After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

https://www.reporternews.com ^ | March 9, 2019 | Jerry Patterson

[NKP_Vet]

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country.” — Robert E. Lee 1856

Could Gen. Robert E.l Lee’s sentiments deter the “tear down those monuments” crowd?

Probably not.

Given their current success in removing monuments to Confederate generals, ignorant politicians and those whose hobby is going through life seeking to be offended, soon will run out of things to be offended by. Why not broaden the list of "offensive" symbols to include slave owners George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and a host of other founders?

Here in Texas you could add slave owning Texas heroes such as Sam Houston, Jim Bowie and William Travis.

Should we banish from public view all monuments to past historical figures who supported white supremacy, advocated secession or made racist comments?

Consider Abraham Lincoln. In addition to the Lincoln monument in the nation’s capital, there’s probably not a major city in the country without a school, street or park named after Lincoln (Abilene once had Lincoln Middle School).

What do Lincoln's own words tell us about “Honest Abe”, "the Great Emancipator?"

During one of the famous 1858 debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . I am not now nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Lincoln's prejudices weren’t limited to blacks.

During another debate with Douglas, Lincoln opined: “I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels . . . there’s not one person there out of eight who is pure white”.

In Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address, he endorsed a constitutional amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, which would forever protect slavery where it existed, telling the audience: “I have no objection to its (Corwin Amendment) being made express and irrevocable”. Lincoln's goal was to save the Union, writing to abolitionist Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it”.

Virtually all white men of that time were white supremacists. Lincoln was no exception, and his comments belie his reputation.

Was Lincoln opposed to secession?

Consider his remarks he made in Congress on January 12, 1848: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit.” This is exactly what the seceding states did in 1861.

Another discomforting fact for today’s advocates of political correctness: In 2011 I sponsored a commemorative license plate for Buffalo soldiers, iconic black U.S. cavalrymen who served on the frontier. Couldn’t today's Native Americans claim buffalo soldiers participated in a genocidal war against an entire race of people - the American Plains Indians – enslaving them on reservations?

If we’re going to measure Confederates of 150 years ago by today’s standards, shouldn’t we do the same with Lincoln?

Today, it's Confederates. Who’s next? Buffalo soldiers? Our nation’s founders? Our Texas heroes? The possibilities are limitless.

Jerry Patterson is a former Texas land commissioner, state senator and retired Marine Vietnam veteran.

[BroJoeK]

NKP_Vet: "A southerner was no more “racist” than the uppity New Englanders, who looked down their noses at Southerners since the founding of the country and still do."

Which explains why Virginian George Washington was nominated & supported by Massachusetts' John Adams for Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in 1775 -- nominated in preference to fellow Northerner Benedict Arnold.

Oh wait...

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "You see, he was perfectly happy to orchestrate passage of the Corwin Amendment through the Northern Dominated Congress and through several state governments....the constitutional amendment which would have expressly protected slavery effectively forever AFTER making such statements."

Once again, on Corwin:

1. First proposed by Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis in December 1860, before Mississippi declared secession.
   Davis intended it to prevent Southern states from declaring secession by protecting their biggest interest: slavery.

2. Pushed in Congress by Democrat President Buchanan and supported by all remaining Congressional Democrats.

3. Opposed by the majority of Republicans in Congress, a minority big enough to pass it was flipped by New York Senator Seward, then signed by Democrat President Buchanan.

4. Lincoln's role consisted entirely of saying he did "not object" because he believed it would make no change in the existing Constitution, as he understood it.

5. Three Northern and two Southern states ratified Corwin, one each later revoked their ratification.

Bottom line: Corwin was a typical Democrat meaningless gesture which would have produced no changes and went nowhere.
Today, typical Democrats, Lost Causers wish to blame Lincoln for Democrats own misdeeds.

FLT-bird: "He was also only too happy to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide against native people after giving those speeches.
So much for all men being created equal."

The charge of "ethnic cleansing" is based on a body-count of over 1,000 white settlers massacred in Minnisota versus 150 Indians killed.
When it was over Lincoln authorized 38 of 303 convicted Indians hanged.
See this thread for details

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "...as you proceed to obsess over me about 150 more times even after I’ve made clear I’m not going to allow you to waste hours of my day every day no matter how desperately you try."

You're just fantasizing.
I respond to any nonsense and you happen to post more of it than many others.
So you can shut me up instantaneously -- just stop lying and start telling the truth.

How hard could that be?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "True....then again that a man was a man of his time or that he was more moderate than most or that he treated those around him kindly has never been a defense when the PC Revisionists were attacking Southern figures.
Seems rather unbalanced to show such understanding for only one side while showing none for the other."

So, do we understand this correctly?
FLT-bird tells us that since "PC-Revisionists" attack Confederates unfairly, he, FLT-bird, is duty bound to attack Lincoln unfairly?
Is that the deal?
When they stop attacking Confederates unfairly then FLT-bird will stop attacking Lincoln unfairly??

I think we should take some time to think this over before responding too rashly.

Agreed?

FLT-bird: "As for Lincoln he'd fall near the bottom of the scale given he started the bloodiest war in American history, trashed the constitution, was willing to enshrine slavery effectively forever in the constitution, committed all sorts of war crimes and committed genocide and ethnic cleansing against native people."

Is this an example of the kind of unfair attack on Lincoln which FLT-bird offers to stop, once others stop unfairly attacking Confederates?

Really?

[FLT-bird]

Why don’t you?

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

1st attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

2nd attempt.

[FLT-bird]

We’ve gone down this road hundreds if not thousands of times before. I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.

3rd attempt.

[OIFVeteran]

Find me a quote from a confederate leader that is equivalent to Lincoln’s “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free”, and I might believe you.

[FLT-bird]

There are several statements from Lee saying slavery was a moral evil in any country. Jefferson Davis said multiple times that they were not fighting over slavery (as did others) and Davis empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary powers to agree to a treaty with Britain and France that in which the CSA would abolish slavery. Somehow none of that seems to count with PC Revisionists.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "I am not going to waste my time with your responding to respond posts in which you endlessly spew your ignorant and false PC Revisionist drivel.
1st attempt."

And so begins FLT-bird's descent from mere irrationality to mindless raving lunacy.

Already this thread's dominator, with 27 posts, FLT-bird has no time to respond when his Lost Cause nonsense is called out by facts.

For those keeping count, it's about 30%, 30% & 40% -- Lost Causers FLT-bird & jeffersondem alone total 44 posts, five Union defenders combined 45 posts and everyone else 61 posts.

As for quality of posts, well... imho, there's no comparison.

[Bull Snipe]

“Davis empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary powers to agree to a treaty with Britain and France that in which the CSA would abolish slavery. Somehow none of that seems to count with PC Revisionists.

Lets take quick look at the status of affairs when Davis dispatched Duncan F. Kenner to Europe with the authority to negotiate emancipation in exchange for Diplomatic recognition.

The Army of Northern Virginia was penned up in Petersburg like a lamb waiting or slaughter. The entire Mississippi, Cumberland and Tennessee River valleys were controlled by the Union Army. Sherman would commence his march across Georgia virtually unopposed except by a handful of Georgia militia. Almost the entire state of Tennessee was in Union hands. Half of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama were in Union hands, the coasts of most of North Carolina, South Carolina and parts of Georgia were in Union hands. Only two major ports were left to the Confederacy after the U.S. Navy blockaded the remainder of the entire Confederate coastline. About 2 million slaves had already been freed due to the Emancipation Proclamation and the presence of the Union Army.

The offer of Emancipation in exchange for Diplomatic recognition to the Europeans was a move of shear desperation by a Davis that knew the war lost. Not his only desperate move in November, he asked the Confederate Congress for authority to enlist 40,000 slaves into non-combatant rolls in the Confederate Army in exchange for emancipation. These moves were not out of any altruistic belief that slavery was bad or should be abolished, they were desperate moves in a last ditch effort to save the crumbling house of cards called the Confederacy.

[DoodleDawg]

Jefferson Davis said multiple times that they were not fighting over slavery (as did others)...

Many others said that they were fighting for slavery.

...Davis empowered his ambassador with plenipotentiary powers to agree to a treaty with Britain and France that in which the CSA would abolish slavery.

Just out of curiosity where, under the Confederate Constitution, did Davis get the power to end slavery in the Confederacy?

Somehow none of that seems to count with PC Revisionists.

Bullsh*t seldom does.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "There are several statements from Lee saying slavery was a moral evil in any country."

Right, Lee's views were consistent with those of our Founders, North & South.
They all believed slavery a moral wrong which should be set right eventually -- gradual, compensated emancipation as first proposed by Thomas Jefferson, and as later proposed by young Congressman Abraham Lincoln for Washington, DC.

FLT-bird: "Jefferson Davis said multiple times that they were not fighting over slavery..."

Sure, but the Corwin Amendment which FLT-bird so loves to lay at Lincoln's feet was actually Senator Davis' baby, born of his efforts to prevent Mississippi from declaring secession.
Democrat Senator Davis believed the best way to prevent further secessions was to guarantee the status of slavery in the United States.

And most seceding states made certain slavery was featured prominently in their "Reasons for Secession" documents.

Sure, slavery did not cause Fort Sumter on April 12, or the Confederate Declaration of War on May 6, 1861, but slavery did become hugely important in the forms of:

1. Contraband of War
2. Laws to confiscate Confederate property.
3. Hiring Confederate ex-slaves to support the Union army.
4. Laws prohibiting return of Confederate fugitive slaves.
5. Nearly 200,000 Union colored troops.
6. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
7. 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

As for what your average Confederate soldier believed, here is what some said:

"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."
'The Vidette' -- a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade, November, 1862.

Every Confederate understood that slavery was at issue and defeat meant destruction of their "peculiar institution".
So slavery helped keep the fight going & going...

[jeffersondem]

“No, because Lee didn’t really have a problem with slavery.”

Brother Joe’s post #125 references a couple of important quotes by Lee on this very topic. I recommend you read them.

[rockrr]

Because I’m not the one whining and soiling her diapers over being put upon. Why don’t you pretend like you have a pair and stop all of your juvenile tactics and just debate?!

[jeffersondem]

“Really? When?”

Brother Joe has made an excellent post (one in a row) at #135. I recommend it.

“John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry resulted in six killed civilians — including two slaves and one freed-black — nine wounded, plus a marine killed & nine more wounded, so I rank Brown a terrorist, regardless of his allegedly noble intentions.”

This does not include the murders of James, William, and Drury Doyle, William Sherman, or Allen Wilkinson.

[DoodleDawg]

Brother Joe’s post #125 references a couple of important quotes by Lee on this very topic. I recommend you read them.

You all do love your partial quotes and quotes out of context, don't you? The first one, "Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil" is a partial quote. What Lee said was, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Lee continued, "I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. "

So to sum up, slavery bad for whites. Slavery good for blacks and will prepare them "for better things." Said "better things" to happen some time in the distant future and when God willed it, and if it took 2000 years then that was fine with Lee. And you call that opposition to slavery?

The second quote, "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained." That's a post-rebellion quote from a letter by Lee to one of his sons. Considering that he already lost all that he lost and suffered all he suffered then it was easy to be revisionist. While the war was going on, however, Lee was calling slavery the best position for blacks in the country.

Was Lee as virulently pro-slavery as most of his peers? No. But he was certainly not an abolitionist in any regards and his opposition to slavery would be considered tepid at best.

[DoodleDawg]

You are aware, are you not, that Buchanan was president when John Brown raided Harper’s Ferry? So how could Lincoln be responsible for those innocent lives taken?

[jeffersondem]

“You all do love your partial quotes and quotes out of context, don’t you?”

In defense of Brother Joe, I do not believe the quotes he provided were out of context. Your attack on him is unwarranted.