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.
Want some Russian dressing with that? ;-)
Typical Democrat, you accuse me of your own failings.
So "word salad" pretty well describes our Lost Causers' quotes & data -- almost none of it really means what you people claim it says.
An not one of you can face up to the truth of that, FRiend.
You should spend some of this “energy” where the fight is REALLY at, Bro.
On Twitter.
Your little game here on FR is just onanism. ;-)
Your "little game here" devolves instantly to insults, you can't carry on a reasoned conversation.
Typical of Democrats & Lost Causers, but I repeat myself.
Looks like The BrOnanist is a Last Worder, eh?
It has long been my belief that if the Confederacy had been allowed to become stable, all the outlying territories and many of the states then part of the Union would have gone over to it. The five border states would have of course gone over to the Confederacy. Several of them came close anyways, and were only prevented by use of Federal forces to stop them.
I've often lamented in the past that the "genius" Presidents get us involved in F***ed up sh*t. Carter was supposed be "brilliant." Kennedy was supposed to be "Brilliant". Woodrow Wilson was supposed to be "Brilliant, and of course Abraham Lincoln clearly was "brilliant."
As is usual with "brilliant" intellectuals, they are often "too smart by half". They end up making a mess because they had the arrogance to think they knew what was going to happen, and it turned into a horrible mess because they overestimated their own powers of perception.
Yes, Lincoln lit the fuse on a very horrible war, and even though he was warned by his cabinet, he did it anyways because he thought he could handle it.
And yes, after so much bloodshed, they wanted to exploit a religious angle and claim it was "God's work." It was the only excuse that people would accept for all the horrors they brought to the people of both North and South.
This is the correct assessment of the late “unpleasantness”.
As I am attempting to clarify the dominant cause of the war, it is relevant. I have been misled for most of my life into believing the war was fought because slavery was bad, but I have learned in the last few years that this is the cover story for the real reason, and the real reason is because Southern independence was a grave economic threat to the same North Easter power interests who are *STILL F***ING WITH THE REST OF US TODAY!*
Honest to God, I noticed decades ago that every F***ing thing wrong with the nation seems to emanate from the Northeaster portion of the United States, Namely Massachusetts, New York, and Washington DC.
The News Media liars are orchestrated out of New York, and they literally lie about our President on a daily basis. I found out years ago, that everything on Television tends to be New York centric. As if New York is the center of the Nation, while all of us people out here in "flyover land" are considered backward rubes who should let our "betters" think for us.
I recall in 1995 when all the talking heads on the News media laughed at and ridiculed the idea that the Federal government should live within it's budget, and they regarded efforts to balance the federal government as irresponsible.
Since the disdain that the powerful people of New York feel towards the rest of is happening right now it was not so much of leap to think it has been going on a very long time. Even so far back as the 1850s. I see many parallels between what is going on right now and the same sort of arrogance and control of the money that was going on back then.
Bigtime.
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.