Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[DoodleDawg]

This is really a stupid statement. Enshrined is enshrined no matter how you wish to describe it. It's like it makes a difference how someone is murdered. The murderer is STILL the murderer.

Except that, to use your analogy, what constituted murder under the U.S. Constitution did not constitute murder under the Confederate one. The U.S. Constitution did not protect slave imports, the Confederate Constitution did. The U.S. Constitution allowed states to outlaw slavery, the Confederate Constitution did not. The U.S. Constitution allowed Congress to decide if slavery would be allowed in the territories, the Confederate Constitution mandated slavery's legality in any territory the Confederacy acquired. The U.S. Constitution would allow for the end to slavery via Constitutional amendment, but even had the Corwin Amendment been adopted it would also be impossible to end slavery through Constitution amendment in the Confederacy as well. There was a great deal of difference on how both documents dealt with slavery.

[DoodleDawg]

Soon to be destroyed Michigan monument at Shiloh A desecration of Southern ground

Then we had better bulldoze all those rebel monuments around Gettysburg.

[bert]

Gettysburg is in Yankee land and not sacred Southern soil

[FLT-bird]

Because it was an area in which they could legitimately say the Northern States had violated the constitution. It provided them the pretext they needed to get out from under exploitative federal legislation that benefitted the Northern states while draining money out of their pockets.

[DoodleDawg]

Gettysburg is in Yankee land and not sacred Southern soil

Soil sacred to us, while banjoland doesn't mean as much.

[robowombat]

Hardly surprising. The economy of most of the South revolved around staple agriculture mostly performed by black chattels. Who is about to line up for the destruction of ones economy as well as letting loose very large numbers of blackamoors? The closest current analogy is the damage that the Paris Protocol would do to the US economy if it were enforced and that is a much milder effect than the end of slavery would have in the South. The GOP had fastened on the existence of slavery as a vote getting mechanism. Hence as soon as the party was organized they commenced yelling about slavery incessantly. The goal being to get a majority of white males in the mid-west who would become voters to support the new party which was really just the northern Whigs trying to build a constituency. The Whigs under John Quincy; Adams or Clay could never convince a majority of Americans to vote for the ‘American Plan’ of high tariffs, centralization of banking and mass subsidies to connected elites for railway construction. So yelling about slavery especially in the territories where it was never going to be a real issue, became the GOP default. Windbags like Seward positively relished agitating the rubes with such political crapola as ‘irrepressible conflict’.

Between the GOP tactical vote trolling campaign and the abolitionist venom and finally actually plotting and supporting an attempt to start a slave uprising under John Brown Southerners had very good reason to not trusting anything a northern politician might say about guaranteeing slavery and believing they had no place in the federal union.

[FLT-bird]

Yes, as I said, slavery was not threatened. Lincoln was very plain about saying that and did not mince his words.

I said he supported stronger fugitive slave legislation. I did not say he said that specifically in his inaugural address. He didn’t. He said that at other times. He did not talk about fugitive slave legislation in his inaugural address.

[FLT-bird]

If you had read Doris Kearns-Goodwin’s book or several other sources you would know that Lincoln not only knew about the Corwin Amendment - he orchestrated its passage through the northern dominated Congress with the necessary supermajority. As the de facto leader of the party it would hardly make sense that he would not have read the legislation as he claimed during his inaugural address. He also leaned on his political supporters to arrange its passage through a few state legislatures.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes, as I said, slavery was not threatened. Lincoln was very plain about saying that and did not mince his words.

As you said. And as I pointed out it was not threatened in places where it currently existed. Expansion was definitely threatened by Lincoln and the Republicans, and Lincoln did not mince words on that either.

I said he supported stronger fugitive slave legislation. I did not say he said that specifically in his inaugural address. He didn’t. He said that at other times. He did not talk about fugitive slave legislation in his inaugural address.

Well then how about some quotes?

[miss marmelstein]

It’s mind-boggling.

[Rebelbase]

Slavery was no more threatened than the 2A today.

[trebb]

The irony is that MLK wanted Blacks to integrate into society - his memory must be a love-hate thing for those who worship him.

[FLT-bird]

Did it ever occur to you that people sometimes act on pretexts...ie they do what they wanted to do (for other reasons) anyway and then find a reason to justify what they wanted all along anyway?

Oh and of course only 4 states listed causes and 3 of those 4 listed several causes other than preservation of slavery and several states - including Virginia and the whole Upper South - obviously did not secede over slavery because they were happy to remain in so long as the federal government did not try to impose itself by force on states that no longer consented to be ruled by it.

Its silly to claim that secession or the war were “about” slavery.

[deport]

They say that Texas will eventually turn “blue”

**************

Texas is only three governors removed from a democrat governor.
Things change but as time goes on the influx of people from other
parts will definitely impact how the states votes.

[MamaTexan]

I am curious, how in circa 1860 did the Fedgov refuse to honor the Constitution as written?

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution places the subject of slavery within the purview of the States, not the federal government.

This concept is reiterated in the historical records.

{Sorry for the need to cut & paste - the Library of Congress disables a link]

Mr. HUGH L. WHITE. When the Constitution was framed, the great and leading interests of the whole country were considered, and, in the spirit of liberality and compromise, were adjusted and settled. They were settled upon principles that ought to remain undisturbed so long as the Constitution lasts, which I hope will be forever; for although liberty may be preferable to the Union, yet I think the Union is indispensable to the security of liberty. At the formation of the Constitution, slavery existed in many of the states; it was one of the prominent interests that was then settled. It, in all its domestic bearings, was left exclusively to the respective states to do with as they might think best, without any interference on the part of the federal government.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=607&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_uMGu::%230040608&linkText=1

---

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873 / SATURDAY, March 2, 1861.
Article 6. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution, and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=052/llsj052.db&recNum=378&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj05267))%230520379&linkText=1

----------

So, no - the superficial cause was slavery.

The underlying cause was the federal government (along with no too few of the other States) were abridging the Constitution, and eroding the oh-so-carefully drawn lines between federal and each sovereign State's authority.

[robowombat]

You are correct but not in the way the usual ‘glory hallelujah’ version goes.
Lincoln wanted slavery kept where it was. He certainly had no desire for all those blackamoors to be let loose and come north. He wanted power, just like the rest of the GOP. The Republicans were basically the northern Whigs and some hard money Democrats. They wanted high tariffs which the South would disproportionately pay and a lot of crony capitalism disguised as what we would cal'infrastructure’ spending. Lincoln just wanted to be President to get those things and did not factor in just how angry Southerners were for the decade of screaming about slavery Lincoln's party had engaged in and how frightened and rageful they were about the funding and launching of John Brown form the north.

That is the rather grubby basis for the secession crisis. Southerners believed rightly or wrongly,they were faced with an existential crisis and took steps to try and protect their persons, property and culture.

[FLT-bird]

Yes, as I said, slavery was not threatened.

It was not economically viable in places like New Mexico or Arizona anyway so there was no real appetite to spread slavery there once votes in the Senate were no longer needed.

“When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution.........

A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter. I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.” Abraham Lincoln

[Redmen4ever]

“slavery was the political meme horse used to perpetuate the war to maintain the union AFTER the war started”

Correct. Once the casualties started to mount, the union could not have prosecuted the war without a moral cause.

Compare this cause (to end slavery) to why we joined in World War I. What the heck was THAT war about? (Technically, we were mad at the Germans for interfering with our commerce with the United Kingdom. This was similar to the cause of the War of 1812. In both cases, we got sucked into European conflicts.)

This country has gotten itself sucked into one after another no-win war, and now we’re losing them. By my count, the only “good wars” in our history were: the war of independence, the civil war (after the emancipation proclamation), World War II, and the Afghanistan War (prior to the surge).

War of 1812 - bad
Mexican War - o.k. (1)
Civil War - bad/good (before/after the emancipation proclamation)
Spanish American War - o.k./bad (2)
WWI - bad
WWII - good
Korean War - o.k.
Vietnam War - bad
Persian Gulf War - o.k.
Afghanistan War - good/bad (before/after surge)
Iraq War - bad
Obama’s Wars (Libya and Syria in addition to messing up our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan) - bad

(1) To his credit, Pres. Polk tried to negotiate a fair settlement of the border, and offered Mexico compensation if that border was put at the Rio Grande (the Texas claim). But, the Mexicans have always been very emotional and chose to fight rather than make a deal.
(2) The bad part was the suppression of the Moros. The Philippines is nowadays giving the Moros semi-autonomous status, which is what we should have done.

[FLT-bird]

MamaTexan,
I agree with you the usurpation of power by the federal government was definitely part of the reason for secession.

Another HUGE issue was that Southerners well understood after the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis the effect that very high protective tariffs would have on their economy and they well understood that the Northern states - via their congressional majority due to their larger population - were voting themselves a hugely disproportionate share of federal largesse raised from those high protective tariffs paid by Southern Exporter/Importers be it for mining and railroad subsidies, fishing subsidies, infrastructure projects, etc etc. They also understood that in addition, a high protective tariff on manufactured goods would have the effect of raising prices - thus once again benefiting the Northern states which did the vast majority of the manufacturing.

The Southern economy was geared toward the export of cash crops. The economic legislation that would be beneficial to them was the exact opposite of what would most benefit the Northern states which were industrializing at the time.

As always, people fight about money.

[mabarker1]

I lived in Texas for 38 years, I've been gone for 5 years and Y'All have let things get this bad ?!?!

Don't make Me come back over there or else...

< low volume rant >< mumble mumble grumble... >Buy 'em books, send 'em to school and they eat the damned pages...< /low volume rant >< /mumble mumble grumble... >