Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
God! I keep seeing this lie repeated over and over again. About three or four states made secession statements claiming slavery as an issue, but the other 8 did not.
It suits the revisionism people have been taught to claim these 3 or 4 spoke for all 11 states of the Confederacy.
How about you show me where in the Virginia secession statement it claims secession was over slavery? Hmmmm????
Only then was the invasion moral.
You can't make an immoral action "moral" after the fact, especially when it was clear they never had any intentions of doing this when they first invaded, and did in fact do so only for political and military benefit to themselves.
They didn't free the slaves because they loved black people, they freed the slaves because they hated the people who owned them. What's more, they didn't free any slaves in the Union, so it was just a lot of hypocritical posturing.
And we know this because countless northern history writers keep telling us this, even though it doesn't make any real sense when you look at the facts.
Yes he did, he urged passage of the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address, and even went so far as to send letters with his signature to notify both the Northern and Southern states that the amendment passed congress.
Article 4, section 2. They absolutely refused to enforce it.
It may be an immoral clause, but the legal system is supposed to enforce the law as written, even when they don't like it.
Now I will have to look that up.
They did indeed. Slavery.
So states that had slavery could continue to sell across state lines just as they had done previously. Big deal.
Specifically protecting slave imports was not something the U.S. Constitution had.
Nonslaveholding states could be admitted - just as was said and contrary to what you claimed.
How? The Confederate Constitution makes that impossible. Perhaps you can explain the process that would result in that?
Except for the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise.
What you refer to as "the fugitive slave clause" said that people charged "in any state with treason, felony, or other crime" would be extradited. It covers far more than slavery so your description is not at all valid. The 3/5ths compromise does not specifically refer to slavery in the U.S Constitution. It does in the Confederate Constitution. I wonder why?
The Confederate Constitution essentially had the Corwin Amendment. Not much was different.
Except that the Corwin Amendment protected slavery where it existed and offered no guarantees on allowing its expansion. The Confederate Constitution guaranteed expansion in every corner of the country.
They wanted to provide each member state the leeway to manage it as they saw fit without interference from the central confederate government.
That would be the same central government which guaranteed that people could go into any state with their slaves, which prohibited any laws "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves" could be passed, which guaranteed no new states would be non-slave, or that the states could ever get an amendment doing away with slavery added to the Constitution? Doesn't look like a lot of leeway was allowed to me.
You left out a much more strict interpretation of the general welfare clause as well as expressly limiting tariffs to 10%...
There is no such limitation. All the Confederate Constitution says is that tariffs must be uniform and could not be protective. They could not be imposed on states in violation of treaties. They could be applied to fund lighthouses and such.
...as very tight restrictions on the ability of the central government to spend money such as a line item veto, a ban on riders being attached to bills, term limits etc.
It's very debatable on how restrictive those were. The term limits applied to the president only. The constitution did allow for riders or amendments. The line item veto did exist in it.
Their objections went way beyond slavery.
The objections didn't go far beyond slavery, if they went beyond it at all.
Other historical revisionists want us to believe that it wasn't about slavery and it wasn't a rebellion. As your presence here demonstrates.
Don't bother, it's just DL's BS. His opinion which he presents as fact.
We know this because countless Southern leaders told us.
Which they saw as an infringement upon their rights under the constitution that they hadn't agreed to. The constitution was clearly designed to protect slavery, and if you read the debates about slavery during the convention, it is clear that the non slave states (which were an extreme Minority in 1787) accepted that the nation would be a slave owning nation. The Slave owning states made it clear in the convention that if the institution of slavery was not accommodated, they would refuse to ratify the new Constitution.
Nobody at the time suggested that slaves would be banned from the territory. From the gist of the discussion it is clear that the Slave owning states would have never agreed to that.
But saying the war wasn't about slavery is silly. The states that left said WHY they left.
A few of them said they left because of slavery, but the vast bulk of them did not say that. Virginia was perhaps the most important of all the states of the Confederacy, go look in their secession statement and see if it says anything about leaving over slavery.
People keep repeating that the Confederate states left over slavery, even though it would have remained legal in the Union into the foreseeable future, but they repeat this because this is what they truly wish to believe, because in their minds it justifies all the bloodshed and the very bad thing they did to the people of the South.
It is the only way in their mind they can justify all the unnecessary murder of people who just wanted to be left alone by Washington DC.
“Now let’s ask ourselves who knew the war and aftermath better....the magnanimous victors a generation or two after the war including those who fought in it”
What’s curious to me is how hard it is to find a copy of Charles Francis Adams Jr.’s essay “Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?”.
It’s really about Robert E Lee and secession. I suspect it’s ignored and not readily available because Adams concludes that secession wasn’t un-Constitutional, and that Lee was heroic and deserving of a statue.
This is anathema to the south haters of today.
Adams by contrast admired the South. He had been a Union Army officer and personally experienced Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia at Antietam. In addition to being an historian he was the grandson and g-grandson of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. About as strong a Yankee pedigree as anyone ever had.
He was promoting it. If he didn't give a care one way or the other, what point to putting it in his inaugural address? Why sign the letters going out to the Governors? The President plays no role in constitutional amendments. Adding his signature notifies the governors that this amendment has his support.
“he urged passage of the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address,”
Here is what Lincoln said about the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural address.
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”
Doesn’t read to me that he “urged” anything vis-à-vis the Corwin Amendment.
C F Adams, Jr. is a really interesting individual. He was the only one of his brothers to actually serve in combat in the war. He was offered staff positions because of his distinguished family and he declined and served as a regimental officer in a Union cavalry regiment through the war. He was invited to be the keynote speaker at the dedication of the Lee statue in Lee Chapel at W & L. Now the craven administrators at that school insist that the chapel doors be closed anytime there is an event such as commencement. The snowflakes might melt to glimpse a statue of the noble Lee.
The fact that the "free soil movement" was founded and headquartered in New York, is a clue about this being a contest of political power, with slavery being used cynically to secure that power in the manner that "Dreamers" are being utilized nowadays.
When's the last time you were down south? This ain't your grandfather's Dixie.
You'd better be one tough hombre if you wanna wear the stars and bars around any major cities down here.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Florida_Ordinance_of_Secession
Very few people, anywhere, recognize the Stars and Bars.
If someone were to wear the familiar Confederate battle flag or rectangular Naval Jack, then yes, a terrorist mob might kill them. It would be like throwing a banana into a monkey house.
LOL! Don’t make Me come back over there or else...
i think ya might have too
“Other historical revisionists want us to believe that it wasn’t about slavery and it wasn’t a rebellion.”
I have to ask: if the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
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.