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.

But if we accept that slavery could only be where cotton was grown, you'd have to include California, Arizona, Nevada, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

I have covered this before. Cotton cannot be grown in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma New Mexico and West Texas without irrigation systems that were not possible in the 19th century.

Cotton could have been grown in Kansas in very small quantities near the border with Oklahoma, but to no significant degree.

So as i've said, the claim that slavery was going to "expand" into the territories is actually an astro turf lie deliberately spread to prevent the Southern coalition from gaining any states that would upset the rigged game in Washington DC that kept the bulk of the profits from Southern production flowing through the hands of New York and Washington DC power brokers.

Why do you think the confederate constitution went to such lengths to protect slavery in the territories they might acquire?

As their constitution made it clear that slavery was protected throughout the Confederacy, your characterization of them protecting slavery specifically in territories they might acquire is deliberately misleading. There was no special consideration for territories.

Raw power. It was *ALWAYS* about raw power. Our Civil War opponents simply do not want to believe that the vast bulk of the people on their side in 1860 were simply duped into believing this astro turf crap which had the real purpose of holding onto control of the Congress.

I might be able to wake them up a bit by pointing out what Lyndon Baines Johnson did. They might be able to see this because it's so disconnected from what they want to believe about the political machinations of 1860, so they don't have an emotional interest vested in believing certain things that are clearly not supported by history.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a racist Southern Democrat who clearly had no love for black people. After Republicans pushed through the 24th amendment that allowed non-taxpayers to vote, Johnson immediately put forth his "War on Poverty". Did Johnson do this out of a deep abiding concern for black people, or did Johnson do this because the "poor" had just become a massive new voting block which could be ridden to power in Washington DC?

Who among you supporters of the war against the South believe that Johnson suddenly had a change of heart and just wanted to help black people?

Again, if you people think the "milk of human kindness" is what motivates power blocks to move huge amounts of money and resources in efforts to gain and hold power, you are laughingly naive.

It's about power. It's *always* about power, because power is how you get the money.

This is exactly what it was about all along. Northern Newspapers were full of editorials saying that if the Southern states became independent they would prosper and the North would lose out financially on a massive scale. The South was generating the vast majority of the exports and paying the vast majority of the taxes. That's to say nothing of the shipping, banking, insurance and import/export business and all the salaries and commissions generated from them.

This aspect only tells part of the story. The financial risk to the great Northern Industrial barons was much greater still. By becoming independent, US Protectionist laws no longer applied, and the South could import as many European manufactured goods as they desired, and this would directly impact sales of Northern goods to the South.

But Wait! It would not only cause them massive loss of sales to the South, Southern companies could import these goods and distribute them through the Mississippi river watershed to huge swaths of the Midwest, and they could also distribute goods all along their borders to the Northern states. Another massive financial impact to the same Industrial barons of the North.

But Wait! Profits made by Southern corporations would not only ramp up Southern shipping, it would attract Northern experts to move south and set up manufacturing facilities in Southern cities, which would then also compete directly against the Northern industrial barons.

But Wait! Over time, states realizing that their financial interests were better served by the Confederacy than by the New York controlled Northern coalition, would eventually chose to join the Confederacy, starting with all the border states. Over time, the Confederacy would grow at the expense of the Union.

The businessmen of the Northern industries were nobody's fools. They could see the threat to their power and control, and they certainly wanted none of it, and the simplest way to stop it was to go to war with the South, blockade all their trade, and smash this upstart government that would threaten their money streams.

And so the war was about Money and Power, but they did everything they could to convince naive people that it was about the "milk of human kindness", and gullible people bought it and still repeat this nonsense today!

You would think that people could grasp that when Lincoln offered them effectively permanent protection for slavery through the Corwin Amendment, that slavery wasn't what either the North or South really cared about. But some people are just dense when it comes to seeing things as they truly are.

I've noticed that people will often find some teeny tiny exception to the rule, and then try to use it to claim the general rule is incorrect.

You are grasping at a straw. No significant cotton can be grown in any of those places today without serious irrigation systems being employed.

If it cannot be done today, no serious amount of cotton could have been grown in those places back in 1860. The idea that those states represented a massive addition to the propagation of slavery is just false.

As I pointed out in the Wikipedia article on the Crittenden compromise, both sides acknowledged that slavery wasn't going to be significant anywhere in New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada.

Fantasy “what if history” at it’s best.

So by all means please tell us how an existing Confederate state could outlaw slavery within its borders or how a non-slave state could be created from any territory the Confederacy acquired.

This is funny, because I have previously made the exact same argument regarding Article IV, section 2 of the US Constitution. Unless you prohibit the right to transit (violation of the privileges and immunities clause) you can't keep slavery out of "free" states.

You get the argument now but only because you can see how it works in the Confederacy. I suspect you will still be unable to see that it works exactly the same way in the Union.

Somethings can be accurately predicted from initial conditions, and some things cannot.

Clearly the introduction of European manufactured goods to the South at greatly reduced prices (due to removal of high tariffs) would be detrimental to Northern sales of similar products.

Would you have us believe that European goods would not have hurt Northern sales?

Please clarify your point here with specific claims about what European goods would have done to Northern industrialists incomes. If you argue it would have had no effect, I will counter with "Then why protectionism?"

It's hilarious actually because unlike the Confederate Constitution (Article IV, Section 2) nothing in the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the slaveholder to take his/her slaves to any state in the Union. Also unlike the Confederate Constitution (Article I, Section 9), there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits laws impairing the right of property in slaves. Finally unlike the Confederate Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) nothing in the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from banning slavery in the territories. So According to the 10th Amendment, laws about allowing slaves in a particular state would be up to the state itself. And according to Article IV, Section 3 allowing slaves in the territories would be up to Congress. Your premise is wrong.

You get the argument now but only because you can see how it works in the Confederacy. I suspect you will still be unable to see that it works exactly the same way in the Union.

Looks like you suspect wrong.

So by all means please tell us how an existing Confederate state could outlaw slavery within its borders or how a non-slave state could be created from any territory the Confederacy acquired.

You assert such, but George Washington begs to differ. I've noticed a bunch of people on your side *CLAIM* something that cannot be read from any text on the Constitution.

Clearly slaves must always be returned to their masters. It says so quite explicitly. Clearly their masters have the right to go into non slave states.

Where does a state get the authority to free slaves? Their own laws cannot do it, because this is expressly prohibited by Article IV, section 2.

So what do they do? They *CLAIM* they have the right to ban slavery in their state, but nothing in the Constitution can be actually understood to mean this thing they claim.

Looks like you suspect wrong.

No, I suspected precisely right. I knew you would try to make up some phoney reason why Article IV, Section 2 doesn't mean what it says, and I knew you would try to pretend this is somehow different from what the Confederate constitution did.

Constitution says they must be returned. How then do you free them? How do you override a constitutional requirement that requires they be returned?

Can't be done through state law. Requires a constitutional amendment.

You assert such, but George Washington begs to differ. I've noticed a bunch of people on your side *CLAIM* something that cannot be read from any text on the Constitution.

Yes, I've noticed that as well.

Clearly slaves must always be returned to their masters. It says so quite explicitly. Clearly their masters have the right to go into non slave states.

Complete nonsense. Article IV says, "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime." So a slave who illegally runs away from his master in a slave state has committed a crime in that state and must be returned to that state from punishment. Nothing in that could be confused with a state's right to outlaw slavery within it's borders. Nothing in that says a slave owner has the right to take his slaves wherever he wants. And as part of all that prohibiting a slave owner from bringing his property into that state.

Where does a state get the authority to free slaves? Their own laws cannot do it, because this is expressly prohibited by Article IV, section 2.

Article IV Section 2 does not say that.

So what do they do? They *CLAIM* they have the right to ban slavery in their state, but nothing in the Constitution can be actually understood to mean this thing they claim.

Nothing under the Constitution reserves that right to the government so it's a right reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

LOL! Only if one adopts the same idiotic interpretation of Article IV as you do.

Nothing in that says a slave owner has the right to take his slaves wherever he wants.

It doesn't have to say that. That is the default meaning when slavery is accepted as legal by the national compact.

*YOUR SIDE* has to have something that says states can ban citizens of other states from bringing their slaves.

The rights of citizens in going to other states is clearly stated in the privileges and immunities clause, and the ability to take slaves with them is implicit in that clause. Slaves were legally equivalent to cows or horses, and the idea that people would be banned from bringing their livestock and working it would have been regarded as failure to conform to the agreement.

If it were intended that slaves would be regarded as a "special case", then this special case would have been spelled out. The fact that no mention was made of slaves being a "special case" under constitutional law pretty much proves there was no intent to treat them as a special case. Ergo, the default rule is that they are property, and are therefore useable by the owner in whatever manner the owner wishes.

Your side just pleads "special case" because you want there to be a special case without actually having to have it voted on and ratified by the rest of the states, which in 1787 were mostly slave states.

This is an example of Liberals trying to "living document" the constitution into meaning something quite different from what it originally meant. If there is no special classification for slaves in the US constitution which allows them to be banned in other states, the default position is that they cannot be banned.

It may be ugly, but it is an accurate reading of the legal facts for that time period.

DiogenesLamp: "So as i've said, the claim that slavery was going to "expand" into the territories is actually an astro turf lie deliberately spread to prevent the Southern coalition from gaining any states that would upset the rigged game in Washington DC that kept the bulk of the profits from Southern production flowing through the hands of New York and Washington DC power brokers."

From 1801 to secession in 1861 the game was rigged by Democrats -- North & South -- Southerners who ruled over Washington, DC, in alliance with Northern Big City (esp. NYC) immigrant bosses (i.e., Tammany Hall).
Together they passed whatever laws necessary to support their institutions & way of life.

Republicans played no role -- zero, nada, none -- in Democrat political deals.

DiogenesLamp: "As their constitution made it clear that slavery was protected throughout the Confederacy..."

Right, thus eliminating any possibility abolition states could join the Confederacy while remaining non-slave.

DiogenesLamp: "Raw power.
It was *ALWAYS* about raw power.
Our Civil War opponents simply do not want to believe that the vast bulk of the people on their side in 1860 were simply duped into believing this astro turf crap which had the real purpose of holding onto control of the Congress."

"Raw power," says our trained Marxist about his favored 1860s Confederates.
First & foremost, above all else raw power over their four million slaves -- worth about $4 billion, real money in those days, today's equivalent: $20 trillion.
Nothing could ever, nothing must ever interfere with their "peculiar institution".

Why else would Confederates declare secession despite not even one real reason equivalent to our 1776 Founders' reasons?
Why else would Confederates write their own constitution providing yet more legal protections for slavery and making abolition all but impossible?
Why else would Confederates provoke, start, declare & wage war against the United States, if not to protect the "raw power" they had just seized?
Why else would Confederates refuse to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender?

"Raw Power" is DiogenesLamp's explanation of choice and he is 100% correct regarding Fire Eater secessionists & Confederates' motives, granted.

Republican motives were quite different, and they begin, first & foremost with the Republicans' raison d'etre -- abolition.
That's not "astro-turf", it's just history.

DiogenesLamp: "Who among you supporters of the war against the South believe that Johnson suddenly had a change of heart and just wanted to help black people?"

LBJ well understood at the time that his 1964 Civil Rights Act would cost Southern white votes:

"I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come."

On LBJ's motives, biographer Randall Woods wrote:

'At 15 he joined the Disciples of Christ, or Christian, church and would forever believe that it was the duty of the rich to care for the poor, the strong to assist the weak, and the educated to speak for the inarticulate.'[110]
Johnson shared the beliefs of his mentor, FDR, in that he paired liberal values to religious values, believing that freedom and social justice served both God and man.[111] "

In terms of raw political power, LBJ gave up Southern white voters to gain Southern & Northern black votes.
Was it a good deal?
It worked great for him in 1964 against the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

In later years (i.e., 1968, 1980, 2016), not so much.

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.