Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
I forget. Was Buchanan pro slavery or not?
Would you happen to have any references which we could show to our FRiends? :)
I may come across it some time in the future, but if you have any ready references, I can bookmark them now. Seems like the sort of thing that would come in Handy Dandy in some future discussions.
I know some of them put a lot of stock into what Lincoln's biographers say, because I have been informed many times that those biographers refuse to agree that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Tanney, despite his own friend and body guard claiming that he did.
He was from Pennsylvania. He was a Democrat and had a very long career in Congress and public service before being elected. I would not say he was “Pro Slavery” but he felt some of the legislative actions such as the Fugitive Slave Act were necessary for the time. He called on Congress to come up with measures to try and keep the Southern States in the Union. One of those measures was the Corwin Amendment which he signed on the 2nd of March, then left on the desk in the White House, for Lincoln to deal with.
Some would refer to him as a dough face Democrat.
His signature on a cover letter does not indicate support or opposition. Why would he send it to the seven states that had already withdrawn from the Union.
Would you happen to have any references which we could show to our FRiends? :)
I may come across it some time in the future, but if you have any ready references, I can bookmark them now. Seems like the sort of thing that would come in Handy Dandy in some future discussions.
I know some of them put a lot of stock into what Lincoln’s biographers say, because I have been informed many times that those biographers refuse to agree that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Tanney, despite his own friend and body guard claiming that he did.
There are several sources but the best one in order to twist the knife further :^) is one of his biggest cheerleaders, the admitted plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin in Team of Rivals.
Not only that but none of Taney's biographers support the claim that Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice. Ask DiogenesLamp why that is. I never get tired of hearing him tell it.
And yet he stands head and shoulders against any of his contemporaries.
The answer is to be found in Chief Justice Taney’s ruling in ex parte Merryman.
Must be hiding really well because I can't see why that ruling resulted in none of his biographers mentioning any arrest warrant on Taney.
I noticed Magness doesn't detail the "three short resolutions" of Lincolns. In the online collection of his works I found this letter which appears to give the three resolutions in full. None of the three seem to support much of what wound up in the Corwin amendment. Instead, the footnote seems to show that suggestions like making slavery permanent came from Seward himself.
Do you happen to know what letter exactly Magness refers to? Lincoln's Trumbull letter doesn't seem to support Magness's claims either.
Magness mentions a letter to Duff Green and says Lincoln opposed the amendment "in abstract terms". On the contrary, Lincoln's letter to Green clearly states his opposition to any amendment but also acknowledged that the question of such an amendment is out of his hands. And nowhere do I see any support for Seward's plans, as Magness claims.
Confederate declaration of war against the United States, May 6, 1861.
Seems odd to me that the Confederate declaration of war doesn't end all discussion on whether defeating & destroying the Confederacy was anything other than absolutely necessary.
Redmen4ever: "As the Confederate constitution only allowed a large army during time of war, I supposed they had to declare war."
And yet somehow Lincoln needed more "moral" justification to defeat Confederates?
Redmen4ever: "Immediately after the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln proclaimed the states then in secession to be an insurrection, giving himself certain powers.
At the time, there were eight states in secession."
Seven, the Deep South states.
Virginia declared secession after Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion.
Redmen4ever: "Each of these steps leading to war, other than the firing on Fort Sumter, could be criticized, but there are arguments for as well as against."
Most historians say Civil War began when Confederates fired on Union troops in Fort Sumter.
Our Lost Causers say, no, it was when Lincoln ordered Navy ships to resupply Fort Sumter.
The real truth is that Confederates waged war against the United States almost from Day One, December 1860, when they began seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals & mints, etc. -- threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships.
What happened at Fort Sumter was the first Union military response to Confederate aggressions.
Redmen4ever: "At some point, some form of emancipation would have looked good to the border states, but I don’t know what could ever have been done in the deep south were the slave system was so much a part of the plantation system.
Emancipation ruined the economies of the British sugar islands for many generations."
Right, some people say slavery was dying out on its own, and that might be true in Border States -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
But the Deep South is a different story and no force other than military I can think of would lead them to abolition on their own.
Redmen4ever: "But, the first invasion was repulsed and once it became clear that suppressing the rebellion would involve a long and very costly commitment, a moral justification beyond “preserving the union” became required."
Slavery became an issue almost immediately, in 1861, in the form of "Contraband of war", so declared by Union forces to prevent return of Fugitive Slaves from Union lines.
It was not a "moral" issue but legal & tactical -- every ex-slave employed by the Union was a two-fer loss to Confederates, one less for them, one more for the Union.
Morally, slavery was to the Civil War what the Holocaust was to WWII -- it was not the original reason we fought, but was an unintended benefit of doing the right thing.
Regardless of whether you admit there was any rebellion or not (a matter of semantics), the unimpeachable fact remains that on May 6, 1861 Confederates formally declared war against the United States.
That made it existential for the Union, not a war of choice.
DiogenesLamp: "Slavery was already sustained, and would remain sustained so long as the Union followed the law. "
Of course Lost Causers like to claim it wasn't "all about slavery", that tariffs or "money flows from Europe" were the really real reasons, but your problem is that's not what Confederates said at the time.
Sure a few mentioned other reasons, but first & foremost they complained about Republican opposition to slavery.
Here's the truth of it: every issue other than slavery was simply "politics as usual" in Washington.
Only abolition had the emotional power to drive otherwise loyal Americans to declare secession & war on the United States.
So, bottom line: DiogenesLamp's claim that secession was not driven by slavery is also a claim that Confederates themselves were liars.
The real problem in 1860, just as in 1856 (and today!) is that Democrats hate, hate Republicans and go crazy when real Republicans (as opposed to RINOs) get elected.
In 1856 Southern Democrats threatened secession if Republican John Fremont was elected President -- was that because Fremont wanted higher tariffs?
Nooooooooo… it's because he opposed slavery.
So Democrats won in 1856 and forgot about secession until... 1860 when Lincoln became their new devil and once again Southern Democrats threatened secession if Lincoln won -- because Lincoln wanted higher tariffs?
Nooooooo… because Lincoln opposed slavery, however mildly & tangentially, it didn't matter to Fire Eaters.
"Ape" Lincoln was a credible abolitionist devil they could use to whip up anti-Union pro-secession sentiments.
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln was even desirous to make it even more legally protected than it already was. (Corwin Amendment)"
The Corwin Amendment rose from proposals submitted by senators like Jefferson Davis, intended to mollify Southern fears of abolitionists.
Lincoln's view was that it changed nothing really, so was acceptable, but he did not sign, support or promote it.
It got only four ratifications.
The 13th Amendment which Lincoln did support strongly was passed & adopted into the Constitution in 1865.
Thankyou again.
Many of the things you say are perfectly fine but war versus peace is not an either/or proposition. Not every border clash, act of espionage or smuggling, drug or human trafficking, human rights violation, piracy or terrorism, or interdiction of commerce on the high seas should result in war, otherwise we’d be continually at war with many countries.
Presidents need to choose how to respond to provocations, so as to avoid getting sucked into other people’s wars, such as happened with the War of 1812 and WWI, and so as to only wage war when our vital national interests are at stake and the calculus of war is favorable.
I agree with you that “the war” started with the firing on Fort Sumter. But, in real time, war was not inevitable. We don’t know what would have happened if South Carolina didn’t fire on the place. The calculus of war was not favorable to the Confederacy.
Perhaps the Confederate’s miscalculated on the belief that King Cotton was going to force Great Britain to intervene on their behalf. De Tocqueville and other early observers of this country noted the arrogance that attached to slave-based economy. In the north, business dealings were based on negotiation and mutual consent. But, you don’t negotiate with slaves. So, as ridiculous as it appears to me - and I’ve studied the matter - King Cotton was not going to force Great Britain’s hand. Especially not when the slave-owning bastards screwed the British with debt-repudiation.
The proper way to secede involves an adjudication of formerly jointly-owned assets and liabilities. We saw this in the peaceful bifurcation of Czechoslovakia. A bunch of accountants running around, instead of armed forces. I don’t think I can name another civil secession. Even Brexit is a mess, and that involves something less than a national union. A kind of second best way for secession to occur is for each part to claim whatever formerly jointly-owned assets and liabilities are in its place. Buchanan’s acquiescence to Confederate assertions of claim over federal assets might be viewed in this light. Buchanan was, after all, a Democrat and a slave-owner. Lincoln’s resistance could be said to have forced the issue, but it was perfectly valid.
Lincoln was playing 3-D chess with the North as well as with the South. First, he had to justify a proclamation of insurrection so as to call on the North to support an invasion of the South. When that initial invasion was repulsed, he needed to raise the moral stakes. He needed to motivate people like me who hate war but who hate slavery even more, not merely people who like to see more of the map shaded the color of their country, or who want to sell their overpriced goods in a subjugated region.
I would say if you think WWII was a good war but think WWI was a bad war, you’d appreciate my point even if you don’t agree with it.
You do realize that the Republican Party was the liberal party and the Democrats were the conservative party in the mid 19th century?
Please understand, by "real reason" DiogenesLamp means his reason, if he were there at the time and could tell those numbskull Confederates how to propagandize properly -- never mention slavery, DiogenesLamp would tell them, talk about "money flows from Europe" and "Northeastern power brokers", see that's the ticket!
Sadly for DiogenesLamp he was not there and didn't advise the yokel Confederates on proper "messaging" and so they went ahead and told the truth of what was in their hearts -- they hated the Republican threat to slavery, hated it enough to declare secession and war against the United States.
Excellent post! It cuts through the BS rationalizations of the lost cause and its proponents that they lean on to excuse the treachery of the southern slavocracy.
By what measure?
No you answer, explain how a combination of wild eyed abolitionists( considered terrorists at the time ) and the anti slavery in general party, i.e. the Republican Party of the mid 19th century, can/could be construed as anything but liberal? How is that even possible to think otherwise?
You made the claim. Back it up or STFU.
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.