Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[Redmen4ever]

Texas and the other states of the confederacy and the Indian nations seceded to defend slavery. They said so in their Ordinances of secession:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html

The states remaining in the union initially invaded the south to preserve the union. This was not a moral invasion. At a later time (that is, with the Emancipation Proclamation), the war became a war to end slavery. Only then was the invasion moral. With regard to the U.S. Constitution, while states remained in the union, they could not be forced to end slavery. Once they left the union, any country could morally invade them to free the slaves. God help them! And God help California when it secedes in order to have open borders.

(I could give an alternate justification involving the debts of Mississippi and the other repudiation states that joined the Confederacy. But, with the international agreement of 1927, invasion for debt-collection was outlawed.)

Now, let’s move the clock forward to the present:

If the U.N. and other international agreements weren’t so effed up, the human race might be near the day when the free countries of the world are collectively so powerful that no country would dare to threaten their neighbors or violate the basic human rights of their own people. If our so-called allies weren’t a bunch of sissies, bullies like Kim and Putin and that asshole in Iran would be very afraid to upset us.

As it is, we, the U.S., are almost alone as the defender of peace and human rights in the world, and there is a limit to what we can do. Pretending to be the world’s policeman in this effed up arrangement is a formula for bankruptcy. So, as much as I am sympathetic with the causes of peace and human rights, we have to put this country and our people first, do only what is prudent elsewhere, and work to reform our trade deals, alliances and other international agreements so as to make them work.

We have tried globalism and peace through appeasement, and that doesn’t work. The good news is that Donald Trump isn’t the only advocate of nationalism in conjunction with peace through strength. We are being joined by others throughout the democratic world.

[Skywise]

So slavery was the political meme horse used to perpetuate the war to maintain the union AFTER the war started.

[tired&retired]

Highest crime rate in USA is on MLK BLVDs

[rockrr]

Anybody who has read Lincoln’s Inaugural Address or who has read the Corwin Amendment knows slavery was not threatened in the US.

The southern slave owners thought differently. And acted accordingly.

[rockrr]

Lincoln SUPPORTED enshrining slavery into the Constitution.

No he didn't.

[robowombat]

I am curious, how in circa 1860 did the Fedgov refuse to honor the Constitution as written? Real question,

[Lurkinanloomin]

Erasing history, one plaque at a time.

[TADSLOS]

Bingo.

[SWAMP-C1PHER]

Oh it won’t stop here. Funny how nobody was offended about all the statues and plaques while obama was in office.

[FLT-bird]

No they didn’t. Everybody knew slavery was not really threatened.

[V K Lee]

Does this now mean that Texans never fought on the side of the south?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If so, then we should demand that Six Flags over Texas change their name.

[FLT-bird]

Yes he did. He said it plainly in his inaugural address.

[maddog55]

It’s Austin which is anything but representative of Texas and is your standard liberal city full of handouts and social justice azzholes.

[Mr Rogers]

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States....

...In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

Sure LOOKS like it was about keeping slaves! In fact, it looks like it was largely about the refusal to allow slaves everywhere else in the country.

Take the plaque down! And before folks start screaming I lick Abraham Lincoln's boots: I was named after Robert E. Lee. Just finished reading a biography about him. And I admire, on the whole, Nathan Bedford Forrest. But saying the war wasn't about slavery is silly. The states that left said WHY they left.

[TexasGunLover]

It’s Austin which is anything but representative of Texas and is your standard liberal city full of handouts and social justice azzholes.

Sadly, looking at the electoral map of Texas, they're almost the majority (population wise).

[robowombat]

The John Brown raid and the followup convinced many people in the South that separation was a necessity regardless of any guarantees about slavery offered by the incoming Lincoln administration. Brown was funded by Gerrit Smith argueably the richest man in the US, he was supported by Ralph Waldo Emmerson, arguably the leading public intellectual and literary figure in the US. Following Brown's execution he was lionized throughout the North as more than a Hero but as literally a Christ like figure. The effect of John Brown's operation had it succeeded would have been an armed slave revolt and people in Virginia and the rest of the South only had to recall what Nat Turners’ rabble had perpetrated during its brief existence. Since a significant part of the population of the northern states seemed to applaud and approve of John Brown and his motivations and a large part of the northern intellectual establishment acted as a cheering section for Brown many Southerners deduced that there was no place for them in a federal union populated as it was by people that wanted them and their families murdered .

That, I think was the reason secession became seen as a necessity to survival throughout the South in 1860.

[rockrr]

Then why did they say that it was threatened and rebel?

You’re not making any sense.

[DoodleDawg]

No they weren’t. Candidate Lincoln said numerous times he had no intention to threaten slavery and never said anything to the contrary.

Lincoln made it clear he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it currently existed. Outside of that he would oppose it as forcefully as he could.

In fact he supported stronger fugitive slave legislation.

Read his First Inaugural and he doesn't seem to be saying that. In fact if you look at this part - "Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say." - it appears that Lincoln is promoting a looser interpretation of the Fugitive Slave Laws, not a stronger one.

Even if he intended to threaten slavery, he did not have the votes in Congress to do anything to threaten it.

Which he knew. But expansion of slavery? Lincoln strongly believed he could do something about that.

[bert]

Soon to be destroyed Michigan monument at Shiloh A desecration of Southern ground

[rockrr]

No he didn't. Read it again - for the first time:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

He plainly says that if the people, by virtue of their representatives in congress, enact such an amendment, HE HAS NO OBJECTION. That's not the same as an endorsement! That's saying he recognizes the will of the people.