but that's another post for another day.
A State that grounds its right to secede on the right of its people to self-determination, yet holds a large percentage, in some cases a majority, of its inhabitants in chattel slavery is on very shaky moral ground. Especially when its secession is proclaimed to be for the purpose of protecting that institution of slavery from potential, not even actual, attack.
The American colonies based their secession on the right of all peoples to revolution to enforce eternal human rights. The southern states based theirs on legalistic quibbling about sovereignty, for the obvious reason that repeating lines about how "all men are created equal" would look awfully silly, under the circumstances.
The original American revolutionary leaders were not defending the institution of slavery. They were almost universally opposed to it, they just didn't know how to get rid of it.
The men of 1860 quite conciously rejected the idea that all men are created equal, deciding that the original Founders had gotten that part all wrong. Some men were created much more equal than others and had been endowed by their Creator with the right to deny liberty to certain other men, who were obviously sub-human in important respects. While softened greatly by Christian beliefs, this is essentialy a "master race" ideology, which has a tendency to lead to very bad things.
bump
The Feds' normal procedure was to target a church steeple in the civilian area of Charleston, not any port area. The Feds also shelled Fort Sumter for years and even launched an amphibious attach against the fort, but they couldn't take it. Other forts and Confederate troops outside of the city defended the harbor. Why not attack them rather than the civilians?
Perhaps you'd be interested in Union General Gillmore's demand regarding firing on civilians, which he commenced at 1:30 AM shortly after sending this communique.
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE SOUTH, Morris Island, S. C., August 21, 1863.
General G. T. BEAUREGARD,
Commanding Confederate Forces, Charleston, S. C.:
GENERAL: I have the honor to demand of you the immediate evacuation of Morris Island and Fort Sumter by the Confederate forces. The present condition of Fort Sumter and the rapid and progressive destruction which it is undergoing from my batteries, seem to render its complete demolition within a few hours a matter of certainty. All my heaviest guns have not yet opened.
Should you refuse compliance with this demand, or should I receive no reply thereto within four hours after it is delivered into the hands of your subordinate at Fort Wagner for transmission, I shall open fire on the city of Charleston from batteries already established within easy and effective range of the heart of the city.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Q. A. GILLMORE
In other words, give up your forts or I'll kill your civilians. How civilized.
I don't have any totals on Charleston civilian casualties. What I posted came from a couple of books I own and Xerox copies of a few old newspapers.
Well within the terms of the accepted laws of war at the time. Those who don't want their city bombarded are required to declare it an open city, as in WWII the French (and later the Germans) did with Paris, and as America did with Manila.
If you defend it, the entire city becomes, under the laws of war, a fortress. It can be bombarded perfectly legally, as the Germans did with Paris in the Franco-Prussian War and WWI, and as the British/French did with Sebastopol during the Crimean War. Both of these were more or less contemparoneous with our WBTS.
Your beef seems to be with the laws of war at the time, not with the specific Union application of them at Charleston.
Had the Confederacy won at Gettysburg and then moved on Washington, they would have been well within their rights to besiege and bombard the well-defended capitol of the enemy.
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.