Benefactor’s family demands refund after U. Richmond removes name from law school

The College Fix ^ | 1/18/23 | Rafael Oliveria

[CFW]

The University of Richmond recently removed the name of T.C. Williams, an early benefactor, from its law school because of his alleged ownership of slaves in the 19th century.

The family argues he contributed to the demise of slavery and now argues the university should refund Williams’ previously donated money to the institution.

“If suddenly his name is not good enough for the University, then isn’t the proper ethical and indeed virtuous action to return the benefactor’s money with interest? At a 6% compounded interest over 132 years, T.C. Williams gift to the law school alone is now valued at over $51 million, and this does not include many other substantial gifts from my family to the University,” Rob Smith, Williams’ great-great-grandson, said in a letter to President Kevin Hallock.

[jmacusa]

The Lost Cause wet dream: Richmond Gazette, April 9, 1865. "WAR OVER!! BRUTAL, INDUSTRIAL NORTH DEFEATED BY GENTLEMANLY, AGRICULTRUAL SOUTH!!""

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "He tried to make slavery legal forever. You are trying to dodge that ugly truth. You are making excuses for him.""

T of T: "I'm not making excuses for anyone. Many people criticized Lincoln for different reasons."

Our FRiend DiogenesLamp has been beating this horse for years now, but it's not just a dead horse, it's totally imaginary, in DiogenesLamp's mind.
The truth is Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans and signed by outgoing President Buchanan, not by Lincoln.
Lincoln said he did not oppose Corwin because in Lincoln's mind it did not change the Constitution as he understood it.

Corwin simply said individual States, not Federal government, would decide on slavery, and that's also what Lincoln believed the Constitution implied.

Corwin had the practical effect of helping keep Border Slave States in the Union until they themselves (Maryland & Missouri) decided, or the 13th Amendment (Kentucky & Delaware) forced them, to abolish slavery.

As for the role of Federal troops, we should remember that none of the Border Slave States ever voted to secede, but all except Delaware were invaded by Confederate forces.

That's what made the Civil War a War of Confederate Aggression.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The original 7 seceding states could have accepted the North's offer of a constitutional amendment expressly protecting slavery effectively forever.
They turned it down."

That's total nonsense.
In fact, Senator Jefferson Davis himself proposed a Corwin-like compromise in December, 1860, but it was rejected by Republicans and Davis's home state of Mississippi soon after declared secession.
Corwin had nothing to do with that, it came much later AFTER all seven Deep South States seceded and formed their new Confederacy.

So Corwin was not aimed at the Deep South, it was aimed at Border Slave states, and it did help, even though every one of them had already voted against secession BEFORE Corwin passed Congress.
Still, Corwin may have helped keep those States loyal, for the war's first two years.

Then, Maryland, Missouri and West Virginia voted themselves to abolish slavery, while Kentucky and Delaware waited for the 13th Amendment ratification.

FLT-bird: "Everybody knew the war was about tariffs, trade and ultimately, money.
It was not about slavery.
In fact, the US Congress passed a resolution in 1862 explicitly stating that they were not fighting over slavery."

No, "mostly peaceful" secession became war when Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States, in Union States.
Those made it a war of existential self-preservation and everything else was then secondary.
Nevertheless, slavery was the biggest stated reason for secession and every thinking Northerner understood from Day One, that the Confederacy could not be destroyed unless slavery was also fully abolished.

That's why the Union Army began immediately freeing fugitive slaves who sought Union Army protection.
They were called "Contraband of War" and Congress in 1861 began passing laws to protect them.

So slavery was there, even in the very beginning, and as the war progressed, total abolition became more & more explicitly the Union's ultimate goal.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: " Even after Manassas, Congress passed a resolution stating that 'this war is not waged . . . for any purpose of . . . overthrowing established institutions [meaning slavery] . . . but to defend . . . the Constitution and to preserve the Union.' "

And yet, in August, 1861, Congress passed the first Confiscation Act authorizing freedom for fugitive Confederate slaves.
So abolition was a major issue from Day One.

[jmacusa]

As always an excellent view of things Joe.

In the past I've asked these Lost Cause disciples a simple question; If the South had won the war would it have ended slavery? They dodge and twist and turn on that one. I ask because I've gotten half hearted answers along the mumbled lines of "Slavery was a ''dying institution''. Well, for a ''dying institution'' it sure went kicking and screaming.

[Tired of Taxes]

Thank you! Some posters seem to be claiming that the Confederate states were only fighting against a tariff and that Lincoln was the one who supported slavery.

In 20 years here, I’ve heard many theories on many topics, but I don’t remember coming across that one before.

[FLT-bird]

Without a doubt, those states opposed the tariff. But, the real argument was about slavery.

Without a doubt, the real argument was not about slavery.

[FLT-bird]

That's total nonsense. In fact, Senator Jefferson Davis himself proposed a Corwin-like compromise in December, 1860, but it was rejected by Republicans and Davis's home state of Mississippi soon after declared secession.,/p>

No its not. Its 100% true. They could have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They rejected it.

So Corwin was not aimed at the Deep South, it was aimed at Border Slave states, and it did help, even though every one of them had already voted against secession BEFORE Corwin passed Congress. Still, Corwin may have helped keep those States loyal, for the war's first two years.

The North made it perfectly clear it was willing to protect slavery - expressly - and effectively forever. Slavery was not the issue. The original 7 seceding states turned down this offer and refused to return.

No, "mostly peaceful" secession became war when Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States, in Union States. Those made it a war of existential self-preservation and everything else was then secondary. Nevertheless, slavery was the biggest stated reason for secession and every thinking Northerner understood from Day One, that the Confederacy could not be destroyed unless slavery was also fully abolished.

No. Slavery was only cited because no matter how much Southerners hated the tariff and partisan federal economic legislation, that was not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was unconstitutional. When the North quickly offered undeniable evidence of their lack of hostility toward slavery as a means of mollifying Southern concerns, the Southern states rejected it. Lincoln started the war. He did so deliberately and without Congressional authorization.

So slavery was there, even in the very beginning, and as the war progressed, total abolition became more & more explicitly the Union's ultimate goal.

Abolition became the fig leaf Lincoln needed to help keep the Europeans out of the war and to try to falsely portray his war for money and empire which he thought was going to be easy but which instead turned into a costly bloodbath as some kind of noble cause.

[FLT-bird]

And yet, in August, 1861, Congress passed the first Confiscation Act authorizing freedom for fugitive Confederate slaves. So abolition was a major issue from Day One.

Destroying enemy property is standard in war. The North was certainly not fighting over slavery. They made it perfectly clear explicitly many times.

[FLT-bird]

South Carolina laid out the reasoning and called for other slaveholding states to follow. The war was about slavery.

Yes, South Carolina certainly did. The war was not about slavery.

Lincoln spoke against slavery, but he campaigned only to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories because he wanted to preserve the Union and keep the peace. To convince slave states not to secede, he may have tried to appease them with support of the Corwin Amendment, but that amendment would not have interfered with Lincoln's plan to stop the expansion of slavery into new territory. He believed the practice of slavery would end eventually in existing slave states.

Whatever Lincoln's objections to slavery, he was willing to protect it where it existed and even to strengthen fugitive slave laws. The Southern states naturally saw the attempt to monopolize all western territories as a power grab...a means of eliminating their ability to block sky high tariffs and even more federal money being lavished overwhelmingly on the North even thought he South was paying the vast majority of the tariffs.

[FLT-bird]

Well, the economies of the Confederate states did depend on slavery.

To say the economies of the Southern states "depended on" slavery is going way too far. Only 5.67% of the total free population in the Southern states owned slaves. The other 90%+ were making a living without earning money from slaves.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. Many people criticized Lincoln for different reasons. Some abolitionists considered him weak on the issue. But, the fact is, he spoke against slavery but campaigned only on stopping the expansion of slavery, and Corwin would not have expanded slavery.

No. It would have enshrined slavery in the US Constitution and protected it effectively forever.

Lincoln opposed slavery, and the war was over slavery. Any other theory is revisionism. If you believe the states seceded over a tariff, you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Lincoln was for a massive tariff and the war was over tariffs/money. Any other theory is revisionism. If you believe the states seceded over slavery - which was not threatened and which the Northern states offered to protect specifically in the constitution effectively forever - and which the original 7 seceding states rejected, you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

[FLT-bird]

Thank you! Some posters seem to be claiming that the Confederate states were only fighting against a tariff and that Lincoln was the one who supported slavery. In 20 years here, I’ve heard many theories on many topics, but I don’t remember coming across that one before.

Read the Corwin Amendment. For that matter, read Lincoln's first inaugural address.

[Tired of Taxes]

To say the economies of the Southern states "depended on" slavery is going way too far. Only 5.67% of the total free population in the Southern states owned slaves.

Wealth is always concentrated among a small percentage of people. In 1860, a small percentage of southerners held 4 million slaves, and the South's economy depended on the cotton produced and exported. The reason they were able to produce so much cotton was slave labor (and the cotton gin).

Are we supposed to believe the Confederacy sacrificed the lives of thousands of southerners over a tariff that 7 southern senators didn't even bother to vote on? A tariff they knew would pass, so they didn't bother trying to block it?

Or, was the Confederacy fighting to keep 4 million slaves from being freed? South Carolina was clear on the answer - they were fighting to continue the practice of slavery. Slave trading was part of the economy, too. The vast majority of people living in Confederate states did not hold slaves, but the wealthy few who did, did not want to lose money on their investment.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "No its not. Its 100% true.
They could have accepted slavery forever by express constitutional amendment.
They rejected it."

First, Corwin did not guarantee slavery forever, under Corwin:

1. States themselves could still abolish slavery.

2. Federal government could abolish slavery in US territories.

3. Federal government could abolish slavery in Washington, DC.

4. Federal government could abolish new imports of foreign slaves.

5. Federal government could regulate interstate transportation of slaves and SCOTUS could rule on when a slave must be considered freed.

With the exception of international imports, the Confederate constitution allowed none of that, and so nobody in Confederate states in March 1861 would consider Corwin as relevant.
Corwin did, however, appeal to some in Border Slave states, and so may have, peripherally, helped preserve the Union.

FLT-bird: "The North made it perfectly clear it was willing to protect slavery - expressly - and effectively forever.
Slavery was not the issue.
The original 7 seceding states turned down this offer and refused to return."

Those are total lies. Slavery was the issue and the Confederate constitution offered the Deep South much better terms protecting slavery than Corwin could ever imagine.
Corwin changed nothing in reality, that's why Lincoln did not oppose it.

FLT-bird: "Slavery was only cited because no matter how much Southerners hated the tariff and partisan federal economic legislation, that was not unconstitutional while the Northern states' refusal to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was unconstitutional. "

No, you're wrong yet again.
The Compromise of 1850 effectively ended the Fugitive Slave clause as a Southern political weapon against Northerners.
The 1850 Compromise removed fugitive slaves from states' responsibility to a Federal responsibility.
So Northerners could say what they wanted, the Federal government still enforced Fugitive Slave laws.

That's why Southern secession talk ended after 1850 and only seriously revived again in 1860 when Southerners feared Federal "Black Republicans" would no longer enforce Federal Fugitive Slave laws.

Further, the Deep South had no legal standing to complain about Northern Fugitive Slave laws' enforcement, since virtually no slaves from the Deep South ever escaped to Northern states.

FLT-bird: "Abolition became the fig leaf Lincoln needed to help keep the Europeans out of the war and to try to falsely portray his war for money and empire which he thought was going to be easy but which instead turned into a costly bloodbath as some kind of noble cause."

Both preserving the Union against Confederate aggression and destroying Southern slavery were noble causes worthy of the sacrifices Americans made to achieve them.

Those are facts, all your pro-Confederate lies notwithstanding.

[FLT-bird]

Wealth is always concentrated among a small percentage of people. In 1860, a small percentage of southerners held 4 million slaves, and the South's economy depended on the cotton produced and exported. The reason they were able to produce so much cotton was slave labor (and the cotton gin).

You're assuming only those who owned the slaves produced all the cotton. Bad assumption. It was common practice for family farms to devote a significant percentage of their acreage to cotton or other cash crops to raise the money they needed to buy what they could not produce on the farm. All of these middle class farmers in aggregate cranked out a lot of cotton.

Are we supposed to believe the Confederacy sacrificed the lives of thousands of southerners over a tariff that 7 southern senators didn't even bother to vote on? A tariff they knew would pass, so they didn't bother trying to block it?

What do people always fight over? Money. They felt they were being overwhelmed by the Northern states and that they were being taxed not for their own benefit but for the benefit of others. Furthermore, they knew they did not have the power to prevent ever higher taxes. That's essentially the same issue their parents and grandparents had seceded from the British Empire over. Are we to believe the 90%+ of Southerners who did not own slaves were willing to die for those who did? That seems far more implausible.

Or, was the Confederacy fighting to keep 4 million slaves from being freed? South Carolina was clear on the answer - they were fighting to continue the practice of slavery.

False. South Carolina made it abundantly clear they were fighting for economic and political independence. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US.

Slave trading was part of the economy, too. The vast majority of people living in Confederate states did not hold slaves, but the wealthy few who did, did not want to lose money on their investment.

Again, you would have to assume 94.33% were willing to fight and die to protect the property of 5.67%. That's simply not believable.

[FLT-bird]

First, Corwin did not guarantee slavery forever, under Corwin:

First it takes 3/4s of the states to pass an amendment. So it would take 3/4s to pass a future amendment overturning the Corwin Amendment. There were 15 states that still allowed slaveholding. Ergo it would take 45 states to overcome the refusal of these 15 and pass another amendment. 15+45=60. There are only 50 states in the country even today. It would have been impossible to ban slavery without the consent of these 15 states. Everybody understood this at the time.

States themselves could still abolish slavery.

Nobody objected to a state doing so if it chose.

Federal government could abolish slavery in US territories.

And? So what. When the Southern states seceded, they made no claim to US territories. They were perfectly willing to give up any chance of spreading slavery to the territories. Clearly they weren't fighting over that.

Federal government could abolish slavery in Washington, DC.

So what? That wasn't a big deal to anyone.

Federal government could abolish new imports of foreign slaves.

That had been abolished since 1810 once the 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution expired.

Federal government could regulate interstate transportation of slaves and SCOTUS could rule on when a slave must be considered freed.

That would take a revolution in the reading of the commerce clause - something that did not happen until the New Deal in the 1930s....and something as likely to be opposed by Northerners as Southerners.

With the exception of international imports, the Confederate constitution allowed none of that, and so nobody in Confederate states in March 1861 would consider Corwin as relevant.

The Confederate Constitution did not allow the import of slaves just as the US Constitution did not after 1810. Nor did the Confederate Constitution prevent a state choosing to abolish slavery nor a state that did not allow slavery from joining the CSA. Corwin wasn't relevant in even the original 7 seceding states because they weren't seceding over slavery. After all, only a tiny percentage of the population even owned slaves. They were seceding for economic and political independence.

Corwin did, however, appeal to some in Border Slave states, and so may have, peripherally, helped preserve the Union.

The Corwin Amendment made it quite clear to everyone, that slavery was not threatened in the US. Nobody was fighting over slavery.

Those are total lies. Slavery was the issue and the Confederate constitution offered the Deep South much better terms protecting slavery than Corwin could ever imagine. Corwin changed nothing in reality, that's why Lincoln did not oppose it.

That's a total lie. Slavery was not the issue and the Confederate Constitution offered no real protections of slavery that were not already in the US constitution. All it did was spell out the word "slavery" in particular while the US Constitution hinted at it, meant it, but did not expressly use that word.

No, you're wrong yet again. The Compromise of 1850 effectively ended the Fugitive Slave clause as a Southern political weapon against Northerners. The 1850 Compromise removed fugitive slaves from states' responsibility to a Federal responsibility. So Northerners could say what they wanted, the Federal government still enforced Fugitive Slave laws.

Nope. I'm right again. You're wrong. The Northern states violated the fugitive slave clause of the US constitution. They passed laws explicitly hindering the capture and return of escaped slaves.

That's why Southern secession talk ended after 1850 and only seriously revived again in 1860 when Southerners feared Federal "Black Republicans" would no longer enforce Federal Fugitive Slave laws.

The Northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause was just the pretext. The real issue was the Morrill Tariff. Once it became clear to Southerners the Tariff of Abominations was going to be repeated - and furthermore that from now on they would no longer have the power to prevent sectional partisan legislation like this from impoverishing them and enriching the Northern states even more, they decided they had had enough and left.

Further, the Deep South had no legal standing to complain about Northern Fugitive Slave laws' enforcement, since virtually no slaves from the Deep South ever escaped to Northern states.

It was a legal pretext. It was never the real issue.

Both preserving the Union against Confederate aggression and destroying Southern slavery were noble causes worthy of the sacrifices Americans made to achieve them.,/p>

The Confederates were not the aggressors. The Union was. The Union would have been preserved even if the Southern states had left. It simply would have been smaller. The war was not about slavery which is something the Northern dominated federal government made abundantly clear to everyone. The war was about independence and self government on the part of the Southern states and money and empire on the part of the Northern states/federal government.

Those are facts, all your pro-Confederate lies notwithstanding.

Those are the facts, all your pro union PC Revisionist lies notwithstanding.

[Tired of Taxes]

"You're assuming only those who owned the slaves produced all the cotton."

No, I never said that. But, a plantation could produce much more cotton than a small farm.

"They felt they were being overwhelmed by the Northern states and that they were being taxed not for their own benefit but for the benefit of others. Furthermore, they knew they did not have the power to prevent ever higher taxes."

Southern Democrats had blocked and cut tariffs before. If southern states hadn't seceded, their senators could've voted against the Morrill Tariff.

"South Carolina made it abundantly clear they were fighting for economic and political independence. Slavery simply was not threatened in the US."

South Carolina explicitly referred to slavery as the reason in its Declaration of Secession. Also, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas explicitly stated in their declarations that slavery was their reason. Other states either hinted at slavery, explained they were siding with other slave states, or did not bother to offer an explanation.

The secession was about slavery.

"Again, you would have to assume 94.33% were willing to fight and die to protect the property of 5.67%. That's simply not believable."

For generations, southerners had lived with slavery as a way of life. Anyway, what would've happened to a poor southerner who refused to fight for the Confederacy?

[FLT-bird]

No, I never said that. But, a plantation could produce much more cotton than a small farm.

But there were many more small farms than large plantations.

Southern Democrats had blocked and cut tariffs before. If southern states hadn't seceded, their senators could've voted against the Morrill Tariff.

The balance of power had been tilting ever more away from them. They were in a shrinking minority and knew that the Morrill Tariff would pass - and they knew it wouldn't end there.

South Carolina explicitly referred to slavery as the reason in its Declaration of Secession. Also, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas explicitly stated in their declarations that slavery was their reason. Other states either hinted at slavery, explained they were siding with other slave states, or did not bother to offer an explanation.

South Carolina also explicitly cited unfair tariffs and federal expenditures in the address of Rhett that was sent out with their declaration of causes. The only state in fact that did not list economic grievances in its declaration of causes was Mississippi. Arkansas issued no declaration of causes and only seceded when ordered to provide troops to attack other states. As has been stated several times, the northern states' violation of the fugitive slave clause of the constitution was a PRETEXT. It provided the Southern states a legally justifiable means of saying that the other side had broken the compact. It was true, they had. It was not the reason why the Southern states left. That's why the Corwin Amendment failed. Their real grievances were economic, not over the issue of slavery which simply was not threatened in the US.

<The secession was about slavery.,/p>

The secession was not about slavery.

For generations, southerners had lived with slavery as a way of life. Anyway, what would've happened to a poor southerner who refused to fight for the Confederacy?

You haven't addressed why anybody should believe 94.33% of the Southern Whites would be willing to fight and die to protect the property of 5.67%. What would happen to Southerners who refused to fight? I'd guess the same thing that would happen to Northerners who refused to fight for the Union.

[DiogenesLamp]

So Corwin was not aimed at the Deep South,

So why did Lincoln send all those handwritten letters about the Corwin Amendment to the governors of all the seceded states?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, the economies of the Confederate states did depend on slavery.

So did those of the north. If I recall correctly, the South produced 200 million per year in trade with Europe (60% going to New York and DC) and 500 million per year in direct trade with the North.

Preserving the Union by allowing slave states to remain slave states while assuring any new states would be free.

What does making sure new states are "free states" have to do with preserving the Union. Couldn't the Union be preserved if those were made into slave states? What would happen? The North would secede?

The two things have nothing to do with each other. They are just trotted out to justify invading the South.

He figured slavery would end on its own in the slave states.

Anyone who has ever bothered to look at the march of abolition through the states over the years would have to conclude that at some point it would eventually go through all the states, even the ones most dependent upon slavery. It would just be a question of when that would happen.

But, the fact is, he spoke against slavery but campaigned only on stopping the expansion of slavery, and Corwin would not have expanded slavery.

You are very much mistaken. With the Corwin Amendment in place, all a state has to do is make a law recognizing slavery in that state's borders. The Corwin Amendment effectively removes any ability of congress to prohibit slavery in a state. The Corwin amendment completely hands the expansion of slavery to the territories if they want it.

The Corwin Amendment overturns everything they claimed to be fighting for in the way of halting expansion.

Do you know what it doesn't do? It doesn't stop the money from flowing into DC and New York. *THAT* is why they wanted it. It would keep the money flowing.

Lincoln opposed slavery, and the war was over slavery.

The Corwin Amendment proves conclusively that it was *NOT* over slavery. Offering permanent slavery to the South simply proves the North did not give a crap about the issue of slavery, and therefore they did not invade the South to stop slavery.

They invaded the South to stop it from becoming independent. They were perfectly willing to keep it in the Union as a collection of slave states.

If you believe the states seceded over a tariff, you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

If you aren't focusing on the money, you are ignoring the elephant in the room. The Civil War was about money. Specifically about 700 million dollars per year the North would potentially lose as a consequence of Southern states having their own government.

All wars in history are fought over land and money. The American civil war was also fought over money, and very few people in the North gave a sh*t about the slaves. They simply did not care about them.