Posted on 03/10/2019 7:34:32 AM PDT by 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 Lees 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 nations capital, theres 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 werent limited to blacks.
During another debate with Douglas, Lincoln opined: I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels . . . theres 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 todays 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. Couldnt 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 were going to measure Confederates of 150 years ago by todays standards, shouldnt we do the same with Lincoln?
Today, it's Confederates. Whos next? Buffalo soldiers? Our nations founders? Our Texas heroes? The possibilities are limitless.
Jerry Patterson is a former Texas land commissioner, state senator and retired Marine Vietnam veteran.
Orange juice
They don't, because they are limited & out of context.
For an accurate picture, we need the following:
The results show that:
So, you simply cannot dispute the fact that our Founders opposed slavery in theory in 1776 and by 1787 had begun putting their anti-slavery theory into practice, even in the South.
That is a far cry from Fire Eater attitudes in 1860.
DiogenesLamp likes to wave around the "Corwin Amendment" as if it was a cross to protect him against Dracula.
It's not, it's just another Democrat false flag operation -- conceived & proposed by Democrats like Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis, pushed through Congress by Democrat President Buchanan and signed by him against the majority of Republicans in opposition.
Now, typical of Democrats, they wish to blame it on Lincoln to buttress their claims that Confederates were actually good conservative Republicans and Lincoln really a radical Democrat.
Typical.
So much for the vaunted 1832 demarcation.
Regardless, there does seem to be in Puritan minds two epochs: the golden era of slavery when northern and southern gentlemen talked the pious precept, and manageable narrative, of universal equality for slaves and the merciless Indian savages while engaged in the noble use of labor bound to service to grow food and fiber - and later the bad epoch when southerners used labor bound to service to grow food and fiber.
TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!, the man said.
Lincoln's support makes all the rest of what we have been told a lie.
If it were about slavery, the President wouldn't be supporting an amendment to protect slavery.
All of your subsequent arguments are rendered moot by pointing out the contradiction implicit from his support for the Corwin Amendment.
He didn’t urge it’s passage. Stop lying.
Weve 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.
10th attempt.
Weve 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.
11th attempt.
Weve 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.
12th attempt.
Weve 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.
13th attempt.
What laws allowed Tennessee to enlist black soldiers into their militias. You did not answer the question, If Davis was so willing to give up slavery, why did he wait until Nov 1864 to make the offer to emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy in exchange for European diplomatic recognition.
As I told you last time, this is not an interrogation and you're out of questions. If you want the answers to those questions, I suggest you read....and not just from PC Revisionist sources. Clearly there is a lot of information you're missing.
Complete nonsense.
Nope. Unvarnished truth.
Do we now? It's easy to look back over 150 years and say it was dying. But in 1861 you would be hard pressed to find many in the South who would agree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that the actions you say that they were pursuing were completely forbidden by the constitution. Yes we do. It was dying at the time. It had steadily been dying throughout the West in the 19th century. There were those in the Southern States who did see it in 1861. The rates of slave ownership were already declining in the Upper South and the percentage of the Black population who were freedmen was increasing. Look it up - do not attempt to demand a link you've used up all your alloted questions. There is no legal authority which ever ruled that they could not abolish slavery via the treaty making power so this is a false claim on your part.
Again, complete nonsense.
Again unvarnished truth.
What clause of the constitution requires any of those cabinet posts? Oh wait, I forget. Constitutional requirements were of no interest to Davis and his people
Where did I say a clause of the constitution did?
The Founding Fathers were not operating under a document that required a judiciary. The Confederates were.
The Confederates were operating under a national emergency that did not permit them time to appoint and confirm judges yet. Had Lincoln not started the war they doubtless would have gotten around to appointing the judiciary.
Lincoln faced "exigencies of war" just like Davis did. Would you cut him the same slack?
Total nonsense. Lincoln inherited an established government, an established judiciary which he ignored whenever it suited him, an established treasury, an established navy etc etc Despite that he trampled on constitutional rights of citizens to a vastly greater extent than Davis did in the Confederacy.
I challenge you to find one southern leader who said before the war that slavery was dying. The fact is that both the number of slaves and the price of slaves was increasing. Hardly signs of a dying institution.
Noooo
1787 "demarcates" the time when most Northerners began opposing slavery in practice as well as theory.
1832 "demarcates" the time when most Southerners abandoned their pretenses of opposing slavery, even in theory.
jeffersondem: "Regardless, there does seem to be in Puritan minds two epochs: the golden era of slavery when northern and southern gentlemen talked the pious precept..."
The "pius precept" as expressed by Thomas Jefferson that, "all men are created equal."
jeffersondem: "...and later the bad epoch when southerners used labor bound to service to grow food and fiber.
TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!, the man said."
Before 1832 Southern leaders like Thomas Jefferson not only preached equality but practiced it politically, in the form of restrictions on the slave trade and abolition in Northwest Territories.
In 1832 the Richmond Enquirer called slavery,
"There is evidence that suggests slavery was beginning to die out on its own. For example, the percentage of Southern whites who belonged to slaveholding families dropped by 5 percent from 1850-1860" (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1999, p. 389). Nevins noted that "slavery was dying all around the edges of its domain" (The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, p. 469).
That is an interesting comment.
Every northern state, including the Keystone state, voted to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States.
But the northern states did not enshrine slavery into the Constitution gratuitously: they had good reason. It was thought to be in their economic and political best self interest.
. If you want the answers to those questions, I suggest you read....and not just from PC Revisionist sources. Clearly there is a lot of information you’re missing.
Essentially you have no answer. You know that the reason Davis offered to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition was as I have stated. One pathetic last desperate move to try and save the Confederacy. Must be hard for you lost causers to accept.
Essentially you have no answer. You know that the reason Davis offered to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic recognition was as I have stated. One pathetic last desperate move to try and save the Confederacy. Must be hard for you lost causers to accept. Oh I've provided you with answers. Lots of them. Its obvious your tactic is an intellectually dishonest one of trying to ask endless questions we both know the answers to even though I have provided those answers numerous times in these threads. Then finding some excuse to claim the answer somehow doesn't count and that you therefore require more answers. Sorry. That game is over. You are welcome to read for yourself if you're so curious. If you read widely....I suggest going back through this and several other threads on this topic and look at the reams of quotes and sources I've provided, you will obtain the answers you seek. Of course you PC Revisionists aren't interested in facts - just your dogma.
Fact, Davis only offered to free slaves in exchange for diplomatic recognition after Nov 1864. At that time the Confederacy had less than 6 months to live.
“Of course you lost cause revisionists aren’t interested in facts - just your dogma.”
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.