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]

DiogenesLamp0: "No, *YOU* stop your f***ing lying!
Abraham Lincoln absolutely and unequivocally *SUPPORTED* the passage of the PRO-SLAVERY Corwin Amendment.
I keep pointing this out to you people because you need to have this unpleasant fact shoved right back up your @$$!"

Complete nonsense, a typical Democrat Big Lie.
The fact is Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans in Congress and passed with support of all Democrats, Democrat President Buchanan and RINOs like NY Senator Seward.
Lincoln merely did his constitutional duty and did not oppose or offer objections to it.

The fact that all Democrats wanted Corwin and most Republicans opposed it proves that Democrats themselves in 1861 believed secession was "all about" slavery.

The fact that Lost Causers so often and so loudly deny basic history on this point tells us there is something important going on inside their brains, if any.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I’ll bet you don’t have many friends.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The question to ask is what the difference was between the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Amendment, and why Lincoln supported one and not the other.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. Any man who opposed slavery as a fundamental principle would never say: " I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

It is a LIE to claim this isn't support. Do you know what morally upright men do on the question of slavery?

"I Oppose this with every fiber of my being! I do not consent! I Object!"

Lincoln did not do that. Lincoln therefore supported the Corwin Amendment, and this renders subsequent claims that slavery was the issue, a lie.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ll bet you don’t have many friends.

Probably more so than you might think, but I would not be surprised if many of those people seeking to justify the invasion of the South over a pretext which I have recently learned is a lie, were not among them.

I do not blame them. I grew up being taught the same false history, and I believed it most of my life.

But it is time to start looking at the history clearly, and without all the spin that people have put on it in order to justify what "their team" did.

That being said, I count BroJoeK and Bullsnipe as FRiends, and I even have no animosity against rockrr, doodledawg or anyone else that thinks differently from myself.

[rockrr]

GFY you Lying liar.

[rockrr]

What your ancestors did was evil.

Well, seeing as how they came from Virginia I'm conflicted. As southerners should I be offended (I think my last post says it all!)? Or, since the real evildoers were the confederate insurrectionists should I be amused?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Any man who opposed slavery as a fundamental principle would never say: " I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
It is a LIE to claim this isn't support.
Do you know what morally upright men do on the question of slavery?"

Sorry, FRiend, but first of all, here's what you & your buddies just don't "get", and yet it drives you nuts:
in 1856 Republicans nominated for President a true-blue, dyed in the wool, abolitionist -- John C. Fremont.
Republican Fremont effectively united Democrats North & South in opposition and they elected Doughfaced James Buchanan.

So, next time, in 1860 Republican said, in effect: let's not do that again.
This time let's nominate a "moderate" -- opposed to slavery's expansion, but not an outright abolitionist.
That was Lincoln -- he opposed slavery, but did not intend to abolish it where it was already lawful.

But it didn't matter because by 1860 Deep South Fire Eaters -- typical Democrats -- had already gone berserk over Northern anti-slavery agitations (i.e., John Brown), and the fact that Lincoln was considered a "moderate" was totally lost on them.
In their eyes, "Ape" Lincoln was just another Black Republican abolitionist, hence, secession.

So Lincoln started off as an anti-slavery "moderate", how did he go from there to emancipation, abolition & full citizenship?
The short answer is: the logic of war forced him there even if that had not been his original intentions.

The key Lincoln quote here is the one you guys always leave out when you quote his letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862:

"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.
Yours,
A. LINCOLN"

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln therefore supported the Corwin Amendment, and this renders subsequent claims that slavery was the issue, a lie."

It's simply a lie to say Lincoln "supported" Corwin when his own words say only that constitutionally he did not "object" or "oppose" it.
The truth is Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis first proposed a Corwin-like amendment to keep his own state, Mississippi, from seceding.
The truth is Corwin was supported by all Democrats and opposed by most Republicans.

So why do you continue to lie about the clear facts of history?
Why does this drive you so nuts?

[FLT-bird]

Bubba Ho-Tep:

Hindsight is 20/20, and what you've shown is historians writing a century after the war. What I want to see is one southern leader, in the 30 years before the war, saying that slavery was a dying institution. Here's what Georgia said, in their Declaration of Causes of Secession: "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.

They were not blind to what was happening in the rest of the world. That is not what Georgia said by the way. That is Alexander Stephens.

[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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

14th 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

15th 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

16th 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. I will just continue to laugh at your ridiculous lies and your pathetic obsession.

17th attempt.

[FLT-bird]

Bull Snipe:

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.

Look at the upper South. What was the rate of freedmen among all Blacks in say, Maryland in 1840? 1850? 1860? Now look at Virginia. Etc etc. You will notice the same pattern. Ever higher percentages of Blacks became freedmen. Ever smaller percentages of the total free population owned slaves. The same thing happened in the northern states as they industrialized. The numbers point to the inescapable conclusion that slavery was starting to die in the Upper South as it industrialized just as it had died everywhere else when industrialization took hold.

[FLT-bird]

DiogenesLamp:

The way these people approach any discussion of the Civil War is to immediately introduce slavery as the primary issue of the war. 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.

Exactly right. They never have a good answer for why if it was really all about slavery, that was the very first thing the North offered up...and why the original 7 seceding states of the Deep South explicitly rejected it.

Its kind of like the old spread of slavery gambit where they admit the obvious...ie that slavery simply was not threatened in the US but say the Southern states were instead motivated by the desire to spread slavery to the western territories. Of course if this is so, why secede and thus give up all claim to the western territories and thus any chance to spread slavery there? Their very solution required them to give up what they were supposedly fighting about! oops. That doesn't work as an explanation.

Its as you said and as many Northern newspapers and politicians said openly at the time. It was all about money and empire. Without the Southern states and their lucrative trade and all the tax revenue they contributed and without them to serve as a captive market, the Northern states simply could not have prospered to anywhere near the extent they did. Northern factories found it very difficult to compete against Britain and France. Each of those had large empires to serve as captive markets and they had industrialized first. Thus they had economies of scale much sooner.

[FLT-bird]

Nope. Any man who opposed slavery as a fundamental principle would never say: " I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." It is a LIE to claim this isn't support. Do you know what morally upright men do on the question of slavery? "I Oppose this with every fiber of my being! I do not consent! I Object!" Lincoln did not do that. Lincoln therefore supported the Corwin Amendment, and this renders subsequent claims that slavery was the issue, a lie.

Hell, Lincoln did not just tacitly support the Corwin Amendment. He orchestrated it. Its right there in Doris Kearns-Goodwin's nauseating hagiography. Its there in several other accounts too. He was the de facto leader of the party after all. He pulled the strings to get it passed. He used his influence to get several states to ratify it. He'd have doubtless exerted all his influence to get enough Northern states to ratify it if only the Southern states would agree to come back and allow themselves to be robbed blind by the Northern states.

[jeffersondem]

“Only after some Southerners threatened “no Union” if they refused (to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States.)”

That is an interesting comment.

Previously you have claimed northern states at the time were diametrically opposed to slavery - considered it immoral - but now you make the case that northern states were willing to be joined at the hip in a partnership with the evil southern slavers.

Why?

Can you explain why you say the Founders believed adopting a pro-slavery Constitution formed a more perfect Union? Or established Justice? Or secured the Blessings of Liberty? Or insured domestic Tranquility?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "They were not blind to what was happening in the rest of the world.
That is not what Georgia said by the way.
That is Alexander Stephens."

Ha! You're off by about 400 miles -- the distance from Atlanta to Jackson, Mississippi.

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union."

• "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.
• That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
• There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

So, yes Virginia, it was "all about slavery".

[OIFVeteran]

You’ve been told this before. The need to form a more perfect Union outweighed the need to end slavery. The founders were worried if all the states didn’t join together they would eventually be picked off by the European countries or start fighting among themselves. If you are really seeking knowledge about this I would recommend the book “Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for the Constitution” by Lawrence Goldstone.

[OIFVeteran]

I really don’t understand how these lost causers can disregard what the secessionist wrote for themselves. They must believe the confederate leaders were lying through their teeth. Or so fixated on their own conclusion they disregard all evidence to the contrary. I really think if you could send Diogenes Lamp back to the South Carolina secessionist convention he would argue with them that slavery isn’t the real reason they are seceding! He would be laughed out of there, and perhaps tarred and feathered, the whole time screeching about tariffs.