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]

jeffersondem: "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?"

"Diametrically opposed"??
That's a strong term, which I've never used on these threads, certainly not regarding 1787 Northern abolitionism.
In 1787 nearly all Founders, North & South, recognized slavery as a moral evil which should be abolished.
As late as 1832 the Richmond Enquirer said of slavery:

"Are we forever to suffer the greatest evil, which can scourge our land..."

By 1787 most Northern states had already begun gradual abolition, and Southerners like Thomas Jefferson also moved to restrict or abolish slavery where possible, i.e., Northwest Territories.

So there was general agreement that slavery should be abolished by states eventually.
In the mean time some Southerners (Pinckney, Rutledge) insisted slavery be protected Federally, or no Union, and Northerners went along.

And you have a problem with this because of what, exactly?

jeffersondem: "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?"

I think if you asked them directly, they'd tell you they did the best they could under the circumstances.
Most Northerners in 1787 wanted Union more than abolition and some Southerners wanted slavery more than Union.
They compromised.

And your problem with that is what, exactly?

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: " 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. "

Fine, then post the quotes, link to their sources.
Otherwise you're just blowing smoke here.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran to jeffersondem: "You’ve been told this before...
If you are really seeking knowledge about this I would recommend..."

Of course jeffersondem's not "seeking knowledge", he's just hoping to make a clever argument.
Why, exactly, he thinks it's so clever still escapes me.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "I really don’t understand how these lost causers can disregard what the secessionist wrote for themselves..."

Agreed, well said.
I call it Marxism, but likely it's just desperate grabs for any cr*p whatever they can throw at Lincoln specifically and Union defenders in general.
They don't care what they say, so long as it hurts.

Think of it in terms of a Civil War battle line -- the Union enemy is closing in and you are out of ammo, so you load your cannons with whatever you can find laying around to fire at them.
In extremis maybe even just the noise & smoke will confuse Unionists long enough for you to retreat & regroup...

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

If it is necessary to invoke the Red Menace in this thread, let's turn to one of America's most-read authors, whose words about the topic still resonate:

“… Here in the United States, the communists are bending all efforts to smearing the South and Southerners, because they know that we are one of the strongholds of Conservatism and are likely to resist Communism more fiercely than the large industrial sections of the North and the Middlewest.”

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

What was the difference between the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Amendment, and why did Lincoln support one and not the other?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Fine, then post the quotes, link to their sources. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke here.

Maybe it was Alexander Stephens.

[jeffersondem]

“I really don’t understand how these lost causers can disregard what the secessionist wrote for themselves.”

They did not disregard what the secessionists wrote:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

[OIFVeteran]

Nice switch there, but you should know the founding fathers never called themselves or what they were doing secession. It was a rebellion.

Here is Mississippi’s Declaration of secession. Read it and let me know why you think they were seceding.

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

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[DiogenesLamp]

What was the difference between the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Amendment, and why did Lincoln support one and not the other?

Analyzing it in terms of to whom it gives power, I would have to say Lincoln opposed it because it allowed the Southern states to have more representation in Congress to challenge the system the New York coalition had created which funneled money produced by the South, through the hands of New York and Washington DC.

The Corwin Amendment kept the status quo, and kept the Southern states (who were producing the bulk of European trade) to remain a minority in Congress, and therefore unable to make any changes that would interfere with the money flow system the New York coalition had working at that time.

Both sides agreed that slavery could not possibly flourish in New Mexico territory (which also included Arizona) and so there was no real danger of slavery "expanding" to there. The only difference would be in the congressional representation that would have states created from these territories voting with the Southern Coalition, and against the interests of the New York power barons that had gamed the system to keep various income streams going through their hands.

Opposed to an amendment that expands representation to the Southern Coalition but doesn't really expand slavery, but in favor of an amendment that keeps slavery where it is, but does not increase any representation for the Southern coalition?

Seems pretty clear cut to me when you look at it that way. It was about power, and control of congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

You've got three perhaps four states that mention slavery as a cause. Your side constantly promote this minority of four states as speaking for all the rest.

You do so because you wish to believe this is true. Show me Virginia's secession statement which asserts the reason is slavery.

This is why we just ignore these efforts by your side to quote that tiny minority of states which listed it as *A* cause, and in many cases not the only cause.

But apart from that, it does not make a f*** what the Southerns states reasons were for leaving. They had a right to do so for any reasons they felt were sufficient.

The *ONLY* thing that needs to be justified is why the Northern states launched an invasion of blood death and destruction on people who did them no harm, and then pretended to justify it on the basis of the practice of slavery which would have remained legal had those states remained in the Union.

No. I'm not going to allow you to focus on slavery. You need to focus on the justification of the North for killing people in the South, and I don't want to hear any more lies about it being out of concern for the black man which virtually all the Northerners hated, and would wish dead.

Why did the North Invaded and murder people who did them no harm? Why did they destroy the lives and families of people who had done nothing to them?

Because they were manipulated by a master manipulator who was himself motivated to protect the power and wealth of that elite class of robber barons in New York who were making so much money from controlling Southern trade with Europe.

The war was launched to protect the economic interests of that same group of people that we are fighting this very day. That "deep state" "crony capitalist" cabal that constantly works to keep government spending ramped up to the max while leaving we taxpayers to pay for all that money being funneled into New York and Washington DC pockets.

And he convinced stupid people to focus on "the slavery" instead of who got rich as a result of the war.

[DoodleDawg]

...one of America's most-read authors...

And that would be...?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem quote unattributed: "… Here in the United States, the communists are bending all efforts to smearing the South and Southerners, because they know that we are one of the strongholds of Conservatism... "

And yet... and yet... you Lost Causers are deliriously happy to embrace Karl Marx whenever he can be used to smear Lincoln, aren't you?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You've got three perhaps four states that mention slavery as a cause.

Five states issued Declarations of Causes, and one is hard pressed to find anything but slavery as the issue in any of them

Show me Virginia's secession statement which asserts the reason is slavery.

Virginia did not issue a "Declaration of Causes," unlike those other five states. Maybe they felt that the part of the Declaration of Independence that said "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" didn't apply to them. But they did cite slavery in their Ordinance of Secession: "The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You've got three perhaps four states that mention slavery as a cause.
Your side constantly promote this minority of four states as speaking for all the rest. "

But the key point which Lost Causers must ignore is that those were the first to issue "Reasons for Secession" Documents.
All told, before Fort Sumter there were seven such documents:

1. December 1860, South Carolina's official "Reasons for Secession" details slavery and no other reasons.

2. December 1860, South Carolina's Robert Barnwell Rhett writing to other slaveholding states includes four long paragraphs on slavery, three shorter paragraphs on taxes.

3. January 1861, Mississippi's official Reasons lists only slavery.

4. January 1861, Alabama's Ordinance of Secession lists only slavery as its reason.

5. January 1861, Georgia's official Reasons complains briefly about "bounties" for "fishing smacks" but devotes at least ten times more words to slavery.

6. February 1861, Texas official Reasons also complains briefly about Jefferson Davis & RE Lee's poor attempts to protect Texans against "Indian savages" and "murderous banditti", but spends many times more words on slavery.

7. March 1861, Georgia's Alexander Stephens famous "Corner Stone" speech:
   "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.]
   This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
   This truth has been slow in the process of its development..."

8. Florida & Louisiana gave no reasons for their secessions.

For a more quantitative breakdown of states' reasons for secession, see this link.
Bottom line: seven out of seven Ordinance of, or Reasons for, Secession documents produced before Fort Sumter focused mainly or exclusively on slavery.
Secession did not become about anything other than slavery until after Fort Sumter.

[rockrr]

Another author of fiction...

[rockrr]

Hiya Bubba!

DegenerateLamp knows that the rebels were making it up as they went along, including any notifications they felt conducive to their agenda. He knows that no such document exists and feeeeeeeeeeeeeeels that this is exculpatory.

Some things never change...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "But apart from that, it does not make a f*** what the Southerns states reasons were for leaving. They had a right to do so for any reasons they felt were sufficient.
The *ONLY* thing that needs to be justified is why the Northern states launched an invasion of blood death and destruction on people who did them no harm, and then pretended to justify it on the basis of the practice of slavery which would have remained legal had those states remained in the Union."

Right, like true Democrats, once Lost Causers lose an argument do they ever acknowledge their defeat and confess the truth?
Not on your life, never!
They just change the subject to ground they're more comfortable fighting on.

So here DiogenesLamp wants to argue: why did Lincoln respond when Confederates provoked, started, declared & waged war against the United States, in Union states?
He claims Confederates were "people who did them no harm", and yet the facts say differently.

In fact, over the Civil War's first twelve months more battles were fought in Union states & territories than Confederate, and more Confederate soldiers died in battle in the Union than in Confederate states.
Total casualties in those battles vastly exceed Pearl Harbor & 9/11/2001 combined.

And yet somehow this needs to be debated & justified?
Why?

Because of slavery?
Sure, slavery was not the reason Confederates attacked Fort Sumter and slavery was not the only reason Confederates invaded Union states, but Secession was "all about" slavery and so the war itself cannot be separated from that.

Sure, Lincoln was not elected to abolish slavery and did not intend to, but the war itself made Contraband, confiscation and Emancipations first necessary then mandatory along with abolition & citizenship.

Why that should drive our Lost Causers so berserk is beyond me, but then, they're Democrats and berserk is what Democrats naturally do.

Speaking of berserk:

DiogenesLamp: "No. I'm not going to allow you to focus on slavery.
You need to focus on the justification of the North for killing people in the South, and I don't want to hear any more lies about it being out of concern for the black man which virtually all the Northerners hated, and would wish dead."

All lies, complete cockamamie nonsense.
"The North" didn't "kill people in the South".
"The North" was indeed concerned "for the black man", especially as it relates to the Declaration's "all men are created equal".
And Northerners didn't "hate" black people or "wish them dead" -- that's pure projection & fantasy.

The fact is the freed-black population in the North was increasing 50% faster than in the South.
There's no evidence freed-blacks were treated worse in the North than the South and considerable suggestion they were treated better.
For one thing, some could vote.

What follows by DiogenesLamp in his post #351 is just purely insane -- stark raging lunacy with no connection to physical or historical realities, just the products of a very sadly disturbed imagination.

My condolences for your late deceased brain, sir.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The war was launched to protect the economic interests of that same group of people that we are fighting this very day. That "deep state" "crony capitalist" cabal that constantly works to keep government spending ramped up to the max while leaving we taxpayers to pay for all that money being funneled into New York and Washington DC pockets.

Oh, my God! I've figured it out! Diogenes is Noam Chomsky!

[BroJoeK]

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."

Despite Lost Causer claims, it's not clear to me if Lincoln supported either Crittenden or Corwin.
It may be only that Lincoln objected less to Corwin than to Crittenden because Corwin was far less comprehensive and by March 1861 totally unlikely to produce any results.

I notice in post #350 above DiogenesLamp takes a stab at answering your question -- he seems to think Crittenden would give Southerners more slave states and so more votes in Congress, but also admits New Mexico was unlikely to become a slave state.

Even so, Lincoln was elected to oppose slavery's expansion and so opposed Crittenden.
By contrast, Corwin merely gave lip-service to the status quo and so, constitutionally, Lincoln did not oppose or object to it.

Neither did Lincoln lift a serious finger to support Corwin, so far as I've ever seen.