╌>

Beto O'Rourke Calls for Removal of Confederate Plaque From Texas State Capitol: 'Take it Down Today'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  johnrussell  •  6 years ago  •  227 comments

Beto O'Rourke Calls for Removal of Confederate Plaque From Texas State Capitol: 'Take it Down Today'
"Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Services, and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united in an Organization called the “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm and love of justice can exert its influence. We, therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor the memory of our beloved Veterans; to study and teach the truths of history...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




newsweek.com

Beto O'Rourke Calls for Removal of Confederate Plaque From Texas State Capitol: 'Take it Down Today'


By Alexandra Hutzler On 11/27/18 at 1:24 PM







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).”

Confederate_plaque_TT.jpg

Texas Democratic lawmaker Eric Johnson has demanded the marker be taken down, arguing that it is inaccurate and offensive. Last month, Johnson filed a request with the Capitol’s art curator to relocate the plaque so that it would not be in a “public space of honor.”

Last week, the state’s attorney general released a statement pointing out several officials who had the power and legal authority to remove the plaque. Those officials include the building’s curator, the State Preservation Board and the state legislature. As a result of the statement, the State Preservation Board is currently reviewing the procedure for removing a historical item.

“The AG has spoken. The Capitol curator can unilaterally remove the plaque. No need to politicize this issue or bog down the 86th #TxLege. Remove it and let’s move on,” Johnson tweeted on Monday evening.

O’Rourke retweeted Johnson’s tweet on Tuesday morning, writing “I’m with Eric on this one. Take it down today.”

It’s not the first time that the congressman has suggested that public confederate monuments in the state of Texas be taken down. “If there is some place to house them, such as in a museum where they can be presented in context with a full telling of the history, that’s one thing. But to be in a place of public honor that sends the message that these are people whose actions we honor, that cannot stand,” he said last year.






Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    6 years ago
Creed of the Children of the Confederacy

Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Services, and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united in an Organization called the “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm and love of justice can exert its influence.

We, therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor the memory of our beloved Veterans; 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). and always to act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors.

They actually have that hanging in the Texas Capitol Building?  What the hell is wrong with Texas ? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 years ago
They actually have that hanging in the Texas Capitol Building? What the hell is wrong with Texas ?

Nothing wrong with Texas.

You saw that they are going to review and in all likelihood move it or remove it, right?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    6 years ago

1959 is almost 60 years ago. That's been up in the Texas Capitol for the past 60 years?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    6 years ago

Isn't that what your seeded article stated?

Does that change that they will in all likelihood remove it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    6 years ago

You don't seem to have a point, so why are you saying anything?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    6 years ago

The point is that there is little sense in complaining about this when in all likelihood it will be removed.

What more do you want Texas to do about the plaque?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    6 years ago

Not everyone is astute enough to see the point.

Pity.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 years ago
 What the hell is wrong with Texas ? 

What's right with Texas?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2    6 years ago

San Antonio, Arlington, Austin

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.2.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.1    6 years ago
San Antonio, Arlington, Austin

Ok, those are nice places but......

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2    6 years ago

A short-sighted question. If you don't know, look it up.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.2    6 years ago

Then there's Lubbock, Abilene and El Paso to counteract....lol

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.2.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.3    6 years ago
A short-sighted question. If you don't know, look it up.

Why? I've been there, Dallas and, Huston are too congested, the other towns and, roads remind me of places from 70 years ago, the interstates through there are in need of repairs all the time and, there are more Hookers in Amarillo than there are citizens, I think.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.5    6 years ago

Dallas and Houston are rather large cities. Are they more congested than, say, San Francisco/San Jose or Los Angeles? Or Boston or Chicago? Or really ANY large city in the US?

10 cities with the worst traffic
Washington DC-VA-MD.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA.
San Francisco-Oakland, CA.
10 cities with the worst traffic - USA TODAY
www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/09/04/24-7-wallst-10-cities-worst-traffic/71701622/

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
1.2.7  Spikegary  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.4    6 years ago

Abilene has an Air Force Base and a place called Joe Allen's - one of the best steak places in the universe.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.7    6 years ago

Mr Giggles was stationed there. He said it was the ass end of the world

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.2.9  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    6 years ago
Dallas and Houston are rather large cities. Are they more congested than, say, San Francisco/San Jose or Los Angeles? Or Boston or Chicago? Or really ANY large city in the US?

Never been to San Jose but, I can say they may not be more congested but, the roads are more confusing in Dallas especially, Houston is somewhat confusing, especially when driving a large truck, (semi). Never got to drive around D.C., I always had a driver when I went there, who usually met me at the airport.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.2.9    6 years ago

I have never been in a large city that didn't have a traffic problem.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    6 years ago
Washington DC

Yeah DC is awful but i got to experience it in a different way this fall.   That is, as part of an escorted Honor Flight.

We were escorted all through the town to all the monuments and memorials.   It was really cool and let me tell you.   Don't mess with those escort troops.   They will run you off the road no questions asked.  

That was fun to watch as well.   You know, that smart ass driver who is always cutting everyone off?   They got theirs compliments of our escorts.  Big time.    It was hilarious!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.7    6 years ago

I liked the Trail Dust in Dallas - good thing I didn't wear a tie.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.12    6 years ago
I liked the Trail Dust in Dallas - good thing I didn't wear a tie.

Ooooh, you missed the fun.  

The point was to wear the most hideous tie you could find, let them cut it off and staple it to the wall with your business card while you went in to drink copious amounts of beer.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.13    6 years ago

Ate a fabulous huge steak there - I think it was two pounds..  

I wasn't prepared for the tie cutting - I only brought really good ties with me.  My business card wouldn't have done much good there anyway, since my business was in Toronto.  I was there on business, though.  My client was buying a trailer park in Arlington.  I bought a pair of great cowboy boots at Sheplers.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 years ago

What in their mind is a "pure ideal"?

And the Civil War was an act of rebellion and was all about the preservation of slavery. Of course, Texas history books won't tell ya that!

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
1.3.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3    6 years ago

It wasn't rebellion. It was secession.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Cerenkov @1.3.1    6 years ago

It was rebellion the moment the Confederates open fired on Fort Sumter

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.2    6 years ago

actually no it wasn't TG, the issue of seccession came up during the drafting of the counstitution ,it came up a second time that I know of when the new England states were about to enter into a convention amounst themselves to discuss leaving the union during the war of 1812 due to the effect the war was having on the economy of the region , the convention never happened because the war ended .

 Thing is , until the civil war , it was believed that a state COULD leave the union on a vote of its legislature, it was only after the war that that was not the case , and to this day there is NO Constitutional provision  for a state to leave the union if it so desires, some had suggested that if such a thing existed it would most likely have to follow the ways a state actually becomes a state nowdays..and that would take a constitutional amendment to allow it.

before the shots where fired on ft sumter, SC had already voted  to leave the union and had recalled their representation from the US congress, the fort was  a US military garrison in territory that SC claimed . IF they had not fired on the fort , the north would have had no reason to invade , but the minute hostile actions were took was the justifications for war. now if the union had invaded without the provocation of the attack on the fort , they would have been viewed as the aggressor and in the wrong , and most likely other nations would have recognized the confederacy as a separate entity from the US.

 as for slavery , only about 3 % of the population of the south owned slaves , and some of that 3 % were colored themselves , so was the war fought over slavery ? it played a part yes , but was it the only reason ? or one that affected the entire southern population?  

Something else had to be in the mix , and it goes back to the 1840s and 50s .  one of the major causes for secession and the war was the industrial revolution of the  time , the north was changing from a more agrarian society to an industrialized one , one in need of raw material to produce into products made by industry . the south remained agrarian , or industrialized at a slower pace because they were making money off the raw materials  industry needed .  Sounds like a pretty good match right?  one side supplying the raw materials the other side making a finished product.

Fly in the ointment , the us was not the only place the industrial revolution was taking place , so there was a demand for the raw materials , and eventually the suppliers found they could get a better price if they sold outside the country .  of course that didn't set well with the industrialists , so they petitioned their representatives to place a tariffs on exports of the raw materials, tariffs steep enough that there was no profit in exportatrion since the profit went to pay the export tariffs  tarriffs. and this led to the industrailists being able to offer to pay less and less for the raw materials, increasing their profits because the export tariffs didn't apply to them look up the intolerable tariffs of the 1850s. it explains the economic reasons war came very well I f you see how they were applied  and it also explains to me how  the confederacy could get its populus to fight the war.  so there had to be an incentive other than slavery  to get the others to fight .

I can see 3 main causes for the war that took decades to simmer over . one is the issue of slavery itself . I have relatives that fought on the union side , and his diary makes no mention of fighting to free the slaves , instead it is to preserve the union and tin extent the raw materials available to the union . I also have relatives that fought on the opposing side , not as many writings but oral history tells a different story of why they fought , and it generally ended up being having the freedom to sell what they produced  for the highest price they could , in other words the economic freedom to choose who they would sell to. and they were not slave owners.

I think economics played a larger role than most would like to say , especially if they wish to narrow it down to only a single cause for the war , since the majority of the population of the south didn't even own slaves. so I think the right to sell to the highest bidder is what convinced many to fight for the confederacy , not the institution of slavery, yeah that 3% that owned had a loud voice , and most likely had the money and connections to be elected to get the verbiage into their documents they did . but that alone doesn't mean those that fought for the south fought for that reason . just as those from the north didn't fight to free the slaves , at least not all of them. for some they were fighting to keep the union together and protect their economic livelihood in an ever increasing industrializing society. without the raw materials there was no industry .

last reason is rooted in the tariffs and the response , Plain old human greed , and how when one side gets an upper hand they push too hard on the screws to squeeze out maximum profit.

 sorry for the length , but there is my 2 cents.. One over all cause ? no , there were many that took years to come to a boil and explosive point when combined .

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.3    6 years ago

Never apologize for writing a coherent comment :).

the fort was  a US military garrison in territory that SC claimed . IF they had not fired on the fort , the north would have had no reason to invade , but the minute hostile actions were took was the justifications for war.

But you agree that the South fired on the North first and that makes them the aggressor. So when people call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" I tend to get a little tight jawed.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.4    6 years ago

There is no doubt Sc fired the first shots , and it is dependant on how one looks at things if they were the agressors or the defenders in that particular firing on the fort, they claimed the fort because it was inside their claimed territory , they had already voted to leave the union , and as such considered themselves as no longer part of the union , any other nation that has a garrison on what another claims has to have permission even today . and even today , any nation that does not agree to a military force in their territory has the right to eject said military force by any means they deem fit.

 Now I think we are drifting into more of the politics of the era . At the time , there were not enough abolishionists to force a confrontation by military force  to end slavery, and the people of the union didn't really give a squat , they were content to let the status quo continue , my meaning there is the abolishionists didnt have the power to get the nation to go to war over slavery and neither could the government rally such support.

 I will point out throughout our shared American history , the population as a whole was loathed to go to war there was never really a overwhelming support to START a war , the thinking was and still is to some degree , we wont start it , but we will finish it.

 lets start with the revolution .

 what was the battle cries that stirred the people to fight? At concord bridge it was "remember Lexigton" and it was used through out the war as were other battles.

 war of 1812 , the burning and sacking of the capitol was used .

Mexican war, remember the Alamo was used 

Civil War  remember ft sumter.

Indian wars , remember custer ( who was an egotistical moron whose last words  most likely were where all these injuns come from?)

Spanish American war , remember the maine

WW1  remember the Lusitania

WW2 remember pearl harbor

 Korea , remember pusan

Vietnam was the outlier , even though I was alive then I don't remember any rally cry justifying going to war

  I will call the next one , the terrorist wars , remember 9-11

With the exception of Vietnam, all have 3 major things in common ,

 1. the majority of the people were not behind the effort to go to war

2. the government realized they needed to provide a very good reason to mobilize the citizens behind any war effort

3. every single one of those major conflicts were entered Viet nam excluded AFTER what most people would say  we as a nation  were attacked.

the government and those that run it have always known that to incite the people to go to war , there better be an irrefutable reason, and that they need the support of the people to wage and win the war once started , last war we came out victorious? WW@ , after that public support wasn't there for any of the following.

 So there are a couple more reasons the war started and where it did , as I said if SC had not fired , the union didn't have the popular support to fight , but AFTER the attack , it was used to rally the troops , and it wasn't over slavery , it was more over the audacity of the confederacy to vote to and actually leave the union , and I think but am not sure they used the 10th amendment as the power and had other justifications  as I pointed out.

Rufus King , constitutional delegate from Mass. was asked by another delegate, if a state decided they didn't want to be part of the union of states , could they leave? his reply was that if a state , its legislature and its people found that it was detrimental for them to be part of the union they most assuredly should be allowed to disjoin said union , and I believe that was one of the basises of why the NE states called a convention to secceed during the War of 1812 , that ended up never happening . and up until the Civil war happened that was a belief of those in government that was how a state COULD leave, but they never thought it could or would come to that , they always thought there was room for compromise , sound familiar? , but  that wasn't the case after the war.

 so factors contributing to the reasons for the war? economic , political, the fact that the confederacy dared to actually leave the union , not just think about it, something that had never been doine. and the usual root cause for all wars , greed.

contrary to what educators wish to teach , and what some point to as the story line they hold as true, the actual facts do not support that the war was fought over slaves, their freedom and emancipation was a happy result of the war , not the cause though slavery DID play an important role in the causes of that conflict.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.5    6 years ago

 and all that before I had my coffee......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.5    6 years ago
so factors contributing to the reasons for the war? economic , political, the fact that the confederacy dared to actually leave the union , not just think about it, something that had never been doine. and the usual root cause for all wars , greed. contrary to what educators wish to teach , and what some point to as the story line they hold as true, the actual facts do not support that the war was fought over slaves, their freedom and emancipation was a happy result of the war , not the cause though slavery DID play an important role in the causes of that conflict.

Mark, I think you are basically a good guy, but this is complete nonsense.

The South seceded because Lincoln, the representative of the Republican Party, and someone who was known to be anti-slavery, was elected president.  They foresaw four years or more of continuous eating away at their rights to own slaves AND expand slavery to new territories. It was necessary to create new slave states because as the number of states grew with westward expansion, unless some of them were slave states the South would be overwhelmed by hostile votes in Congress. Lincoln was 100% against the expansion of slavery in new states, as was all of the Republican Party.

The South seceded.  But Lincoln never recognized the move as the creation of a new nation, he never accept "secession" as legitimate. The Union had military bases in Southern states, including FT Sumter. When the North signaled they would resupply such military installations the South initated armed conflict. A rebellion was underway, and Lincoln called for the creation of a Northern army to put doen the insurrection.

The secession documents of the various states, and the Secession Commisioners , who were prominent southern men who were sent to borfder states to argue for secession there, prove that slavery was the cause for secession, and thus cause for the war. Serious historians no longer dispute this.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.7    6 years ago

well john you and I have had this discussion before , what was it 6-7 years ago now? and agreed to impasse because neither of us are going to change the others minds .Hopefully though , what we dicuss and bring to the discussion table  does make others think  and think for themselves , that's how people learn is it not?

what I do see is that some that wish to place slavery as the only reason for the conflict are ignoring a lot of things that fed the fires that ultimately led to the conflict, you cannot ignore the 20 some years of actions on both sides that fed that fire that exploded into open war.

historians agree? after omitting pertinent facts ? and they have never been wrong before?

Lincoln never recognized them? so the british never recognized it when the founders broke away either , and right up until the war of 1812 , continued to call the nation , the colonies in rebellion.

What I believe John is both of us , are looking at a period of history that we were not a part of , through eyes educated and conditioned by our 20th and 21 st century beliefs and educations along with all the morals and beliefs that came with the age of our upbringings .

 the period we are discussing and disagree on is far too complex  volatile and was ever changing , that those of us alive today cant really grasp what was being thought back then on the individual level to ever be able to boil it down to any single cause for what happened , there never will be an acceptable single simple solution. because the facts do not support a single simple cause.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.3.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.8    6 years ago

Your comments in this thread have been informative and I thank you for that. It appears that you've studied and researched this period.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.8    6 years ago

The assertion that the war was caused by something besides slavery is a revisionist posiition. At the time, everyone knew the war was over what would become of slavery in the south.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @1.3.9    6 years ago

I am a history buff , it has always fascinated me as far as the different wars and the reasons and causes to understand who one is , one must understand where they have and who they have come from , and like you who clenches their jaw at the term , war of northern aggression , I get a similar feeling when someone states the only reason for the civil war was slavery, and as I have stated , the situation was far too involved and complex to even really try to boil it down to any single reason, and it actually started a long before the actual first shots were fired, and I feel to disregard all the other facts in preference for a single fact, is an actual injustice to history.

I believe that in order to believe that slavery was the sole reason for the war , one would have to ignore some 20+ years or more of history that came before it and half the actual war itself. and I think if one is to come to an honest conclusion , one must look at all the facts no matter how distant from the actual event they occur , because they are also the seeds of discord that fuel the fires of conflict..

nd with any person , historian , academic , they will individually choose themselves what they  not history feel is relative and causatory to come to a conclusion .

history is always written by the winners , and usually goes about it in a backwards fashion, its almost like they are trying to justify a victory.

To me , any and all wars are fought for the 3 reasons I mentioned , economical , political , and just plain human greed and arrogance.

and I am still a work in progress , and hope to be until the day I draw my last breath.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.10    6 years ago

revisionists because it does not conform to what you wish to be believed and is currently taught as fact in acedemia. using cherry picked facts that support that conclusion.

first 2 years of the war from a northern point of view  was in the preservation of the union , to continue acsess to the products of the southern states as well as the warm water ports they afforded , without those things the norths rapid industrialization would have collapsed  for lack of cheap through tariffs  raw materials it would have been an economic disaster for the northern textile mills if they lost the southern supply to other nations on the open market during a definitive time of one of the industrial revolutions . in stead of being an exporter , the north would have become an importer and at the whims of the supplier of those raw materials, which would have curtailed US economic and national expansion and manifest desyiny, which wouldn't have been a bad thing in my view.

how important was slavery to the north except to the abolishionalists? not that important until half way through the war and the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in only those states areas in open rebellion against the union if the state stayed in the union , they kept their slaves , why did it become important then? the union was fighting and getting their asses handed to them on a regular basis by a south fighting a defensive battle, remind me how many generals did the army of the Potomac go through and replace?

I agree , the issue of slavery would be decided by who won this war , but if slavery was of such import, why did it take a union state until the 1990s to ratify the 13th amendment when it was a requirement for readmission of southern states  into the union ? acedemia says that was just a mere oversight.....and if they had to be readmitted to the union , that means the union recognized they LEFT the union to begin with.

And this is why we called impasse those years ago failure to recognize anything that does not conform to ones ideological metrics of the story being related .

The war was ended on the battlefield in 1865 , but it is still being waged in educational intituions and somewhat in the court system, the battlefields simply shifted and continues.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.3.13  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.12    6 years ago

Lincoln was an abolitionist, but even he did not want the war to be about slavery. It was about union and the ideal stemming from the 10th amendment that states rights included the right to leave the union....

No it didn't..... I would say that legal slavery drove the wedge that caused the war yes, but from the original northern perspective it wasn't about slavery.....

Eventually though, it was made about slavery, to give a higher purpose to all the slaughter, Even Lincoln in his pragmatic sense eventually realized that to effectuate his ideals of union forever, had to change the focus to something greater than just the ideal of unity......

The abolition of slavery and the question of legal slavery was the issue that was readily on the table and the easiest to implement....

In Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War" Shelby Foote said that the Civil War had a very important impact on how our nations citizens viewed the nation....

It changed the ideal that " The United States ARE to The United States IS" I describe it to changing the Constitutional conventions description of this nation to the  actual established fact of this being a nation......

The civil war completed the conversion of this nation from a confederation to a complete nation where no one could even conceive of having such a war in the first place.....

It corrected the major error of the constitutional convention (slavery intact) and clarified that we are all in this together and once in you can never leave... (permanence)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.14  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.8    6 years ago

STATE SECESSION CONVENTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND DECLARATIONS

Indisputable evidence of the seceding states’ reasons for secession comes from their own secession resolutions and declarations.

What could tell us more accurately why states seceded than their own contemporaneous statements, explanations, and justifications?²⁴

South Carolina, of course, went first. Its “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” issued on December 24, 1860, complained of Northern states’ and federal failure to return fugitive slaves in accordance with the Constitution and federal law: “But an in- creasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” It complained that Northern states had condemned slavery as sinful and that Northerners had elected as president a man who had said, “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free.”

The South Carolinians even criticized Northern states for allowing free blacks (non-citizens under the notorious 1857 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford) to vote. Far from respecting individual states’ rights, they wanted to compel the federal and other state governments to enforce slaveholders’ rights.²⁵ Mississippi was simultaneously moving toward secession. On November 26, 1860, Governor John Pettus urged the legislature to convene a secession convention, declaring, “The existence or the abolition of African slav- ery in the Southern States is now up for a final settlement.” He accused Northerners of regarding slavery as a sin and urging its destruction. The North, he said, was ordering the South to decide “whether it shall be a peaceable and gradual abolition or speedy and violent.”²⁶

On November 30, 1860, the Mississippi legislature called for a secession convention with delegates elected by voters and authorized the governor to appoint delegates to other slave states. The North, they complained, had defied the Constitution’s fugitive slave provision, interfered with slavery, enticed slaves to flee, agitated against slavery, sought to exclude slavery from the territories, and opposed the admission of more slave states. Abolitionists, moreover, sought to amend the Constitution to prohibit slavery and to punish slaveholders. They had en- couraged John Brown’s raid and had elected a president and vice president hostile to the South and its system of labor. In convoking a secession convention, the Mississippi legislature left no doubt that slavery was the main reason for a withdrawal from the Union.²⁷ With its legislature already having determined that secession was the proper remedy for all the slavery-related grievances, Mississippi’s January 9, 1861, secession ordinance,²⁸ passed by the convention without a further vote by the people,²⁹ surprised no one. The convention’s declaration of the causes of secession got right to the point: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of com- merce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an impe- rious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.³⁰

Edward BonekemperIII

The Myth Of The Lost Cause

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.15  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.14    6 years ago
Edward H. Bonekemper
Military historian
Edward Henry Bonekemper III was a military historian, teacher, and writer. Bonekemper wrote frequently about slavery, the American Civil War, and Union and Confederate generals. Bonekemper was a frequent speaker at Civil War Roundtables and at the Smithsonian Institution. Wikipedia
Born : December 7, 1942 (age 75 years), Pennsylvania
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.14    6 years ago
Georgia seceded eight days later.³⁶ Ten days thereafter, the State published its reasons for seceding. Its January 29 Declaration of Causes solely addressed “numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave- hold-ing confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.” Georgia’s declaration went on for pages about the Northern challenges to slavery that had culminated in the rise of the “anti-slavery” Republican Party and the election of Lincoln. It complained that “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of [the Republicans],” and that “by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of the Federal law everywhere.”³⁷

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.16    6 years ago

The proof of what caused the Civil War is right there in the words of the secession documents and the Secession Commissioner's documents.  There is a lot more of this I could post.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.17    6 years ago

all those document prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the 3% of the southern population that owned slaves had enough influence power and money from other slave owners both inside and outside the country to get elected to be able to get those conditions worded in that manner. how I read some of those statement is it was a PROPERTY ISSUE, that the state considered a federal obligation to uphold that different states would honor claims by other states for return of legally held property. and like it or not that is exactly what slaves were viewed as at that time , not human , but property like a dresser , a cow , or a pig or a buggy/ wagon , and the constitution protects or was suppose to, personal private property even if it is removed beyond state lines into another states jurisdiction .

look at it like this , I come to Illinois steal your car , bring it back to Wyoming , and the state says they will not honor your request for its return , same thing.

 so we are back to arguing that slavery was a property rights issue that the federal government failed to protect across state liness as the constitution requires. which is an economic loss to a property issue that was politicized .

wow 2 of the 3 things I think actually caused the war , economics and politics, with  slavery winding through both. and that's not even bringing in the punative tariffs instituted to force in country sale of product  which got price controlled by the purchaser and not the seller.

keep flailing john , the best you will get me to admit is slavery was but ONE of the causes , but it was far from the sole cause that you espouse , and that is because the facts taken straight do not bear the weight that it WAS the sole cause . I will let others who have read this make up their own minds which actually makes more sense and rings more true.

I suggest we continue our impasse instituted before because we are right back exactly where we were when we instituted it , neither has brought anything new to the table that is a revelation .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.18    6 years ago

There is a theme that is often stated when this is discussed. It goes like this.

Southern apologists say the Civil War was over state's rights, which is true. The southern states wanted the right to own human beings , and when that was threatened, claimed the stae's right to secede.

In other word's states rights is not the cause , it is the method. Same thing with 'economics'.  The South claimed they would lose 4 billion dollars if they didnt leave the Union. Sounds very much like an issue related to economics, doesn't it?  But what was that 4 billion dollars referring to?  It was the worth of all the slaves in the south, whose value to the slave states would be lost if they were freed.

All of the "reasons" you are presenting are part and parcel of the disposition of slavery at that time. Thus the war was caused by the question - what was to become of slavery in the south?

What is more interesting to me than arguing over settled issues is, why do so many people feel the need to say something else was the cause of the war? What do they get out of it?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.3.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.19    6 years ago
Southern apologists say the Civil War was over state's rights, which is true. The southern states wanted the right to own human beings , and when that was threatened, claimed the state's right to secede.

Technically, the war wasn't over whether Southern States could own slaves, they already could and no one was really threatening to stop them. There was no majority that was just about to ban slavery in Southern States when the South attacked our nations military. The debate over slavery came to a head because Northern States were claiming States rights to pass laws protecting escaped slaves and those helping them. The South was bitterly angry as they watched what they saw as their property, humans, escape their clutches to hide in the Northern "sanctuary cities" of the day. The South wanted the Federal government to force the Northern States to comply, force them to return their slaves or face major fines and jail time. They got the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 but the Northern States continued to help slaves and the Northern legislature sued over the Fugitive Slave Act which eventually was ruled unconstitutional in 1855 which is when things got really heated.

So it was actually the Southern States fighting AGAINST States rights, trying to use the Federal Government to enforce the return of their human chattel from rogue States that believed in States rights. If the South hadn't started the war, it might have been much longer before slavery was banned in their States. I guess it's true, no matter how bad something might be, like treasonous slavers attacking our soldiers starting a war to force themselves on the Northern States, if you look hard enough there's a silver lining, if they hadn't started the war slavery might have been around far longer than it was. By stepping up for their ass whooping they got their long deserved punishment over with faster, the slaves were finally freed, and the principle of States rights was upheld.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.21  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.19    6 years ago
But what was that 4 billion dollars referring to?  It was the worth of all the slaves in the south, whose value to the slave states would be lost if they were freed.

I don't know you supposing that that was the value of the slaves  alone , I could think by remaining in the union , loosing the slaves AND having to pay those export tariffs to the government  if they chose not to sell to US buyers was what the southern area was going to lose .

 so I will admit that the property had value and because the importation of new slave had been banned almost 20 years before the conflict , slaves were even though they reproduced , could fetch a preimium price due to availability, so my guess is that 4b loss is both in property and product and produce., and the same can be said of the northern mills if they lost the monopoly of purchase power at the prices they set for the material they needed to continue, either way was an economic disaster for eitherif it came to pass , we know how it ended up for the southern states , lost the property(slaves) , and control of the price of what they produced for a number of decades after the war.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.22  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.3.20    6 years ago

They claimed states rights as a reason to secede because they knew that there was no other possible legitimate reason. But you are right, what they wanted was for the federal government to prevent northern states that were helping escaped slaves from continuing to do so.

The southern states seceded as a direct response to Lincoln's election. It wasn't even unexpected at the time.  Why did Lincoln being elected bother them so much?  Because they knew he was anti-slavery and that his party was anti-slavery. Most of the previous presidents had been somewhat conciliatory toward slave states and many of those presidents had been from slave states themselves.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.23  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.22    6 years ago

holy CRAP!!!! there is something we can agree on regarding this ,they did think he was anti slavery , but they never gave him the chance to show how conciliatory towards the law of property he would be and what steps he would have taken that he could under the constitution. , they I agree "jumped the gun" and didn't wait to see and in doing so made their own worst fears become a reality.

I was going to post THIS to lighten things up as a kinda nice to know sort of thing when I saw your last post.

 the last confederate soldier ( confirmed) died in 1957-58? so he would have had to have been born in 1850-52 to be old enough to even PASS for being old enough in 1865 to have enlisted . still would have made him over 100 years old when he died 

 Due to legislation passed he got a soldiers pension from the government , here is what I found both ironic , and humourous , when he died he left a widow , who started collecting his widow benefits of his war pension as allowed by law . the federal government finally no longer has to pay it now that she has passed as of a couple 5 years ago or so , she was 18 when she married him and in her early 20s when he died , so you do the math , he was old as dirt , and had the feds paying a confederate even after death for  a half century .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.3.24  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.23    6 years ago
the last confederate soldier......

In Lee's Last Retreat: The Flight to Appomattox , historian William Marvel identified Private Pleasant Riggs Crump , of Talladega County, Alabama, who died December 31, 1951, as the last confirmed surviving veteran of the Confederate States Army.

An extensively researched book by Frank L. Gryzb, The Last Civil War Veterans: The Lives of the Final Survivors State by State , published March 29, 2016, supports the conclusion by Dr. Hoar, Mr. Marvel, Mr. Serrano and others that Pleasant Crump was the last confirmed and verified surviving veteran of the Confederate States Army.

In his 1991 article in Blue & Gray magazine, Marvel confirmed Albert Woolson's (February 11, 1847(?), or 1850 – August 2, 1956) claim to be the last surviving Union Army veteran and asserted that Woolson was the last genuine surviving American Civil War veteran from either side. Woolson was a drummer whose company did not see combat.

Union Army veteran James Albert Hard (July 15, 1843 – March 12, 1953) was the last verified surviving American Civil War veteran who was in combat.

Everyone that claimed to be a veteran Civil war soldier after that has been debunked including alleged longest surviving Confederate veteran, John B. Salling of Slant in Scott County, Virginia. Marvel also showed that Salling had been too young to have served in the Confederate Army. In a post on the Library of Virginia blog on October 6, 2010, Craig Moore, Virginia State Records Appraisal Archivist, wrote that when Salling applied for a pension in 1933, Pension Clerk John H. Johnson could not find a war record for Salling at the Virginia State Library, which held the records of the Department of Confederate Military Records. Salling received a pension after providing a notarized statement attesting to his service. Moore wrote that Marvel had found census records which put Salling's birth date in 1858. After stating Marvel's finding, Moore concluded that although existing Confederate pension records do not confirm or deny Salling's claim, the Commonwealth of Virginia accepted his claimed status.

So they paid his pension on the basis of a notarized statement of witness when his confirmed birth date made him three years old when the war started. (his birthdate wasn't confirmed until after his death in 1959 so yes he was celebrated as one of the last)

There was another that was also thought to be the last that died in '59 also but he would have been four years old when he served. Now there were young men as old as twelve that served in the Confederate Army no doubt about that. But at twelve to have served in 1865 that would make their birthdate sometime in 1843. Generally a confirmed birthdate after 1843 precludes service in the civil War in any capacity.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.3.25  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.3.24    6 years ago

Excuse me that was supposed to be 1853... not 1843....

my bad....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nowhere Man @1.3.25    6 years ago

That is one of the ways they can discredit a claim, simple math and date of birth, but that doesn't preclude that someone under age can not have served .

 if what I have read is right , the youngest WW2 vet entered service in the US navy and served in battle in the pacific at 12 years old until he was caught , even based a movie on it with Rick Schroeder , too young the hero . interesting story and movie.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
1.3.27  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.26    6 years ago

They grant that some served at 12 years old, younger than that there is a plethora of evidence that even the oldest serving would reject them or send them home when caught....

There is a practical limit they set on age.... and they caught several as young as 10 on both sides..... they did try to keep them in the non-armed service, drummer boys and flag bearers, runners and messengers as much as possible, but there is evidence that some carried firearms in battle....

Their age detection abilities became more astute by the time WWII arrived, but yeah a few still slipped thru....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.28  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.22    6 years ago
They claimed states rights as a reason to secede because they knew that there was no other possible legitimate reason.

agreed and the basis  of that thinking I think is rooted in the 10th amendment . We have to remember that a state leaving the union , even though it might have been discussed during the drafting of the current governing document ( US constitution) or the idea floated as it was during the War of 1812 , by the north east region , was not covered in the Constitution , and the idea as NWM  pointed out of once in never leave did not come about until AFTER the conflict and is what is very much accepted today even if they can prove a legitimate reason to do so.

remember the 10th states that unless the federal government is  granted a power and it is not forbidden to the states by the constituion that power remains with the states and the people of the states. the US Constitution even today says nothing about seccession , a state leaving the union .

IF the war we are discussing really proved anything  to me? is that a state could not leave the union under force of arms , which simply reiterated what happened in shays rebellion.

Until the civil war it had never been tested , just as it still has not been tested in the case of a state deciding to leave the union , PEACEFULLY.

You can argue that that would never happen , and it most likely wont , but remember people back in the 1800s never thought things would get as divisive as they did that a state or group of states would leave either.

To try and bring this all back in line with the topic of the seed , and I apologize for my part for going somewhat off topic , Our country has done a lot of things right , BUT, it has also done a lot of things wrong , these plaques , or monuments , serve as a reminder at least to me , of that very fact, I am a firm believer that if one wishes to erase the past , that they are predestined in the future  to make the same mistakes that have already been made that were in the wrong, and that is why I think it is important to look at the whole picture , ALL the facts and try to understand how those in the past thought , if that is possible , and why they reacted the way they did .

I see the old saying those that refuse to remember history ( I will add in its entirety), are doomed to repeat it  becoming more and more true.

I can see a correlation of how the confederacy reacted to the election of Lincoln , to the reactions that are happening today in present day politics , it just hasn't gotten to the point of states deciding to leave the union. the divisions haven't gotten that bad yet and I don't think any of us really want to relive that particular period of history.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2  bbl-1    6 years ago

Settle down Beto.

Take a breath---breathe---and study Supply Side Economics.  Learn SSE's in and outs---everything about it.  Lay the plot to prove to Americans how ill served they have been by this 'flawed' economic system that has controlled American workers and American wealth for these past forty years.  You do this and it will be an economic/social revolutionary winner.

Forget the statues.  After all---all of that is what made America and Americans the most resilient nation and people in history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bbl-1 @2    6 years ago

What if Beto O'Rourke, or someone else , can both learn supply side economics and make the point that the Confederacy is not to be honored any longer ?

Doesn't seem impossible or impractical. A lot of people have had about enough of the promotion of ignorance that is associated with celebrating the Confederacy.

From the Children's Confederate Creed

" nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery"

Yeah, it was.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    6 years ago

If America is to advance---be the dominant player on the World Stage---it must use the economic engine of American wealth to achieve that.

American history is what it is.  Learn from it.  Become better because of it.  Never turn away from it because it is what we are.

Confederate history is not the enemy.  Wealth concentration is the foe.  And 'lazy wealth' is the anvil around our necks.  Beto wants to be a leader, take this bull of SSE by the horns and prepare for the fight of the century.  There are many that understand this.  He will not be alone. 

And there are many who will not let go of the status quo.  These folk may fight to the death.  This fight will not be easy.  It will take dedicated leaders and a lot of homework.

Slavery, racism the Ku Kluxers, Nazis and all the rest will slide into the swamps from whence they came when the economic disparity subsides and the American economic engine returns to doing what it is supposed to do. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    6 years ago
If America is to advance---be the dominant player on the World Stage---it must use the economic engine of American wealth to achieve that.

Personally I think we threw that option out the window this last presidential election. The president we now have doesn't seem to want America to be the dominant player except in war machines basically. I dont think our president puts much stock in words or cooperating with others. 

Words are really what allows us all cooperate together instead of for one force, person or government forcing the rest to do what the that one wants, but talking to people or countries and getting them to agree to do what you want is so much more involved.

But that's what the American people put into power, so we deal with it for now.

Perhaps our reputation is still salvageable, time will tell. 

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
2.1.3  Rmando  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @2.1.2    6 years ago

"Personally I think we threw that option out the window this last presidential election. The president we now have doesn't seem to want America to be the dominant player except in war machines basically. I dont think our president puts much stock in words or cooperating with others."

The same line liberals have been parroting for the last two years. Yet I don't see where there are any wars going on with Russia/ China/ N Korea/ etc....

I see Trump making demand and actually getting things in favor of this country, not going on apology tours and trying to fit in with some global elite class like other world leaders do. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Guide
2.1.4  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Rmando @2.1.3    6 years ago
I see Trump making demand and actually getting things in favor of this country,

I see it more like he is doing what he thinks will make America wealthier and keep him in power for 4 more years. . IMO: Wealth alone does not make for a great country. I dont like how he does much even if I agree it needs to be done. How someone does things is almost as important many times as what they do, especially if it sets a precedence for the future. 

trump is a manipulator of people, places and things, a true leader of men IMO: He is not. 

Also IMO: We will see just what good and bad this president has done years from now just as we do with all former presidents. 

Time will tell. Both the good and the bad. 

As far as promoting America as the true future global leader I just dont see trump pushing for that at all and I think that is one huge mistake. 

But, To each their own.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    6 years ago
Confederate history is not the enemy.

True.  Neither are statues of Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson or whatever.  

  Wealth concentration is the foe.

Nope.  Poverty and ignorance are the foes.  Poverty and ignorance keep people from creating their own wealth.  Wealth is not a zero-sum situation.  My gain in wealth does not need to correspond with somebody else's loss of it.  

And 'lazy wealth' is the anvil around our necks.

Define "lazy wealth".

  Beto wants to be a leader, take this bull of SSE by the horns and prepare for the fight of the century.  There are many that understand this.  He will not be alone. 

If Beto wants to win, he needs to take the center....not pander to the left.  For example...if he comes out strongly supporting adjustments to the ACA but denouncing Berniecare.  Or if he came out denouncing the wall as stupid while putting forward an immigration policy overhaul that actually made sense. Or if while he denounces school vouchers and supports increasing school funding, he puts forward a concrete plan to improve academic standards and accountability in public education.

You know...intelligent stuff that nobody's doing.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.5    6 years ago

Poverty and ignorance are the by product of concentrated wealth.

Lazy Wealth is that wealth sequestered offshore or in 'investment vehicles' that do not invest in this nation.

Left or Center has nothing to do with anything.  Supply Side concentrates the wealth and places higher tax burdens on average Americans for basic services.

Immigration policy?  Sure.  Been in the works for 30+ years and...…...there it is, there you have it.

The Wall.  Ask Jesus if he'd build a wall or a bridge?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.6    6 years ago
The Wall. Ask Jesus if he'd build a wall or a bridge?

Why ask Him?

Are you now proposing we should base decisions on the teachings of Christ?

And all along, I thought you were one for strict enforcement of the separation of church and state!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    6 years ago

Five subjects and that is all you got? 

You don't pay attention.

Would Jesus build a wall or a bridge?  Well?  What would He do?  You have a clue?  Or not?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.8    6 years ago

Okay, since you asked so politely and all.

It is foolish to think that poverty is the byproduct of concentrated wealth. Saying it is like saying there is a finite amount of money, and if the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, which is inherently stupid.

Lazy wealth belongs to whoever accumulates it. Why do you want to tell others how and where to spend THEIR money? It isn't yours, and you have no right to tell them anything.

Higher tax burdens? Who you trying to kid? The middle class and poorer class taxes are historically low now.

Immigration policy? We have one, you just don't like it when we don't support open borders and allowing everyone to come here for any reason at all.

And lastly, what Jesus would do doesn't matter, as many atheists and staunch supporters of the separation of church and state have told us, so, BEEP! wrong question to ask!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.9    6 years ago
It is foolish to think that poverty is the byproduct of concentrated wealth. Saying it is like saying there is a finite amount of money, and if the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, which is inherently stupid.

Your comment is incredibly inane. The accumulation of wealth by some literally sets the stage for poverty and helps to define it. 

and if the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, which is inherently stupid.

The only reason someone is described as rich is because it can be contrasted to someone else who is poor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    6 years ago

Yes, in CONTRAST. But that has never meant that a poor person is poor because a rich person is rich.

That is like saying that there are starving folks in the world because there are fat folks in the world.

And will you be happy if we do away with any and ALL vestiges of slavery, and those who owned them or fought for them?

Might be quite a feat to tear down the Washington and Jefferson Memorials in D.C. to satisfy your desires.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.14  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    6 years ago
Yes, in CONTRAST. But that has never meant that a poor person is poor because a rich person is rich. That is like saying that there are starving folks in the world because there are fat folks in the world. 

(lol.)

If everyone who does not now have a million dollars manages to get a million dollars, do you think a million dollars will still be a lot of money?

Think.

If everyone in America were to suddenly achieve a salary of 100,000 dollars a year, 100,000 wouldn't be such a good salary anymore, would it?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2.1.15  charger 383  replied to    6 years ago

you got that right

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to    6 years ago

I agree-it IS ridiculous.

Joe and Bob went to school together. Joe tried hard in school and graduated high school and then went to college. He later got a job making $100k per year. He invested part of his earnings in real estate, and ended up with 5 rent houses producing an income of $2500 per moth, which he then reinvested in more properties. He bought used cars and rarely spent any money except on necessities for the most part.

When he turned 60, Joe sold everything he owned and had accumulated over the years and lived happily ever after as a multi-millionaire.

Bob scraped by in school, then went to college, but dropped out because it was too hard. He was happy to take a job doing manual labor for about $15 per hour, and bought a new car every two years and an expensive phone every time they came out with a new model. He was unable to save any money because he spent all he made. Bob retired and lives on a meager Social Security payment each month.

According to our astute friends here, Bob is poor because Joe worked hard, saved his money, invested wisely, and curtailed his spending.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.14    6 years ago

Now you are talking hypotheticals--that everyone would make equal amounts of money, without regard to experience, work ethics, training, and education, or where they live..

I don't live in the hypothetical world, I live in the real world, and am happy to be rewarded for my diligence, dedication, perseverance, and work ethics. I don't want everyone to make the same because that wouldn't be fair to all.

When you start out with such a preposterous example, there is no need to go further.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.6    6 years ago
Poverty and ignorance are the by product of concentrated wealth.

That's like saying pain causes a broken arm.  Poverty and ignorance are the product of a poor educational system that continually lowers standards.  

Lazy Wealth is that wealth sequestered offshore or in 'investment vehicles' that do not invest in this nation.

That would include mutual funds investing in Europe or Asia, which would expand "lazy wealth" to just about every pension plan in America.

Left or Center has nothing to do with anything.

Except getting elected.  Especially to the presidency.

Supply Side concentrates the wealth

No.  It doesn't.  Ignorance does that.  People who don't understand how money works are destined never to accumulate any.  The tax code does not make people smarter.

Immigration policy?  Sure.  Been in the works for 30+ years

Not in any serious sense.

The Wall.  Ask Jesus if he'd build a wall or a bridge?

The wall is a stupid idea.  But so are open borders.  There is a sane alternative between the two.  That is the truth that neither batshit extreme wants to concede.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.8    6 years ago
You have a clue?  Or not?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  bbl-1  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.20    6 years ago

Bridge.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.14    6 years ago
If everyone who does not now have a million dollars manages to get a million dollars, do you think a million dollars will still be a lot of money?

OK, so we agree inequality is not the problem. 

Excellent.  Glad we got that sorted out.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.22    6 years ago

Nice point!

he shoots from three--SCORE!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3  Tacos!    6 years ago

Preferring to be charitable, and acknowledging that I am not a Texan, I hesitate to judge. So my opinion from afar is that I wouldn't have no problem honoring veterans, as the first paragraph states. Americans have fought in various conflicts that we might disagree with, but I think it's still important to honor their sacrifice. I'm not just thinking about the Civil War, but other conflicts that were controversial, like Vietnam or Iraq. You might the cause was wrong, but we should still be good to the people who fought.

It's the second paragraph I can't agree with. I don't know what you call the Confederate States of America if not a rebellion. Seven states seceded from the union. What else is that? Vacation?

And of course we often hear that the war wasn't about slavery; it was about state's rights. Ok, let's go with that. A state's right to do what, exactly? Oh yeah! Allow one human being to enslave another human being. There were (and are) other issues of states' rights to be sure, like tariffs, but I am not aware of other rights being so at issue that states were prepared to secede over them. Therefore, the war was about slavery, like we all thought.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @3    6 years ago

Since when do we honor defeated enemies of the US on government property. Confederate white supremacists stopped being Americans when the first shot of the Civil War was fired. Save the debate and give the plaque an acid bath.

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
3.1.1  Spikegary  replied to  devangelical @3.1    6 years ago

So, does that apply to Native Americans also?  Or just to those you don't have pity for?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Spikegary @3.1.1    6 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.4  devangelical  replied to    6 years ago

a few mixed race children born in the south after 1968 are still too ignorant to realize just how fortunate they really were

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.5  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.1.2    6 years ago

ToS, my ass. Confederates were traitors and should have been dealt with accordingly by the rule of established law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.5    6 years ago
Confederates were traitors and should have been dealt with accordingly by the rule of established law.

They WERE dealt with in accordance with law.

Google is your friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardons_for_ex-Confederates

SMMFH

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @3.1    6 years ago

It's about setting aside the politics and honoring the sacrifice. Remember that Lincoln advocated coming together and healing as a country, not spending the next 200 years hating each other over what happened in the war.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.7    6 years ago
Lincoln advocated coming together and healing as a country, not spending the next 200 years hating each other over what happened in the war.

yeah? ... and how did that work out for him then, and for our country up to the present day? the healing won't be complete until every reminder of that demented culture and heritage is relegated to historically accurate books, documentaries, objective museums, or landfills.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @3.1.8    6 years ago

If people want to heal fine, let there be healing. More often you have groups like the one that created a Jefferson Davis "Presidential" Museum in Mississippi a few years ago. What was Davis the president of? lol.  There are neo-confederate groups in the south that have influence. One of them put Hyde-Smith in office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.9    6 years ago

She won the election. She got more votes. Deal with it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    6 years ago

a pardon negates established law

logic is your friend

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    6 years ago

the south lost the civil war. confederate traitors died and deserve no memorials. deal with it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    6 years ago

You appear to know little about pardons AND law.

The pardon doesn't erase law, never has, never will. Only LEGISLATION or court rulings can negate laws.

Please research further before posting such outlandish, wildly inaccurate claims.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.12    6 years ago
the south lost the civil war. confederate traitors died and deserve no memorials. deal with it.

Glad to see you got at least one historical fact correct--yes, the South lost the Civil War.

Very good!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    6 years ago

then why did confederate traitors need a pardon?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.15    6 years ago

Seriously, dude, Google it.

While you're at it, see if you can find anything, anything at all, that states a pardon negates law.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.17  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  devangelical @3.1.15    6 years ago
why did confederate traitors need a pardon?

good question ,  most likely the same reason Vietnam draft dodgers got a pardon.

confederate traitors died and deserve no memorials. deal with it.

actually by federal law , the graves of confederates are protected and to be treated the same as any other US veterans .

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.17    6 years ago

Great strategy--confuse 'em with facts!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.11    6 years ago
logic is your friend

It is indeed.

Might I introduce you to it?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.21  devangelical  replied to    6 years ago

closer to 154 years, and I'm not fighting it, I know who won. derp

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.21    6 years ago

oh, good, you are back.

Any luck finding anything in the law that states a pardon negates a law, as you claimed?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.24  devangelical  replied to    6 years ago

I don't think you know what year it ended, for the north anyway. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.25  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    6 years ago

would the words over rule/change the inevitable judgement get that bee out of your gray and yellow bonnet instead? here's a  picture of the only confederate flag that ever mattered.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
3.1.26  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @3.1.24    6 years ago

Please, do tell?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.25    6 years ago

Are you NOW changing your claim after being unable to find supporting evidence for what you initially claimed?

Is that what they mean by moving the goalposts?

LOL!

Perhaps it would behoove you to look up what over rule means before posting again.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.28  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.27    6 years ago

that would be like arguing the difference in semantics between white supremacy versus southern heritage

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.28    6 years ago

Probably would be wiser to just say you couldn't find any corroborating evidence of your earlier claim than floundering around like this.

To each their own, I guess!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.25    6 years ago

Ah, I get it now.

Like many, you erroneously believe that anyone in the South is a racist and still upset over the outcome of the Civil War.

LMFAO!

Why would I give a DAMN that the South lost the war? Do you really think I am affected by events of some 160 years ago?

I am glad the South lost. Aren't you?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.31  devangelical  replied to  GregTx @3.1.26    6 years ago

130 years ago was 1888. the civil war ended in 1865, officially, although apparently still being fought by some inbred relics of white supremacy that are left over.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.32  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.30    6 years ago

I don't think all southerners are racist. I was born in the south and I'm not a racist. I'm glad the south lost too, but they apparently needed to lose a lot more than they did for where we are now since then. the losers didn't pay a steep enough price in that era for their treason as evidenced by the continued unconstitutional attitudes towards American law by some to this day. gentrification of their children by higher standards of education and interaction with a more mobile American society due to economic forces will spell the ultimate doom of past southern heritage in the deep south. I connect with a lot of southern born young professional people and to them sounding like a goober when they speak just isn't that cool and they judge their peers at home that have thick southern drawls as less educated. The old south is being eclipsed by the new south and it will all be over within the next generation. The relics of the past are fighting another war for their heritage they cannot finance.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.1.32    6 years ago

IMO, it is ridiculous to blame people living 160 years ago for what people think today, or how they act. That's a cop-out.

I hold people responsible for THEIR actions. Not their ancestors.

Judging people for how they sound versus for what they say is immature. It shows shallowness.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.34  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.33    6 years ago

waving around a 160 year old flag representing white supremacy might have something to do with it

so do I, as long as they refute the bad actions of their ancestors. silence is approval

only relating what I have seen and heard from the younger southerners

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.35  devangelical  replied to    6 years ago
my ancestors didn't fight for the Confederacy they were salves

for burns, rashes, or itchy assholes?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @3    6 years ago
So my opinion from afar is that I wouldn't have no problem honoring veterans, as the first paragraph states. Americans have fought in various conflicts that we might disagree with, but I think it's still important to honor their sacrifice.

So you believe we should have statues of infamous Tories decorating our cities too? You know, the colonists who remained loyal to the British and fought against our nations founding? Confederates also fought against our nation, wrote their own constitution and started a war that would lead to over a hundred thousand patriots deaths. Why honor the traitors who committed such crimes against our nation, all to protect their abhorrent practice of owning humans like cattle. We voted for the civil rights and voting rights acts to correct a major flaw that had plagued America for far too long. We can continue to be a more perfect union, but only if we self reflect with an honest critical eye and then follow through by changing the things we have put up with for too long. I can't imagine how black Americans can feel welcome in a place that still commemorates and honors the men who fought to keep them enslaved. We saw what showed up in Charlottesville to protect that confederate monument, the very bottom dregs of America with the Nazis, KKK, worthless white supremacists and anti-Semites. When someone stands up and defends confederate monuments, those are the guys who have their back, so don't be surprised if others get them mixed up.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2    6 years ago

I'll simply refer you to my comments above. Don't try to make more out of it than is actually there.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
5  96WS6    6 years ago

What's the big surprise?  The Democratic party constantly seeks to erase it's racist past. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
5.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  96WS6 @5    6 years ago
What's the big surprise?  The Democratic party constantly seeks to erase it's racist past.

Of course the racist Alt-Right is always looking for ways to promote its racist present and, future.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
5.1.1  96WS6  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1    6 years ago

LMFAO!!!   Like the lowest unemployment for Black people in the country's entire history no doubt./s   How about the lowest unemployment for ALL minorities in decades? 

How about prison reform?   Who does that help most?   Don't you look at this as a first step to fixing lopsided incarceration?

Actions speak louder than words.  What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  96WS6 @5.1.1    6 years ago
What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

He did have a cozy "Beer Summit" to get things ginned up.

There is that ! jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
5.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  96WS6 @5.1.1    6 years ago
LMFAO!!!   Like the lowest unemployment for Black people in the country's entire history no doubt./s   How about the lowest unemployment for ALL minorities in decades? 

Oh, snap, look at this.

256

How about prison reform?   Who does that help most?   Don't you look at this as a first step to fixing lopsided incarceration?

I think Trump is getting ready for his time behind bars, at the very least he's trying make prison better for his kids.

Actions speak louder than words.  What have Democrats accomplished for minorities while BO was in power and they had the majority?  NOTHING!

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
5.1.4  96WS6  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.3    6 years ago

Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.   All you have is deflection tripe. (as usual)  What a surprise!/s

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
5.1.5  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  96WS6 @5.1.4    6 years ago
Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.

What he did was lower the poverty rate and, lower the unemployment rate OVERALL so, what Trump is claiming now as his accomplishment is actually what Obama did during his time in office. 

Next.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
5.1.6  96WS6  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @5.1.5    6 years ago

LMFAO keep repeating lies until you beleive them.  Whatever works for you.

The real irony here is that Trump turned the economy around almost soley by reversing BO's polcies.

BTW didn't you get the memo that bullshit lie didn't fly when BO tried it either?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  96WS6 @5.1.4    6 years ago
Oh snap I specifically asked what he has done for MINORITIES and you can't come up with anything.

Well let's see, the Republican financial collapse of 2008 led to black unemployment going as high at 16.8%.

During Obama's last year in office it dropped to 7.8% by January of 2017. That's a drop of 9% for those who aren't very good at math, which I have to assume when having to explain things that the ordinary conservative brain reflexively rejects like any nice thing said about President Obama.

A year later under President Trump , January of 2018, it was 7.5%, a drop of just .3% from where Obama had handed it over. In May of this year it hit its all time low of 5.9% but didn't stay there for long, it went back up to 6.2% as of last month.

So all the crowing and cheering from Trump acolytes is over a total drop of 1.6% in black unemployment from where Obama had gotten it.

So Obama brought down black unemployment 9% and Trump gained on that by 1.6% but doesn't appear to be making any further headway and in fact is losing ground. Are you really still going to cheer Trump and vilify Obama even when the facts clearly show the opposite of what you're claiming?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6  It Is ME    6 years ago

Democrats are GREAT at getting plaques and statues torn down …... and renaming Post Offices too ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
6.1  96WS6  replied to  It Is ME @6    6 years ago

Well they have to accomplish something for their constituents.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  96WS6 @6.1    6 years ago
Well they have to accomplish something for their constituents.

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

They can be so petty most times !

"I'M OFFENDED" ! 

"FEEL MY FEELINGS" !

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7  Texan1211    6 years ago

Sounds like Beto is trying to stay relevant and in the news.

Anyone remember him saying anything during his campaign about this particular plaque? 

Anyone?

 
 
 
Rmando
Sophomore Silent
8  Rmando    6 years ago

Sure, fight over a plaque that nobody has probably noticed in years. Anything to distract from real issues of life and death.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Rmando @8    6 years ago

More like find SOMETHING to keep yourself relevant when your bid for Senator falls short.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
8.1.1  96WS6  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    6 years ago

BINGO!

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
9  The Magic 8 Ball    6 years ago

beto "said....   “take it down today.

and beto can fuk off also.

it was a real pleasure watching him lose in this state.

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1  It Is ME  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @9    6 years ago

Beto kinda looks like a sweaty "Kennedy" !

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.2  Tacos!  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @9    6 years ago
beto "said....  “take it down today

It's hard not to think this mainly an initial effort by him to stay relevant, with so many people trying to convince him and themselves that somehow he is a viable candidate for president.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10  Texan1211    6 years ago

Anyone else wondering why the plaque seemingly didn't offend Beto in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
10.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @10    6 years ago

I'm guessing that he never saw it.  Kinda like all the other millions of people who walked by it over the last 60 years.  How often do people stop to read a plaque in their office building.  

There could be one of these in the lobby of my building and I would never know.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11  Sparty On    6 years ago

Lighten up Francis!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12  seeder  JohnRussell    6 years ago

Why did a group called the Sons Of Confederate Veterans buy the land and pay for the creation of a Jefferson Davis Presidential Library a few years ago. What was Davis the president of?

(Same place that Cindy Hyde Smith visited and wore the confederate cap)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12    6 years ago

Seriously, you don't know that already????

Attending a museum doesn't mean you support whatever is in there.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1    6 years ago
Attending a museum doesn't mean you support whatever is in there.

Right, because confederate museums in the South are so like the other museums of what not to do like the holocaust museums where southerners go to reflect on the poor choices made by their ancestors. /s

I've no doubt Jefferson Davis would have know exactly what Cindy Hyde Smith meant when she said she'd show up at a public hanging if invited by her supporters.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.1    6 years ago

And? Do you have some vague point in there somewhere?

Texas is going to remove the plaque.

Crisis over.

rest easy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1    6 years ago

Why is there a presidential museum within our borders for the man who was president of a nation that was at war with the United States? Do we have a museum dedicated to Tojo or Hitler or  Mao  or Ho Chi Minh  inside the United States?

I think somewhat of a case can be made for memorializing the common confederate grunt who bled and died for what they believed was defense of their homeland, but Davis and the rest of the generals and politicians of the South weren't much more than traitors.  They are commemorated in the south today as a way of keeping alive the myth of the Lost Cause, which is a fairy tale glorifying the Confederacy. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.3    6 years ago

Simple.

It is part of our American history, good, bad, and ugly.

Your OPINION of the museum is duly noted.

But now that Texas is going to remove the plaque you find so offensive, I suppose it is time to move on to your next complaint, right?

Do you think modern Germany is proud to have the Holocaust Museums? Or do they remind them of what happens when people give in to a charismatic leader and decide it is okay to slaughter the population?

I still don't see why so many get twisted up over a museum, for crying out loud.

JFK was assassinated--should we do away with that museum because it is an ugly part of our history?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.4    6 years ago

Does the Jefferson Davis museum note that he was the leader of a nation that made it unconstitutional to abolish slavery within it's borders?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.6  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.3    6 years ago

The civil war was a war between Americans

secession is a right of free people, not treason

“The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.”

James Madison in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787)

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.”  Samuel Adams 1772 letter to the Colonists

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.5    6 years ago

I really don't know nor care. It is ancient history--he IS dead, after all, and the Civil War is long, long gone.

Pray tell what THAT has to do with you being offended about a plaque that has been hanging for almost 60 years?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.4    6 years ago
It is part of our American history, good, bad, and ugly.

So was the Oklahoma City bombing, should we have a museum dedicated to Timothy McVeigh?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.8    6 years ago

If you want to open one, and can afford to do so, have at it!

I sincerely doubt you could get enough attendees to keep it afloat, but hey, its your money, spend it as you wish!

see, I won't get in a tizzy over something so trivial to me. If I don't like something, and it isn't directly harming anyone, I let shit slide.

Try it sometime!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.10  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.5    6 years ago

John, don’t you get tired of making false statements 

There is NO provision in the Confederate Constitution banning states from abolishing slavery

Here are the only mentions of slavery in the Confederate Constitution  

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.11  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.8    6 years ago

No we don’t make monuments about criminals

comparing the civil war to an act of criminality doesn’t even rise to the level of juvenile

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.6    6 years ago
secession is a right of free people, not treason

Treason: noun - the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

They attacked our military, they betrayed their fellow countrymen and States, betrayed the constitution and even after the war was over had one of their conspirators assassinate our President. They are the very definition of traitors. And yes, at times you have to commit treason for the right reason, the American Revolution is an example of that as the colonies seceded from British rule and committed treason to the crown to accomplish it. If they hadn't succeeded the leaders of the Revolution would have almost certainly all been hung.

The difference is that they revolted against the tyranny of a greedy unjust King who claimed he was above the law (not unlike the orange clown dirtying up the oval office today), their treason was justified. The Southern States committed treason so they could continue owning humans as cattle which is just about the most worthless reason for treason I can imagine. And they lost and should be thankful the Union didn't execute every single one of their leaders and half their officers to set an example.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.12    6 years ago

You can refight the Civil War all day, but it doesn't change history.

Why does a museum frighten you so?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.15  Texan1211  replied to    6 years ago

I know, and their defense is ALWAYS the same:

It was the Southern Democrats-turned-Republicans responsible!

Like there was some mass exodus from the Democrats in the south.

SMH

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.10    6 years ago
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

This provision of the CSA constitution made it unconstitutional for any of the states to end slavery on their own. They could try and secede from the CSA and do it, or try and pass a constitutional amendment, but they could not unilaterally end slavery (as United States of America member states were allowed to do)

by the way, the CSA constitution mentions slavery more than the two instances you give, so the reader can decide who is lying here.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.10    6 years ago
Here are the only mentions of slavery in the Confederate Constitution  

You forgot:

Article I

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed .

Article IV

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Sort of blows your whole comment out of the water doesn't it.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.18  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.16    6 years ago

Misstatements about Confederate Constitution  

“1.9.4  (Congress cannot deny or impair slavery) “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.”

This is the Article some claim establishes a Slave Republic. It’s hardly true. Both the 1787 and CSA Constitutions have an Article 1.9 which prohibits the General government to legislate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Both have an Article 1.10 which denies the States the power to pass such laws. In both Constitutions Article 1.9 applies only to the General government and Article 1.10 applies only to the States.

While the CSA 1.9 prohibits the General government legislating against slavery, CSA Article 1.10 does not mention slavery in any regard. It’s entirely committed to ex post facto and other non-slavery related issues, e.g., excessive bail, entering treaties, laying duties on tonnage and so forth.

So proponents claiming CSA Article 1.9 stops the States from becoming Free States is incorrect. It is solely a prohibition against the General government. If the CSA Founders meant to stop the States from becoming Free States, they would have had to provide that prohibition in Article 1.10.

The Confederacy’s addition to 1.9 denying power to the General government to disestablish the institution of slavery was done so the prohibition would be explicit. Slavery was already implicitly outside the General government’s power when the CSA Founders abolished ‘dual sovereignty’. Slavery, as with any State creation, resided in the sovereignty of their respective peoples.

Lincoln and the Republican Party held to this view. They made this clear with their passage of the original 13th Amendment named the Corwin Amendment after Republican Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio who introduced the Amendment in the House while Republican Senator William Seward of New York introduced it in the Senate. It passed Congress and was going through the States for ratification, where a few had already approved the measure, when Sumter stopped its progress.

At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference on February 3, 1865, Lincoln was hoping to talk the Confederate States back into the Union. He and Seward refused to address the South’s quest for independence. Rather they argued that the return of the CSA States could stop passage of the Second 13th Amendment banning slavery in the United States if they re-joined immediately and voted against passage. (It is a depth-defying question whether Lincoln ever understood the South or felt the need to.)

Saying he already had conversations with political leaders, Lincoln offered to work for a $400 million reimbursement for slaves already freed by the war. Whether Lincoln could actually produce such a result is conjecture. Stanton and the Radical Republicans would not be lightly dealt with and Lincoln most often gave in to them. Interestingly, Seward immediately jumped up arguing against the President’s proposal. But Lincoln tempered him saying, “Ah, Mr. Seward, you may talk so about slavery if you will, but if it was wrong in the South to hold slaves, it was wrong in the North to carry on the slave trade, and it would be wrong to hold onto the money the North procured by selling slaves to the South, without compensation, if the North took the slaves back again.”

It would be Lincoln’s last attempt to keep slavery alive in order to end the war and/or gain compensation for slave owners. He had several times before and lost.”

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.19  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.16    6 years ago

The following amendments to ratifying the Confederate Constitution did NOT pass supporting the position that the states retained their sovereign right to keep or abolish slavery

1 No State shall be admitted which denies the right of property in Negro slaves or the right of the master to recapture his slave.   3/8/1861

2 No State can abolish slavery without consent of all other States. 3/9/1861

3 No State shall remain in this Confederacy which does not authorize the institution of slavery within its limits. 3/9/1861

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.18    6 years ago
It’s hardly true

So how long will it take you to find some bass ackwards right wing twisted logic website to get around the wording of Article 4 section 3 of the confederate constitution?

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy.  In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

And how was the confederate constitution viewed by the confederacy? Let's ask the Vice President of the confederacy.

" The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our  peculiar institutions —African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution . Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

" Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Vice President of Confederacy Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861

Seems pretty clear how it was viewed and promoted as back then. Not sure why you insist on pissing into the wind on something that has so much evidence against your monumentally flawed premise.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
12.1.21  livefreeordie  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.20    6 years ago

4.3.3 allows, that doesn’t equate to requires

the Confederate Constitution even with its flaws at least restored more limited central government and a greater recognition of state sovereignty that Madiso and Hamilton had promised would be retained by the states.

centralized power in Washington is one of the greates evils of our government

“The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.”

James Madison in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787)

 "the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

“…since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” – Federalist No. 39, Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, Independent Journal, January 16, 1788

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
12.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.21    6 years ago
allows, that doesn’t equate to requires

"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government"

Anyone with a smidgen of legal experience can tell you "shall be" does not equate to "allows". The confederate constitution was specifically designed to protect slavery in ALL its states allowing the transport of slaves to and from all confederate States without exception. The ridiculous claim that the confederate constitution didn't require all confederate States to allow slavery is frankly laughable. They certainly thought so and knew that was the reason they were choosing secession. They were actually pissed off at States rights because the Northern States were passing laws that removed the penalties they had installed against people who helped runaway slaves or refused to return them. That was the big reason for splitting off, the Northern States were demanding their States rights to pass laws for their State as they saw fit but the worthless pieces of trash Southern slave owners were having conniptions over the number of slaves escaping their grubby clutches hiding behind the "sanctuary cities" of the North.

So confederates were against States rights at the time, they wanted the federal government to enforce the parts of the original constitution protecting their supposed property rights across State lines and when the government started to move to amend that part of the constitution instead of giving in to slave owner demands they revolted (and were revolting).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.22    6 years ago

Do you get the feeling some people here are trying to justify slavery?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.24  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.23    6 years ago

Live Free Or Die's source has been described as a neo-confederate site. I clicked on it and saw articles that describe how well slaves were treated. It is an eerie, strange website that will give some people the creeps.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.24    6 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.26  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.25    6 years ago

This is a book being sold on that website

ebook-emancipation-hell.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.27  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.24    6 years ago

This is the type of "thinking" on that website

"When we speak about the causes of war should we not pay some attention to the motives of the attacker and not blame everything on the people who were attacked and conquered? To say that the war was “caused” by the South’s defense of slavery is logically comparable to the assertion that World War II was caused by Poland resisting attack by Germany. People who think this way harbor an unacknowledged assumption: Southerners are not fellow citizens deserving of tolerance but bad people and deserve to be conquered. The South and its people are the property of the North to do with as they wish. Therefore no other justification is needed. That Leninist attitude is very much still alive judging by the abuse I receive in print and by e-mail. The abuse never discusses evidence, only denounces what is called “Neo-Confederate” and “Lost Cause” mythology. These are both political terms of abuse that have no real meaning and are designed to silence your enemy unheard."

All the south wanted was to be left alone,  and the North invaded. The slaveholding states were innocent. It also seems we have a few right here that take that depraved stance.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
13  charger 383    6 years ago

next he will want to tear down The Alamo

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @13    6 years ago

yeah, I don't think anyone is really prepared for the fight they'll get when THAT crazy shit happens, but I damn sure want to witness it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
14  Texan1211    6 years ago

Sometimes I believe that some people deliberately look for something to complain about.

The plaque has been there almost 60 freaking years, and magically, most people never even realized it or cared.

The perpetually offended among us just HAVE to have something to complain about.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
14.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Texan1211 @14    6 years ago

It's like an outrage scavenger hunt for some liberals. There's probably a scoreboard somewhere online.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15  Texan1211    6 years ago

Damn, I am grateful that plaques and museums aren't a trigger for me!

Whew!

Dodged THAT bullet!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @15    6 years ago

You often seem to be talking to yourself.

You claim to be unimpressed with the topic yet you have made over three  dozen comments on the seed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    6 years ago

is that a problem for you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    6 years ago
'You claim to be unimpressed with the topic yet you have made over three  dozen comments on the seed.'

His typical MO

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    6 years ago

I am happy that I can give some meaning to the lives of people who have time to count my posts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @15.1.3    6 years ago
I am happy that I can give some meaning to the lives of people who have time to count my posts.

LOL. It took about 20 seconds.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.4    6 years ago

Ah! The Evelyn Wood speed-counting course came in handy!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
15.2  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @15    6 years ago

In another thread people are wondering why the OD and suicide rates are going up so precipitously.

Here is one more reason.   Generation Narcissist ...... where everything they disagree with is a trigger, so they reach for a needle full of smack to cope .....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
16  Nowhere Man    6 years ago

Deleted duplicate post

 
 

Who is online



Igknorantzruls
JBB
Dragon
JohnRussell


86 visitors