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 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.
You're not going to allow?
What five? I've read them all, and I only recall a few that stated slavery was the reason. Others referred to "slave owning states", which is just a statement of reality at that time.
Even so, five out of eleven is still putting the cart before the horse. 6 is a larger number than 5.
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.
And here we go again. Saying "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind..." means what? Compulsion? One is obligated to state a cause for exercising the right of independence? In my understanding of the English language, this means a list of causes is a mere courtesy, not an essential requirement. If one does not wish to explain why one no longer wishes to associate with others, one does not have any requirement to do so. The right to independence is not conditional on a "respect for the opinions of mankind."
Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States
And you are bending over backwards to interpret this as a claim that they are seceding because of slavery, rather than accepting it as a mere statement of fact that they see the slaveholding states being oppressed.
The government made it clear that the target of it's army was the Southern slave holding states. Pointing out that this is the case does not constitute a claim that they are seceding over slavery.
No, they are seceding over the fact that an army has been launched against people whom they see as having a right to leave the Union, per the Declaration of Independence.
But again, Southern reasons for leaving are irrelevant. The Declaration grants the right to leave for any reason desired by the people.
The debate must be regarding the reasons why Northerners left their homes to go into Southern states and kill people who did them no harm.
Why did Northern people invade the South? *THAT* is the only relevant question regarding the civil war.
The only question of relevance is why the Northern States invaded the South. I'm not going to let any of you keep the discussion focused on the fake issue of slavery.
It's time we stopped letting people get away with the pretense that they were killing people for love of the black man. That's a lie, and everyone in this discussion knows it.
You can attempt to make jokes, but the money streams are pretty clear. New York and Washington DC were making huge profits off of Southern produced trade with Europe. They went to war to stop the South from trading directly with Europe and thereby threatening their control of the money and trade.
Where Congress had the power to end slavery, in DC, they did so in 1862. The slave states that did not secede ended slavery on their own without making war on the United States.
US Constitution protected slavery by article IV, section 2, meaning "slavery" was a non issue for why the Northern states invaded the Southern states.
Then why did the states the had a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" overwhelmingly cite slavery as the reason for their secession?
The only question of relevance is why the Northern States invaded the South.
Because the south made war on the United States by opening fire on Ft. Sumter.
It's time we stopped letting people get away with the pretense that they were killing people for love of the black man. That's a lie, and everyone in this discussion knows it.
As I'm sure you've heard many times, the United States was fighting to preserve the Union against armed insurrection, as authorized by Article 1, Section 15 of the Constitution. The lie is that the south seceded for any other reason than to protect slavery, as literally hundreds of documents they issued at the time make clear, and you're pathologically disingenuous to deny that.
If the southern states had talked about that one-tenth as much as they talked about the threat Lincoln's election posed to slavery, your life would be much easier.
Found on another website. Best list I’ve seen so far.
The following list embraces the names, with armaments and troops, of Lincoln’s supply fleet dispatched from New York and Washington to Charleston harbor, for the relief of Fort Sumter:-
Vessels of War
Steam sloop-of-war Pawnee, Captain S. C. Rowan, 10 guns and 200 men. The Pawnee sailed from Washington, with sealed orders, on the morning of Saturday, April 6.
Steam sloop-of-war Powhatan, Captain D. D. Porter, 11 guns and 275 men. The Powhatan sailed from the Brookyln Navy Yard on Saturday afternoon April 6.
Revenue cutter Harriet Lane, Captain J. Faunce, 5 guns and 96 men. On Saturday, April 6, the Harriet Lane exchanged her revenue flag for the United States navy flag, denoting her transfer to the Government naval service, and sailed suddenly on last Monday morning, with sealed orders.
The Steam Transports
Atlantic, 358 troops, composed of Companies A and M of the Second artillery, Companies C and H of the Second infantry, and Company A of sappers and miners from West Point. The Atlantic sailed from the steam at 5 o’clock on Sunday morning last, April 7.
Baltic, 160 troops, composed of Companies C and D, recruits, from Governor’s and Bedloe’s islands. The Baltic sailed from Quarantine at 7o’clock on Tuesday morning last, April 9.
Illinois, 300 troops, composed of Companies B, E, F, G and H, and a detachment from Company D, all recruits from Governor’s and Bedloe’s Islands, together with two companies of the Second infantry, from Fort Hamilton. The Illinois sailed from Quarantine on Tuesday morning at 6 o’clock.
The Steamtugs
Two steamtugs, with a Government official on each, bearing sealed dispatches, were also sent. The Yankee left New York on Monday evening, 8th, and the Uncle Ben on Tuesday night.
The Launches
Nearly thirty of these boats-whose services are most useful in effecting a landing of troops over shoal water, and for attacking a discharging battery when covered with sand and gunny bags- have been taken out by the Powhatan and by the steam transports Atlantic, Baltic and Illinois.
Recapitulation
Vessels Guns Men
Sloop-of-war Pawnee 10 200
Sloop-of-war Powhatan 11 275
Cutter Harriet Lane 5 96
Steam Transport Atlantic 353
Steam Transport Baltic 160
Steam Transport Illinois 300
Steamtug Yankee Ordinary Crew
Steamtug Uncle Ben Ordinary Crew
Total number of vessels 8
Total number of guns (for marine service) 26
Total number of men and troops 1,380
It is understood that several transports are soon to be chartered, and dispatched to Charleston with troops and supplies.
________________________
Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston.
The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reenforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.), armed screw steamer USS Pochaontas, Revenue Cutter USS Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats. The rest of the ships listed in the New York paper went to Pensacola.
The war started in 1861. If slavery was the cause, they would have abolished slavery in DC before the war. They would have also started their attack by invading Maryland. Slavery as a cause of the war is a lie.
The slave states that did not secede ended slavery on their own without making war on the United States.
In 1865. Six months after slavery had already been abolished in the Confederacy. For six months longer, the Union still had legal slavery. Again, for a war to be about slavery, you have to abolish it on the side claiming to be fighting against slavery, first.
Then why did the states the had a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" overwhelmingly cite slavery as the reason for their secession?
I reject that claim. I've read the statements. People are being "creative" in their efforts to force them to mean what they claim. Just saying "slave owning states" is "interpreted" to mean they were seceding over slavery.
Because the south made war on the United States by opening fire on Ft. Sumter.
Lincoln started the war on April 8th by launching a fleet of warships to attack the Confederates around Ft. Sumter. Lincoln started the war with that attack. Called this attack a "supply mission" which is just a lie.
Was an attack. Southerners responded to this attack.
As I'm sure you've heard many times, the United States was fighting to preserve the Union against armed insurrection, as authorized by Article 1, Section 15 of the Constitution.
Another lie. Secession under the right to independence guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln lied about it. Called it "insurrection." Is not insurrection when states have a peaceable vote to leave Union. Is a *LIE* to call this "Insurrection" or "Rebellion."
Lincoln called it an "insurrection" because this unlocked power to use military force to stop it. Locked up anyone who disagreed with this claim, so people were cowed.
Justice Salmon P Chase made it clear that "Secession is not Rebellion." Exact Words.
The lie is that the south seceded for any other reason than to protect slavery...
No, the Lie is that the south's reasons for leaving had any thing to do with why the North launched a war against it. The north would have launched the war no matter what the South's reasons for leaving were. Therefore the South's reasons are irrelevant.
The only cause of the war is the North's reasons. The South's reasons don't matter. The people who launched the murder have to justify why they launched the murder. The people who were being murdered by the Northern armies do *NOT* have to justify why they wanted to leave.
The slavery issue was astroturf for both sides. The Southern firebrands tried to use it as a wedge issue even though it clearly could not be abolished by anything the "free" states could do, and the "free" states tried to use it to keep the power of the congress confined to their side.
But the money streams don't lie. They tell the truth when all the people talking are trying to fool people as to their real motives.
The motives were always money. Money and power.
"...the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861.
Several million bales of cotton left Southern ports and went directly to overseas customers. If that's not trading directly then what is it?
English Cotton mills were buying Southern Cotton for a long time prior to the Civil War going back to the 1700’s.
With all the money being funneled back through New York. I think even BroJoeK admits New York controlled the Southern export market.
Yes, but virtually all the imports in payment for Southern exports came back through New York. The businesses of New York acquired about 40% of all the value produced by Southern exports, and Washington DC's cut of the money was also taken out there.
New York virtually controlled all Southern exports to Europe. I didn't understand this when I first started learning about this business, but in the last three years, i've read quite a lot of information which shows New York was running virtually all the trade occurring by way of the Atlantic ocean.
You have a qualifier for almost every claim you make, don't you?
The history of the area is described in Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited From Slavery — a book that details how deeply the slave trade was entrenched in America's economy — by veteran newspaper journalists Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jenifer Frank. The authors wrote: "From 1825 on, in volume and value of imports and exports, the seaport of South Street outdid the combined trade of its two closest competitors in Boston and Philadelphia … long before civil war loomed, New York, after London and Paris, had become the third major city of the western world. Its glory was built largely of bricks of cotton," the product of backbreaking labor."From seed to cloth, Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York, controlled nearly every aspect of cotton production and trade," the authors continued. "Only large banks, generally located in Manhattan, or in London, could extend to plantation owners the credit they needed between planting and selling their crop … slaves were usually bought on credit."
https://www.theroot.com/how-slave-labor-made-new-york-1790895122
Thanks for that information. Will do some research on this.
Rebellion you say. All right, let's argue it your way. The Founding fathers, including Richard Henry Lee, signed the famous “Declaration of Rebellion” on July 4, 1776. All the signers were rebels.
Did you know that his great nephew was also called a “rebel.” Did you know President Lincoln referred to the fighting as “rebellion.” Do you know the official name for the 70 volume ORs is: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.”
So both Lee's were rebels. There was not much daylight between them.
And not much daylight between them and that other rebel: George Washington.
Ut oh, I have a feeling Ms. Mitchell is going to be smeared.
I would encourage you to read it, confirmation bias fluff that it is. In it you’ll see that anyone who scratched up a buck from the slave trade is “part of the problem” but those who truly exploited the slaves receive no mention at all, much less condemnation.
There were plenty of sinners to go around and too few saints, but reasonable people understand about proportionality.
“In 1865 Six months after slavery had already been abolished in the Confederacy”
Your statement is inaccurate. Slavery still legally existed in almost the entire state of Tennessee. 13 Parishes in Louisiana, the Tidewater region of Virginia, parts of coastal North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
These areas were exempt from the Emancipation Proclaimation because they were under Federal control on January 1 1863. Those slaves and the slaves in Kentucky, West Virginia and Delaware would not be freed until the XVIII amendment to the Constitution was ratified.
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.