After Confederate statues fall, is Lincoln Memorial next?

“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?

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.”

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.

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.

Bubba Ho-Tep: "Five states issued Declarations of Causes, and one is hard pressed to find anything but slavery as the issue in any of them."

DiogenesLamp: "What five?
I've read them all, and I only recall a few that stated slavery was the reason."

Please see my post #355 above for a complete listing of the five original state's documents, two letters to slaveholding states -- Rhett & Stephens -- and the two original secession states which issued no such documents.

The post links to all seven documents and you can see for yourselves that every one features slavery importantly if not exclusively.
None failed to mention slavery.

Also note the link to a nice article quantifying the focus of those pre-Sumter Reasons for Secession:

Mississippi: 93% context & slavery
Georgia: 81% context & slavery
Texas: 79% context & slavery
South Carolina: 61% context & slavery

Add Alabama's Ordinance of Secession which discusses only slavery, plus Rhett's letter and Stephen's "Corner Stone" speech and none of the seven documents fails to mention slavery prominently, if not exclusively.

DiogenesLamp: "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.' "

This is actually an important element in DiogenesLamp's Lost Cause insanity and so should not be skipped over or sluffed off.
DL wishes to equate our 1776 Founders' long list of legitimate past abuses suffered with 1860 Fire Eaters' "at pleasure" secession over slavery's potential future expansion.
And that is only remotely possible if reasons don't matter.
It's why DL goes to some efforts to pretend the 1776 Declaration's reasons were "a mere courtesy", not necessary, not even important, indeed they're really a distraction according to DiogenesLamp from the fact that Founders had an inherent right to secede any time, under any circumstances, for any reasons or for no reasons -- "at pleasure" -- it doesn't matter, according to DiogenesLamp.

That's his opinion and, sane or not, he's entitled to it.
But it's not what our Founders said -- not one, ever.
It's simply DiogenesLamp hoping to insert his own insanity into the words of our Founders.
Regardless, none of them believed it, what the believed instead was:

"when a long train of [British] abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them

under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Independence is justified & made necessary by "a long train of abuses & usurpations", no Founder ever said differently.

DiogenesLamp: "But again, Southern reasons for leaving are irrelevant."

Fire Eaters' reasons are indeed relevant because Lost Causers keep telling us it wasn't "all about slavery" when the facts clearly show it was.

DiogenesLamp: "The Declaration grants the right to leave for any reason desired by the people."

It does no such thing.

DiogenesLamp: "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 real answer is simple & direct, but DiogenesLamp doesn't like it so he pretends it's "debatable".
The answer is: Americans went to war in 1861 for the same reasons we went to war in, say, 1775, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 & 2001, among others -- because we believed we'd been seriously attacked.
It's that simple & direct, like it or not.

Of course Lost Causers hate, hate, hate any comparison of Fort Sumter to, say, Pearl Harbor -- they much prefer the Gulf of Tonkin.
But it doesn't matter because if you try hard enough, you can find reasons to condemn every US President involved in a war for his pre-war actions.
Most especially, FDR's pre-Pearl Harbor actions can be read to say he was the perpetrator not the victim.

But all such talk is after the fact and the truth remains that, even in the Gulf of Tonkin, we were attacked.
And claims that Lincoln "provoked" Davis are no more valid than claims FDR "provoked" the Japanese.
In all cases the enemy had a choice and chose war.

DiogenesLamp: "Nope. Every time you try to focus the debate on Slavery, I am going to point out that the North kept it's own slavery going..."

But only Lost Causers ever distort the true role of slavery in the Civil War by pretending that slavery was "dying out", that secession was not "all about slavery", that slavery didn't play a role in the war itself -- from the refusal of Confederates to officially enlist black soldiers, to Confederate slave-catching in Union states, to Union Contraband, confiscation, emancipation, nearly 200 colored regiments and abolition.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln protected slavery by supporting the Corwin Amendment..."

President Lincoln protected slavery where it was lawful, worked to prevent it from expanding into US territories and emancipated slaves when he could as commander in chief.
Corwin was a Democrat lip-service operation joined by a minority of RINOs.
It went nowhere, thanks to Lincoln's non-support.

DiogenesLamp: "the US Constitution protected slavery by article IV, section 2, meaning "slavery" was a non issue for why the Northern states invaded the Southern states."

But slavery was an important issue in why Confederates attacked, declared & waged war against the United States, in Union states & regions.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

But you yourself keep focusing on slavery -- it's the only thing you really want to talk about in your repeated denials.

As for the Union's reasons for war, in 1861 they were the same reasons as 1775, 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, 1941 & 2001 among others -- Americans believed we'd been attacked, it was that simple.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

And this is the truly outrageous Big Lie which exposes Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp for what they basically are: Democrat false flag operatives.
Their true purpose here, their raison d'etre is to guarantee not only no reconciliation ever between Northern & Southern Republicans but also to cut-off any potential appeal by Republicans to the black voters whose ancestors hundreds of thousands of Republicans died freeing.

And who would ever accept such a gig if they were not born or married into it?

"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."

He’s made that claim before on other threads, that the reason they rebelled doesn’t matter. Claiming that because there is a natural right to rebellion you can’t examine why someone is rebelling. As you have so elequontly pointed out, the founding fathers didn’t think so.

I mean there is a natural right to self-defense. But if I shoot someone in the head and I claim I was scared for my life. And this person had no weapon and hadnt made a threatening move at me, my claim of self-defense is going to be laughed at.

If I shoot someone in the head that has a loaded weapon pointed at me, my claim to self-defense will be much more believable.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Democrats in New York and Washington DC were making...

So yet again Lost Causers love to embrace Marxism when they can use it to smear Americans.
Regardless, the truth is New York was then America's premier port but still at least 80% of Deep South cotton shipped directly from Southern ports like New Orleans to their European customers.
On their return trips most of those ships stopped off in New York to warehouse their imports pending sale & shipment nationwide.
Then they returned to their Southern ports awaiting the next cotton harvest.

When Civil War came in 1861 Confederate cotton exports were deleted from US exports, but overall exports lost only 35% and Federal tariff revenues soon recovered, doubling by war's end.

Regardless, DiogenesLamp's claim here that Big City Democrats supported the Civil War only to protect their "money flows from Europe", is not just too simplistic, it's also not supported by any actual data from that time.

DiogenesLamp: "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:"

Right, to relieve the fort, not to attack Confederates or Charleston Harbor.

DiogenesLamp: "Those ships that were assigned specifically to Charleston."

Right, but at the time Confederates demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, none had yet arrived and when Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter, only one, the small Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane was then on station well outside Charleston Harbor.

So, once again, Confederates did not respond to an actual threat to them, but only to a perceived potential discomfort over the Union's attempt to resupply its own troops in Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Slavery was certainly the major cause for secession and secession was certainly a precondition for war, ergo... slavery was very important to the reasons for Civil War.

Slavery was also a major factor during the war, from Contraband to confiscations, to Confederate slave-catchers, to Emancipation and Union colored troops, to Confederate refusals to officially enlist black soldiers, to abolition and citizenship for former slaves.

So our Lost Causer claim that slavery was not important to the Civil War is simply an outright Big Lie.

DiogenesLamp: "Again, for a war to be about slavery, you have to abolish it on the side claiming to be fighting against slavery, first."

The North did abolish slavery first decades before 1860.
It's what made them so hostile to its expansion in US western territories.

And, protecting slavery against Northern abolitionists was the stated reason for Deep South secessions leading to war.
That Lincoln had no intentions to abolish slavery in the South in 1861 is perfectly true, but doesn't mean the war had "nothing to do with" slavery, even then.

In a larger sense, Civil War was always "all about" slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Except that it was not an "attack", it was a peaceful resupply mission which would have ended with no shots fired had Confederates allowed it.
Confederates chose to see Lincoln's mission as "assailing" their "integrity" and so ordered Sumter "reduced".

Those were the shots which started Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "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." "

At this point, typical Democrat, DiogenesLamp can't stop lying, can't control his urge to lie, lies with a straight face, lies with conviction, lies with passion -- it's what being a Democrat is all about, first & foremost: the Big Lies.

The real truth of this matter is Deep South secessionists declared their separations & Confederate governments peacefully, because neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln did anything to stop them.
War then only came because Confederates provoked, started, declared & waged war against the United States, even in Union states & territories.

Call that "rebellion", call it whatever you wish, Confederates were a military threat which had to be defeated, period.

DiogenesLamp: "Justice Salmon P Chase made it clear that "Secession is not Rebellion."
Exact Words."

But rebellion is rebellion, exact words, you can look it up.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Slavery was hugely important to secession and the course of Civil War, regardless of how much you Lost Causers lie to deny it.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Well, first, war is not "murder", certainly not the US Civil War whose soldiers on both sides were exceptionally well-behaved compared to almost any others from any other times.

Second, if anyone, Confederates do "have to" justify why they provoked war, started war, declared war & waged war, primarily at first in Union states.
And why Confederates refused to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

DiogenesLamp: "The slavery issue was astroturf for both sides.
The Southern firebrands tried to use it as a wedge issue... "

So let's first notice there was no such thing as "astroturf" in 1861, making the word not just false, but also inappropriate.
And who today ever even talks about alleged "astroturf"?
That's right, Democrats, like DiogenesLamp.

Second, there's no evidence suggesting the stated public reasons for secession were not the "real reasons" for 99%+ of Confederate voters.
If one percent shared DiogenesLamp's fantasies about a Confederate "free trade" empire, that in no way denies validity to the "real reasons" (i.e., slavery) why the 99% voted for secession & Confederacy.

DiogenesLamp: "The motives were always money. Money and power.

Only to Marxists, or to Lost Causers hoping to cast aspersions on normal Americans.

"...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

Sure, no doubt, the top 1% of Northern Democrats were hugely concerned about their own economic welfare.
But, first of all, nowhere does this Boston Transcript editorial suggest starting a war to prevent Confederate "free trade".

Second, in reality, there was nothing "free trade" about Confederate tariffs, that was just Democrat political hyperbole.
The original Confederate tariffs were simply the old relatively low Tariff of 1857 with some small modifications.
Their effect, barring some political accommodations, would be to double tariffs paid on any imports to either North or South which were later re-exported to the other.

Not good economically, but absent war a matter quickly settled by political accommodations.

DiogenesLamp: "With all the money being funneled back through New York.
I think even BroJoeK admits New York controlled the Southern export market."

I do freely admit that from 1801 through 1861 Northern Democrats in New York allied with Southern Democrats ruling Washington DC both controlled and benefitted by those "money flows from Europe".
What I don't accept is that the 1861 "divorce" of Northern & Southern Democrats somehow caused Republicans to "launch war" against "the South".

Any Lost Causer evidence for it is both disputed historiographical-ly and denied by public statements from all parties at the time.

Slavery was the reason for secession.
Rebellion at Fort Sumter was the reason for Civil War.
Slavery was of growing importance during the war, almost from Day One.

Facts.

Captain Peter Blood: "English Cotton mills were buying Southern Cotton for a long time prior to the Civil War going back to the 1700’s."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

OK, first of all, when you say, "New York" what you mean are individuals who sometimes lived in New York, who allied with Southern planters economically & politically, Democrats, to exercise political control over the "DC swamp", from 1801 until 1861.

Second, your claim NY "acquired 40% of all value produced by Southern states" is just cockamamie.
That's because imports landed at NY warehouses remained untaxed until sold & shipped across the entire country.
Sure, New Yorkers earned warehousing fees, and Washington collected their tariffs, but those were far from 40% of the entire values.
The claim of "40%" represents an altogether different set of calculations.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

First, it would probably be fair to say: in 1860 Southerners did not build or own most of the ships which transported cotton to Europe.
On the other hand, to claim that anyone not from a Cotton South state was a "New Yorker" is pure foolishness.
Half of US cotton exported from New Orleans alone, another 25% from ports like Mobile & Savanah, and all those had entrepreneurs capable of financing & shipping US exports.

What they lacked in the South were customers for European imports.
Those could only be reached nation-wide from the railroad, sea & river transportation networks centered on New York.

And this is clearly a big, big problem for Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp, but there's no evidence it motivated Fire Eater Southern Democrats in 1860.

New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.
Complicity of white America
Most New Yorkers did not care that the cotton was produced by slaves because for them it became sanitized once it left the plantation. New Yorkers even dominated a booming slave trade in the 1850s. Although the importation of slaves into the United States had been prohibited in 1808, the temptation of the astronomical profits of the international slave trade was too strong for many New Yorkers. New York investors financed New York-based slave ships that sailed to West Africa to pick up African captives that were then sold in Cuba and Brazil.

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

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.