Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

<s>Robert</s>Beto O'Rourke Calls For Removal of Confederate Plaque [ed]
Newsweek ^ | November 27, 2018 | Alexandra Hutzler

Posted on 11/27/2018 3:32:30 PM PST by C19fan

Beto O’Rourke is calling for the removal of a controversial Confederate plaque hanging in the Texas State Capitol building, tweeting on Tuesday to “take it down today.” The plaque contains the Children of the Confederacy’s creed, which is a statement that pledges “to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery).”

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2020; attentionwhore; betoorourke; confederacy; dixie; firstworldproblem; firstworldproblems; hugeissue; lookatme; loser; moron; orourke; potus; purge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
To: C19fan

I think those who authored the plaque neglected to consult a piece of their own history. I will agree it was not a rebellion but to claim that slavery was not chief among the causes of secession is a long river in Egypt. As proof I offer “Texas Ordinance of Secession.” Slavery is mentioned.

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm


41 posted on 11/27/2018 6:36:56 PM PST by lastchance (Credo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x; All
But why did South Carolina and the other Deep South states secede?

if you read the original Confederate constitution, it said "to preserve slavery" so that IS why they fought the war.

42 posted on 11/27/2018 7:59:30 PM PST by The Bat Lady (Drain the Swamp no matter what letter is after the name, D or R doesn't matter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Butt-hole O’Rourke


43 posted on 11/28/2018 12:12:04 AM PST by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Two thumbs up!!


44 posted on 11/28/2018 12:43:17 AM PST by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

Freepers like things simple

Really simple


45 posted on 11/28/2018 12:46:53 AM PST by wardaddy (I don’t care that you’re not a racist......when the shooting starts it won’t matter what yo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Get your own plaque then C.

Put it wherever you live

Dixie sucks

democrats always bad

Republicans rock

Southerners are racist

Yankeees are morally superior

And so forth....

Send me a link if you do a go fund me for it

Meanwhile

Leave us alone to be morally less righteous than you

Please

We’re fine being archaic


46 posted on 11/28/2018 12:49:40 AM PST by wardaddy (I don’t care that you’re not a racist......when the shooting starts it won’t matter what yo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

He must have missed the article that says the Dems are done with White males....else he’d be shutting his yap...


47 posted on 11/28/2018 3:33:43 AM PST by trebb (Those who don't donate anything tend to be empty gasbags...no-value-added types)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

He should be consistent and say Texas was wrong to rebel from Mexico. Maybe if they beg, Mexico will allow Texas back in. In the meantime, at the least he should call for removing any plaques at the Alamo which glorify the defenders fighting against the lawful Mexican authorities.


48 posted on 11/28/2018 6:28:52 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: x; Uncle Sham

“But why did South Carolina and the other Deep South states secede? “

For the same reason that the British North American colonies seceded from the United Kingdom. Independence and self-government.

Charles Francis Adams Jr wrote eloquently about it in his “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?” essay.

And being the heir of John and John Quincy Adams, as well as a Union officer he can hardly be dismissed as a Confederate apologist.


49 posted on 11/28/2018 12:06:30 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Bat Lady

They seceded to preserve slavery in their own state. They fought a war because Lincoln assembled a 75,000 man army to force them to remain part of the Union. A look at where the battlefields are should give you an indication of who invaded whom.


50 posted on 11/28/2018 12:11:27 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; rockrr
For the same reason that the British North American colonies seceded from the United Kingdom. Independence and self-government.

What could they do in the Confederacy that they couldn't do in the US? And why was separation so urgent that they couldn't work it out in advance with the rest of the country?

And being the heir of John and John Quincy Adams, as well as a Union officer he can hardly be dismissed as a Confederate apologist.

CFA Jr. led an African-American cavalry regiment in the war and his experiences and reactions turned him against any notions of racial equality. He wasn't the only New Englander to repudiate his earlier idealism after the war. It wasn't any surprise that Adams became such an admirer of Robert E. Lee and such a critic of African-Americans and the Union cause later on.

51 posted on 11/28/2018 12:21:55 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: x

“CFA Jr. led an African-American cavalry regiment in the war and his experiences and reactions turned him against any notions of racial equality. “

I take it that you have never read the essay in question since it never once mentions African Americans, racial equality, or anything resembling the subject.

It’s entirely about the legality of secession and treason. In the original understanding of the American union as held by the South, versus the evolved understanding as popular in the North, and in regards to the United States own birth in the secession of 1776.


52 posted on 11/28/2018 12:42:57 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Bat Lady

“if you read the original Confederate constitution, it said “to preserve slavery” so that IS why they fought the war.”

If you read the original United States constitution, it enshrined slavery. President Lincoln twice took an oath to uphold the pro-slavery U.S. constitution.

Did you know the Union forces, ostensibly, were fighting to preserve the pro-slavery U.S. constitution? (Arguably, Union forces were fighting to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution.)

But, after the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln actually did add another slave state to the Union.

Look it up.


53 posted on 11/28/2018 2:27:09 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: x

“What could they do in the Confederacy that they couldn’t do in the US?”

Avoid confiscatory import taxes.


54 posted on 11/28/2018 2:33:09 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pelham; BroJoeK
The reasons why Adams changed his mind in fifty years aren't irrelevant to an assessment of his speech. He came to hate many things about post-Civil War America and that goes a long way to explain why he felt as he did.

Adams's speech isn't a very convincing defense of secession or the Confederacy. It's more rhetorical than a close legal or historical analysis. Adams doesn't convince me that George Washington would have supported Southern secession. He also all but admits that the secession movement wasn't peaceful and was originally inspired by the desire to protect slavery and create a "great semi-tropical slave-labor republic."

But being from one of the First Families of Massachusetts, Adams had much sympathy and fellow feeling for the First Families of Virginia. Nice sentiments, maybe, but what he wrote and said doesn't amount to a convincing justification for the Confederacy.

55 posted on 11/28/2018 2:43:22 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: x

I’ll take Occam’s Razor over that tortured rationale you’ve invented for why Adam’s wrote what he did.

Adams tells us in his essay why he chose to examine the legal issues of secession so long after the war that he had fought in. Because no one else had bothered to examine it, and he was both an historian and a scholar.

He never once mentions race, but your explanation is based upon the idea that race is what motivated him. That reads like the Left’s most popular explanation for everything that they disapprove of, attribute it to hidden racism. Don’t know why you’d want to go there.

Well at least this time the target of a racism accusation is the scion of the most prominent New England family in American political history instead of the usual Southern whipping boy, so you deserve credit for breaking new ground.


56 posted on 11/28/2018 3:02:35 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: The Bat Lady
"if you read the original Confederate constitution, it said "to preserve slavery" so that IS why they fought the war"

Preserving slavery was not an issue. In 1861, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio (a Yankee) proposed the Corwin Amendment which was a Constitutional Amendment that would enshrine slavery where it was being practiced (primarily the South). This amendment passed the House and the Senate but guess what? None of the representatives or Senators from the South voted for it. The North was trying to remove forever the issue of ending slavery in a bid to "preserve the union" so they could continue to financially rape the South.

The South had enough and was fed up that politically, no new slave states were going to be allowed which would continually weaken their ability to defend themselves from the North's imposing their will on them. The North had a sweet deal going for itself and did not want the gravy train to end. The South fought the war against their will and against their best interest as without some sort of foreign assistance, the deck was stacked against them winning in the long run. The North FORCED them to fight the war because the South had to defend themselves and their homes and families. Slavery isn't the cause. The Greed of the North was.

You would do well to study the financial impact that the Southern economy had on the North to see just how much wealth was being stolen from the South. The North made forty cents on the dollar from the profits of the South yet the South is who did all of the work and bore the responsibility for maintaining their large work forces. The North was not as pure as some history books would have you presume.

57 posted on 11/28/2018 3:11:52 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
You're saying that Adams's change of mind was unexpected and therefore somehow authoritative. But something like that was expected from some high status New Englanders in the years after the Civil War.

The Adamses felt that the country was slipping away from them and from people like themselves. That explains a lot of CFA Jr.'s life and writing. Same thing for his brother Henry.

Read CFA Jr.'s 1913 Founders' Day Address at the University of South Carolina.

In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long anti-slavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men — no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair — were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee " who had never had a chance," — a fellow-man who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.

Adams still believed slavery was technically wrong, but his conviction that Whites and Blacks were not equal did much to explain his increasing softness towards the Confederacy.

As I said before, he doesn't go deeply into the historical and legal background, so it's not out of place to attribute his conversion and his very emotional essay to his views on race.

58 posted on 11/28/2018 3:52:06 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: x

“As I said before, he doesn’t go deeply into the historical and legal background”

Well you can’t possibly be referring to “Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?” because that’s exactly what he does do. All he does is discuss the history of secession and it’s legal standing. That quote in your post is from a different essay a decade later.

But if you can produce even a single sentence from “Cromwell” discussing race and/or African Americans I’ll concede that race tinged his position in it.

Of course I’ve read that essay enough times to know that there is absolutely nothing in it like that, and that this is simply you reading an agenda into it. The Left loves to psychoanalyze their chosen targets to explain them away.
And you’re emulating that.


59 posted on 11/28/2018 4:27:46 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Well you can’t possibly be referring to “Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?” because that’s exactly what he does do. All he does is discuss the history of secession and it’s legal standing.

If that's what you think, you don't know the speech as well as you think you do. Nobody would mistake it for a serious legal or historical study. In all his meanderings, he doesn't make a strong legal case for secession. Maybe he didn't even mean to.

He admits that George Washington wouldn't have believed in secession and that by 1860 secession wasn't going to be accepted by the rest of the country. He makes a case that Lee was a decent man who meant well, but not any convincing case for secession or the Confederacy.

That quote in your post is from a different essay a decade later.

You can also look up Adams's 1906 essay, "Reflex Light From Africa" where he says much the same thing about Northerners being wrong about racial equality.

Adams had formed a mutual admiration society with many Southern segregationists. He expressed views similar to theirs, and they praised him for overcoming his Yankee prejudices and seeing the light about race. Their praise made Adams all the more well-disposed to Lee and the Confederacy. That is the background to his speech and it's hard to deny it.

You've found something you agree with and nothing's going to change your mind, I guess, but look around. When we find somebody has said or done something objectionable, doesn't that affect our opinion of him or her? Or do we just wave everything away and go on believing what we want to believe?

60 posted on 11/28/2018 5:31:46 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson