pressure-mounts-to-rename-army-bases-that-honor-confederate-soldiers

Explain that.

 

If they are honoring a Confederate or the Confederacy.

 

Because American born Southern Generals were superior military tacticians and strategists who did more with less. They are not symbols of slavery, they are symbols of superior American soldiers and the sacrifices they made in the face of far greater odds. As I'm sure you know, CSA stands for Confederate States of America.

By the way, Lincoln, himself, made it clear that the Civil War was not "about" slavery:

“Not the Great Emancipator: 10 Racist Quotes Abraham Lincoln Said About Black People”
https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/0...sts-quotes-abraham-lincoln-said-black-people/

EXCERPT “In March of 1861, Lincoln rendered the following words: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.” CONTINUED

Finally, does anyone really believe that when all the statues of Southern leaders are gone and all the US military bases are renamed, that America's destructive mobs, chronically offended miscreants and self appointed "activists" will ever be appeased?

 

Of course the institution of slavery would have ended. The question is when? Prior to the outbreak start of the civil war (as I'm sure you know) the South's economy was heavily dependent of agriculture for export income particularly the production of cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. These industries and others in the south were heavily dependent on manual labor. If the war hadn't occurred industrialization would, over the next generation or so have lead to the demise of slavery as a viable economic option. But two issues arise form this.

1) The impact of industrialization would not have been immediate or uniform - leading to slavery lingering on for a few years in the absence of uniform legislation across all member states of the Confederacy. Something easier to talk about than do given the constitutional structure of the Confederacy.

2) Even if 'freed' the former slaves would still be resident in a political organization that would by default be extremely reluctant to grant them full citizenship along with all the rights that come with it - even allowing for ongoing political pressure from the North or its European trading partners.

So yes they would have 'freed' their former slaves but that is not the same thing as granting them equal rights alongside white citizens. That is an entirely separate issue. Any dispassionate reading of southern history will show that emancipation in and of itself would not automatically lead to the granting of equal rights to former slaves. In the absence of the most extreme external political pressure why would it? At least not without generations more internal turmoil, debate and argument.

The Civil war certainly wasn't fought over the cause of slavery as a stand alone issue but regardless of that fact the war did end it, abruptly and with finality. It also accelerated progress towards equal rights in the South.

 

Do you think traitors should be honored with monuments in the country they took up arms against?

 

They were not traitors since since they wore distinctly different uniforms and were defending a distinctly different country.
Additionally, the Northern aggressors were in violation of the Corwin amendment which had been passed by congress and was in the process of being ratified by the states.

 

It was still the United States of America.

Bottomline, they took up arms against this country and they took an L which means they don't need to be honored for being traitors.

 

Say what???

At the time, they claimed the opposite....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

 

They had their own Constitution. They were not fighting to "save" the Constitution of another country. They seceded over slavery. They formed a new country chiefly to preserve slavery. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

The cornerstone speech was over 10 pages long and had less than a page on slavery. Hamilton explains what he meant years later and it wasn’t your propaganda.

They were clear that the CAUSE of secession was the norths willful and unrelenting violation of the constitution even after being ordered to cease on two separate occasions by the SCOTUS. To provide evidence of those claims they then reference slavery. Slavery was the catalyst but it was not the cause.

But regardless, I’ll call your vp and raise you a president. I present the Great emancipator Abraham Lincoln in his own words:

have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”


“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”


“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

 

The confederate constitution was almost identical to the US constitution except that it solidified power to the states and not the federal government.

But I’ll challenge your demonstrable fact. If the south went to war to preserve slavery, then why didn’t they just sign the Corwin amendment? An amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right. An amendment which had already passed Congress, had full support from Lincoln and had been ratified by multiple union states?

 

The speech literally said the opposite...they weren't fighting to protect the US Constitution, but created their own, different one, that was in fact opposite of the US Constitution.

The South fought to protect slavery. It's that simple...and they wrote a new Constitution protecting it

 

Aaaaaaand the Red 40 is approaching toxic levels...

 

Except slavery, which wasn't left up to the states, but was instead a federal guarantee in all of its territories.

They had already started seceding, and the Corwin Amendment would have only allowed them to keep their slaves, but wouldn't have addressed their other grievances involving slavery, such as the return of fugitive slaves or the slave status of new territories. Plus, the south didn't trust Lincoln or the other Republicans when it came to slavery, that much they made clear, and they made mention of Lincoln's earlier statements about the country being unable to survive as part slave and part free.

We know the South primarily left the Union over slavery. They primary sources are unequivocal.

 

You mean Stephens? The length of the speech doesn't change the fact that he specifically calls out slavery as THE cause of secession and THE foundation of the Confederacy. That isn't propaganda. It is literally what he said.

Funny how all of their "Constitutional" concerns were tied up in slavery.

Yes, by the time of his inauguration, states had already begun seceding and, in his speech, he tried to placate the slave states that remained. However, Lincoln had also said well before this that the nation could not remain part free and part slave, and he was looking for avenues for emancipation. For example, he believed he could accomplish emancipation legally through compensated emancipation.

Yes, he was also a racist. And?

 

@TheImmortal

One more thing regarding the Corwin Amendment: you are forgetting about the Crittenden Compromise. Unlike the Corwin Amendment, this compromise would have actually addressed most of the South's slavery concerns, it had a clause that would have prevented it from being later amended by Republicans, and it was very popular among the Southern states that remained. Frankly, if the Republicans had supported it, it would have passed and probably would have resulted in the North Carolina rejoining the Union. The fact that a Southern, slave-holding state came up with this as a "compromise" to try to avert the war and further secession, and that it was popular in the South as a solution, should tell you something.

 

Good post... and I was sarcastic, by the way.

 

Not true at all. The confederate constitution banned CONGRESS from creating any laws that would interfere with slavery. But it left up the question to the individual states. Nothing in the confederate constitution meant that the states could not ban slavery within their territories for their own citizens.

So the crux of your argument is that it was too late to sign a piece of paper but it wasn’t too late to engage in a war that they KNEW they weren’t going to win resulting in hundreds of thousands dead? That’s preposterous.

Furthermore they didn’t NEED to address runaway slaves because not only was that dictated in the constitution but the SCOTUS had ruled in the south’s favor. Moreover slavery’s expansion west was protected as well by another SCOTUS decision.

But you did touch on the actual problem. The north and their proxy the federal government could not be trusted to follow the constitution.

The south wanted one of two things. For the north to Either follow the constitution or for peaceful secession but the north and fed would have neither.

 

I think it's time to rename those bases that were named after southern Civil War generals.

Wiki lists black Medal of Honor recipients from the Civil War to the Viet Nam War who would be deserving of such an honor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients

Maybe rename an Air Force Base after a deserving Tuskegee Airman.

My two cents ...

 

That is flat-out false. I have a copy of the Confederate constitution right here.

Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

(2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

(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.

(4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.

All states and territories in the Confederacy HAD to honor the institution of slavery. There was no legal means for a Confederate state to become a free state or for a free territory to join the Confederacy.

Your version is that Congress simply couldn't interfere with slavery, but that's not what the Confederate Constitution says. It says that Congress WILL PROTECT slavery in all Confederate territory. Again:

IN ALL SUCH TERRITORY THE INSTITUTION OF NEGRO SLAVERY, as it now exists in the Confederate States, SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONGRESS AND 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.

You are sadly mistaken on the "crux" of the argument. Please read it again. The crux of the argument is that the amendment did not go far enough for the South in protecting the institution of slavery. Hell, just try reading Mississippi's causes of secession and you'll see a list of slavery grievances not covered by this amendment. The Crittenden Compromise actually DID try to address these grievances, and was popular among the slave states, but it went too far for the Republicans.

Again, you should really check your primary sources. Whether or not you personally think they needed to address the issue, they thought it was pivotal that it be addressed and they felt the institution was in danger. Your personal opinion as to the legitimacy of that fear does not change the undeniable, historical fact that this is what they feared.

Here, let me fix that for you: But I did touch on the actual problem. The South did not believe that the North could be trusted to follow the South's misguided opinions on the Constitution SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATED TO SLAVERY. There. Fixed.

The South wanted slavery and they rebelled against our country in order to try to keep it. I'm sorry if it offends, but this is, objectively, historical fact. The concerns over the Constitution were, overwhelmingly, concerns about slavery, and even the South knew that the US Constitution did not do enough to protect their slavery. Hence the changes they made when they wrote their own Constitution.

 

The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, long before the civil war which started around 1861. Clearly the south didn't go to war to protect the God given rights of black folks.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

. That’s patently false. The section 2 means that if you’re from Alabama where the state allows slavery and visit Texas (where they hypothetically ban slavery) with your slave then Texas cannot appropriate your slave.

The rest of what you quoted is how CONGRESS does not have the authority to change those things. I can prove it.

If slavery could not be banned within individual states then what is the purpose of stating that a resident can travel with his slave to another confederate state and not have it taken from him? If it’s not possible to ban slavery at all, there’s ZERO reason to include it. Unless of course a state can ban slavery within its borders for its citizens in which case protections would be needed to protect slaveowners from other states. Which is the ONLY logical conclusion.

You’re wrong and the historical record shows you’re wrong. This is the text of the Corwin Amendment:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Given the laws already on the books, the constitution and the SCOTUS decisions, exactly what part of slavery was not going to be protected with the Corwin amendment in place?

No I don’t need you to fix anything. I need you to explain the ridiculousness of your statement.

How was the south incorrect in regards to the constitution and slavery exactly?

That’s factually false. They had no need to go to war to save slavery as it was already constitutionally protected. Furthermore they could have further enshrined it simply by signing a piece of paper.

What could not be solved was the north’s unrelenting violation of the constitution even after being ordered to cease by the SCOTUS.

Secession was their only option outside of conceding that the federal government can simply declare a portion of the constitution to be immoral and then refuse to uphold it. That’s a precedent that CANNOT be allowed to stand.

 

Is this the same group of people who counted black people as 3/5 of a person and didn’t give them any rights and put slavery into the constitution?

What you fail to mention is that blacks weren’t thought of as people. They were thought of as savages. So that statement didn’t include them. Hence their refusal to provide them rights and protections.

 

#RENAMEYALE:

Yale University needs to change its name, given Elihu Yale’s association with the slave trade. Fortunately, there’s an excellent alternative who played a more pivotal role in the school’s early history and had better scholarly credentials. He was one of the first American-born students to get a PhD in Europe and went on to become a prominent colonial clergyman, politician and author. It was he who put the college on a secure footing by bringing in donations from Elihu Yale, a merchant, and prominent intellectuals like Isaac Newton and the Irish writer Richard Steele.

His name was Jeremiah Dummer, perfectly fitting for what Yale has become: Dummer University.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/dummer-university/

 

I'll get to the rest later, but I have to confront this one now because it is particularly misleading. The Confederate Constitution clearly states that BOTH CONGRESS AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS shall both RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT SLAVERY. Please. Read. That's not just saying that Congress can't take it away. That's saying that both BOTH CONGRESS AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS shall both RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT SLAVERY. What about that don't you understand?

This is why Stephens said that the Confederate Constitution put the issue of slavery to rest.