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.
Slavery was dying around the edges. But not in the 15 States were slavery was legal. The 1850 census records 3.2 million slaves in 15 out of 31 state. The 1860 census records 3.9 million slaves in 15 out of 34 states. The slave population was growing, not dwindling in the states were slavery was legal.
He said so himself in his first inaugural address. Had he opposed it, he would have refrained from bringing attention to it.
He didnt urge its passage. Stop f**ing lying.
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 arent interested in facts - just your dogma.
Of course Davis had gained the consent of the Confederate Congress before that and the diplomatic mission was delayed by the naval blockade. Davis himself had wanted to make the offer earlier but had to gain the consent of the Confederate Congress first. It is you PC Revisionists who aren't interested in facts - just your dogma.
Slavery was dying around the edges. But not in the 15 States were slavery was legal. The 1850 census records 3.2 million slaves in 15 out of 31 state. The 1860 census records 3.9 million slaves in 15 out of 34 states. The slave population was growing, not dwindling in the states were slavery was legal.
False - as usual with you. The slave population was growing. The percentage of total free families owning slaves in the Upper South had declined. The percentage of the black population which were freedmen was climbing steadily. This is the same process that happened elsewhere as industrialization took hold.
Only after some Southerners threatened "no Union" if they refused.
At the same time those Northerners were passing laws to abolish slavery in their own states.
jeffersondem: "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."
A typical Lost Cause Marxist explanation.
If you could go back to 1787 and ask them directly, here's what they'd say:
If you pressed them, saying, "but isn't it all just to line your own pockets with Federal money?" they might invite you to duel, or just remind you that of the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, over half lost their lives and/or fortunes as a result.
It would take the later "genius" of a Karl Marx combined with the bitterness of Lost Causers to see in all that mere "economic and political self-interest."
In 1860 slave populations in Maryland and Delaware were declining and in Missouri declining as a percent of the population.
One reason for declining slave numbers was increasing freed-black populations in those states.
Another was the continued rapid increase in slaves in the Deep Cotton South.
That increase was so great it changed the percent of Deep South slaves to total slaves from 50% in 1840 to 60% in 1860.
In 1860 both the numbers of slaves and market prices for slaves were increasing to all-time highs, due to the booming cotton economy.
So, bottom line, suggestions that slavery was dying out in Border South states might have some merit, except that in 1860 there was not even a breath of a hint of abolitionism in those states.
And one reason for slavery's relative decline in Border States was the booming demand for slaves in the Deep Cotton South.
It's no coincidence that in those Deep South states where slavery was most important, the 1860 election of "Ape" Lincoln's "Black Republicans" was enough to drive them to declare secession and war on the United States.
FLT-bird: "This is the same process that happened elsewhere as industrialization took hold."
And in the Northern US, but nowhere was the investment in slavery more important & rewarding than in the Deep South, and nowhere was resistance to abolition more intense.
In fact, FLT-bird's ratio of actual facts presented to BS talk like this is quite low.
Somehow FLT-bird seems to think he can win a debate by repeatedly claiming to have already won it.
Short answer: yes and no.
Or, to put FLT-bird's argument in simpler terms:
Sure, one has to admire FLT-bird for enthusiasm & persistence, but there are many notable weaknesses in (presumably) his presentations here.
One is his very high ratio of BS to facts, another is refusal to admit or address facts which contradict his BS.
You yourself have called out his cowardice in that, and I think the point should be reinforced at least occasionally.
Based on the 1850-1860 Census date. The following increases are seen:
free blacks in free states: 29,900 ( + 13%)
free blacks in slave states: 22,600 ( + 9%)
Total slave population in U.S.: 700,000 ( + 17.9%)
Yes, the number of freemen increasing in the U.S. But at a slower rate than the number of slaves.
While the number of slave owing families declined, the number of slaves owned by the slave owning families had increased.
To me it appears that the numbers do not support your contention that slavery was dying in the United States.
It is you PC Revisionists who aren’t interested in facts - just your dogma.
Does not in any way alter the fact the Confederacy was crashing down around Jefferson Davis at the time he finely acted to offer emancipation in exchange for diplomatic recognition. Still a last ditch effort to save a dying Confederacy.
Now there’s your Lost Cause Marxist speaking like a true left-winger.
Lincoln was a big government socialist and thats why hes loved by democrats. The democrats of the middle 18th Century believed in States Rights and a limited government. Lincoln and his cohorts believed in massive Federal government with all power centralized in Washington DC.
Jefferson Davis was a conservative. Lincoln was a big government liberal.
I keep pointing this out to you people because you need to have this unpleasant fact shoved right back up your @$$!
What your ancestors did was evil. You didn't murder people in the South because you cared about slaves. You murdered them because a f***ing dictator had cleverly manipulated your ancestors into stopping those people from getting away from Washington DC's control of their economy.
Pretending it was about slavery was just propaganda, and Lincoln would lock up anyone who challenged his claims. Since he involved so many northern people in the evil done to the South, they had no choice but to parrot the claims that they were "dying to make men free." This is laughable because these were men whom they would rather see dead if they had their choice about it, because virtually everyone in the north hated the black men at this point in history.
Lies about what happened have been put forth ever since, and inconvenient facts that clarify what happened, such as Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment, or the Warships "supply mission", are omitted because they reveal what was really behind the invasion of the South. *MONEY*.
Lincoln's support for the Corwin amendment along with the US Constitutions guarantee that slaves would be returned to their masters, conclusively proves that Slavery was not the motivating force for the Union invasion of the South.
Allowing them to keep the discussion focused on slavery is a mistake. Slavery is a fig leaf for the evil thing they did in murdering people because the Washington DC power Cabal wanted to keep control of the Economic output of the Southern states.
The war was about economic power and who would control it. Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment indicates that the Union would clearly tolerate slavery indefinitely. What they would not tolerate is the South competing with the Northern power barons for European money and trade.
Money. Money. Money. Money.
That is the only thing the Civil War was fought about.
Slavery is just a lying deflection tactic to avoid discussing the truth.
Big Government Liberals have been running Washington DC ever since. They are kept in power by the New York controlled propaganda system we know as "Mainstream Media" and they are kept in power because Washington DC spending and economic policy keeps the Wealthy people of New York in control of their wealth and power.
The evil Deep State cabal we are facing today, was put into power as a result of them electing their puppet dictator Lincoln.
We are literally facing the exact same enemy that the Southern states had to face back in 1861. New York and Washington DC basically run the United States of America.
The Civil War changed into “freeing the black man” post Emancipation Executive Order and was the biggest bait and switch in the history of the USA.
I can't speak for delusional Democrats, but as for "big government socialist", that's a total lie.
NKP_VET: "The democrats of the middle 18th Century believed in States Rights and a limited government.
Lincoln and his cohorts believed in massive Federal government with all power centralized in Washington DC."
Lies that Democrats told each other then, just as they lie to each other today -- lies are what Democrats do.
NKP_VET: "Jefferson Davis was a conservative.
Lincoln was a big government liberal."
Rubbish, when Democrats, including Jefferson Davis, were in power in the 1850s they acted just like Democrats today, including:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."Hardly the statement of people who think the institution is fading. More like a statement of an inability to even imagine a world without slavery.
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.