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.

[Bull Snipe]

Where in the Confederate Constitution grants Davis or the Confederate Congress the authority to negotiate away their rights. They were “still very much in the war” just as the Germans were “still very much in the war” with the Soviet Army on the outskirts of Berlin.

[DoodleDawg]

Its not ignoring his own constitution. Treaties have the force of constitutional law.

Can they supersede the Constitution? Can a president and the Senate ratify a treaty banning private gun ownership in the U.S.?

Let me ask you: if this were just some scheme of Davis' that nobody else thought he had any authority to do or that would have required a constitutional amendment to do.....why did the Confederate Congress authorize it?

Davis surely sent the delegation abroad. He may well have told them to promise an end to slavery. But when did the Confederate Congress authorize it?

Surely they would have pointed out this argument too if it were valid wouldn't they have?

Assuming for the sake of argument that they had, concern for what was constitutional and what was not was not a hallmark of the Confederate government or the Confederate Congress.

[rockrr]

Bird-brain is hopelessly incapable of recognizing that either the confederates had a viable, functional constitution or they didn’t (hint: they did not). If they did, and it said what the confed constitution said, they would need to amend it to make their proposed treaty legal. If they were able to so casually subvert their constitution it meant that it wasn’t worth the paper it was scribbled on.

They couldn’t have it both ways. But (being democrats) that is exactly what they wanted to do - have it both ways. They wanted to pretend to a struggle for “freedom” but a freedom built upon the forced labor of other human beings. They wanted to hold their neighbor to the letter of the law even while they blithely trampled on it. They had the cheek to go to various European governments begging for assistance in their unholy scheme while simultaneously saying, “Don’t pay attention to what we’re doing - pay attentions to what we’re saying!”

I’m surprised that they didn’t fail due to sheer hubris.

[rockrr]

Unlike you, I have a life.

He posted at 11:53:22 PM. Too pathetically funny!

[FLT-bird]

When I post matters?

[FLT-bird]

Ah yes. Rocks in his head is back to his usual level of stupidity. He has no quotes, facts or sources. So he just goes playground every time.

[FLT-bird]

Doodledawg:

Can they supersede the Constitution? Can a president and the Senate ratify a treaty banning private gun ownership in the U.S.?

They obviously thought they could. As for the latter question, its a real concern that some future US government may try exactly that.

Davis surely sent the delegation abroad. He may well have told them to promise an end to slavery. But when did the Confederate Congress authorize it?

1864. Had it been strictly up to President Davis, he'd have done so sooner. This was something he had been lobbying the Confederate Congress for for a while.

Assuming for the sake of argument that they had, concern for what was constitutional and what was not was not a hallmark of the Confederate government or the Confederate Congress.

I disagree. Relative to the US federal government at the time they were quite scrupulous about it.

[FLT-bird]

This has been asked and answered already in the discussion with and reply to DoodleDawg.

[Bull Snipe]

Thanks

[FLT-bird]

Generally speaking its the same 3 who claim to be conservative yet spout Leftist dogma at every turn when discussing the period. Well, two of them do. The other one just throws childish insults as though he were a rancid little 4 year old on the playground because he has nothing intelligent to say.

[DoodleDawg]

They obviously thought they could. As for the latter question, its a real concern that some future US government may try exactly that.

Thought they could? Or didn't care what their constitution said? After all they ignored the requirement to establish the third branch of government. What was ignoring the slavery protections compared to that? Who was going to tell them they couldn't?

1864. Had it been strictly up to President Davis, he'd have done so sooner. This was something he had been lobbying the Confederate Congress for for a while.

Authorized how? Was their legislation approving an end to slavery in exchange for recognition? If so, when was it passed?

I disagree. Relative to the US federal government at the time they were quite scrupulous about it.

Really? Name one member of the Confederate Supreme Court.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "We actually have two sets of founding fathers, with some overlap.
The group that fought for our independence against Britain and the group that wrote the constitution."

This listing of Founders shows only Roger Sherman as present in all four Founding events -- 1774 Continental Congress, 1776 Declaration of Independence, 1777 Articles of Confederation and 1787 Constitution Convention.
George Washington was present in the beginning and at the end, but missed out on the Declaration & Articles of Confederation -- he was, ahem, busy elsewhere.

Of those who signed the Declaration, six also signed the Constitution.
But the largest figures -- Franklin, Washington, Adams & Jefferson -- were active throughout, from 1774 to 1788.

On the issue of slavery, in 1776 all opposed it in theory, but in practice, not so many.
By 1787 still all opposed slavery in theory, and already many also opposed it in practice, even Southerners like Washington & Jefferson.

[BroJoeK]

Jeffersondem: "I am glad we can both agree that Pennsylvania was - and still is - a northern state.
Some seasons back someone on this site attempted to convince everyone that Pennsylvania was not a northern state.
'Pennsylvania is a Keystone State!
A Keystone State!
It is not a northern or southern state.
It is a Keystone State!' he posted over, and over, and over again."

You know, it wasn't all that long ago -- a few months, maybe a year -- that you, jeffersondem, identified yourself as "a mere school boy", which I thought at the time rather extraordinary, if true.
But then, some months later I noticed where you called yourself, "an old boy", suggesting remarkable aging in such a short period.
But, my point here -- we expect mere school boys to have accurate memories, us "old boys" not so much, and judging by your memory loss here, I'd guess "old boy" is more likely.

Sure, Pennsylvania is, self-proclaimed, the Keystone State, antebellum (before the unpleasantness): PA was a Northern non-slave state which often voted with Southern Democrat slaveholders.
Today Pennsylvania is mostly enslaved to Northern Democrats but occasionally votes along with Southern Republican "freedom-fighters."

Now, FRiend, a mere schoolboy would understand that instinctively, while an old boy set in his understandings might have trouble getting his mind around it.

Do you?

[rockrr]

Name one instance of “leftist dogma”.

[rockrr]

Are you satisfied with his non answer? Because he replied to DoodleDawg but he didn’t even come close to an answer.

[Bull Snipe]

“This was something he had been lobbying the Confederate Congress for for a while.”
If Davis had been lobbying the Confederate Congress for a while on the issue of emancipation in exchange for Diplomatic recognition by the Brits and French, there should be s series of letters, minutes of meetings or statements in Memoires to this effect. You would substantiate your case considerable if you were to provide documented references to those discussions or meetings.
Otherwise all we are left with is your opinion that Davis did such a thing.

[DoodleDawg]

As for the latter question, its a real concern that some future US government may try exactly that.

If they did would you agree that such actions were constitutional via treaty? If not, why not?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird to BJK, post #188: "Its hilarious how obsessed you are."

FLT-bird to Pelham, post #210: "Generally speaking its the same 3 who claim to be conservative yet spout Leftist dogma at every turn when discussing the period."

So let's recap -- once again, the thread's dominator, FLT-bird, now has 40 posts, one third more than the second Lost Causer, jeffersondem, and double the thread's most frequent Union defender, yours truly.

So, exactly who is "obsessed"?
FLT-bird not only posted more here than anyone else, but his ratio of posts here to his posts on other threads is second only to jeffersondem's.
Those numbers suggest our Lost Causers are more obsessed with this subject, by far, than is anyone else.

And what does, exactly, FLT-bird post about?

1. In 16 posts he tells us Lincoln was bad, bad, baaaad.
2. In 6 posts he tells us Confederates were good, good, good!
3. In 14 posts he insults other posters.
4. In 4 posts he virtue signals to other Lost Causers (one each to jeffersondem & Wardaddy, two to Pelham).

Overall 9 of FLT-bird's posts are lengthy, providing serious data and arguments.
Another 9 are medium length, less data more arguments.
Another 22 are quite short, primarily insults to Union defenders and virtue signaling to fellow Lost Causers.
Virtue signaling begins with his 5th post, insulting begins with his 14th post.

This is the same FLT-bird, thread dominator, who has unlimited time to post his Lost Cause nonsense, but not a moment to defend against the real truth.

Typical Democrat.

[Bull Snipe]

“Relative to the US federal government at the time they were quite scrupulous about it.”

No, they were not.

Jefferson Davis’s foot prints can be found all over the Confederate Constitution just as Abraham Lincoln’s foot prints can be found all over the United States Constitution.

On this matter Davis said “A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
The Confederate Congress authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus from February 1862 until February 1863 and again from February 1864 until August 1864, and afterward authorized Confederate president Jefferson Davis to suspend the writ as he saw fit.
But before the Confederate Congress authorized the suspension of habeas corpus, the Confederate Congress and Jefferson were not shy about Unconstitutional actions.
In August 1861, the Confederate legislature passed the Alien Enemies Act This law allowed the government to arrest any person living in the Confederacy who did not acknowledge himself as a citizen of the Confederate States of America.
Enforcement of those laws fell to the Habeas Corpus Commissioner, a position created by the president in August 1861 and approved by the Confederate Congress in 1862. The commissioner and his associates exercised the powers of a court and could also arrest any Confederate citizen and question his or her loyalty. However, the subject under arrest was not entitled to a lawyer, a jury, or any of the legal protections allowed to a defendant in court. The government designated its opponents as political prisoners and dispatched them to prisons in Richmond or Salisbury. None of the above is authorized by the Confederate Constitution.
The Confederate government also prohibited the sale of liquor in 1862. Not a power granted by the Confederate Constitution.
On April 16, 1862, the Confederacy enacted a national draft. In addition, the Confederate Government unilaterally extend the enlistments of every man in the Army to three years, regardless of what enlistment contract the soldiers had signed with their state governments. These acts are not authorized by the Confederate Constitution.
In 1862 the Confederate Government placed an embargo on all cotton grown in the Confederacy. In addition, the Government burned 2 million bales of cotton, this authority to do this cannot be found in the Confederate Constitution.
In August of 1861 The Confederate Congress imposed a “War Tax”. The law covered property of more than $500 (Confederate) in value and several luxury items. The tax was also levied on ownership of slaves. The Confederate Constitution does not grant that taxing authority.
in the autumn of 1862, The Confederate Congress created a civilian pass system which forbade civilian travel without the approval of national authorities. This power is not granted the Confederate Constitution.

[Bull Snipe]

My 219 post is in error. The quotation attributed to Davis was actually made by Thomas Jefferson. In my notes I listed the quotes author incorrectly.