Univ of Tx to rethink Confederate statues..

[bg]

There is no reason to deny history or try and do away with it. >
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_us/ut_confederate_statues

William Powers Jr., who took over as president this month, said the advisory committee would look into concerns about the statues, which include likenesses of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, and Gen. Robert E. Lee.

What do you think ?

[Dannyboy]

Jefferson was a slave owner.  Maybe we should disregard his contributions to this country and destroy the Jefferson Memorial.  Hell, Washington was a slave owner, too, right?  F#*k it, let's just dissolve the entire United States.

[El Tejon]

All for it!  Tear them down yesterday!  I toured the University of Texas at Austin in spring of '03.  I was horrified that those traitors were proudly displayed at a so-called institute of higher learning.

Dr. Lizard, my radiologist high school friend who practices in Austin, is married to a professor there.  He's from Wisconsin and expressed dismay that the University would allow such filth on campus.

They should be torn down at once and in their place should go a tribute to Union soldiers and sailors who defeated the treason and freed African-Americans should be erected in their place.  A statue in tribute to Union servicemen should be placed on every Martin Luther King avenue in the US as well.

[Mannlicher]

lousy satire or just moronic.  I am not sure.

[crt360]

They weren't that controversial when I was there.  There were always a few troublemakers that voiced an opinion on them, but they seemed to have a problem with everything.  Next thing you know, they'll consider removing the word "Texas" from the name of the university because, at some point in the past, Texas did something to offend or oppress someone.

As long as we're still a state full of schools and military bases (like Ft. Hood) named after Confederate generals, I don't see why U.T. should be concerned with a few horsey statues.

[Art Eatman]

Lotsa folks don't have enough to do to keep their tiny little minds occupied, so they go out and hunt for things by which to be offended.  To show how pure of heart they are, they then start up some fuss and pother in order to offend those who were minding their own business.

It's a national pastime, doncha know...

Art

[Hugh Damright]

Praise the Confederacy.

[meinbruder]

They should be torn down at once and in their place should go a tribute to Union soldiers and sailors who defeated the treason and freed African-Americans should be erected in their place.  A statue in tribute to Union servicemen should be placed on every Martin Luther King avenue in the US as well.

Treason?  Secession was the legal right of a free state in 1860 and is still a legal right in 2006.  The Confederate States removed themselves from the Union and Mr. Lincoln fought a war of aggression to negate that legal right of secession.  The declaration of Independence specifically states That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  It should also be pointed out the Slavery was prohibited as an act of economic revenge, there was no intention of its prohibition at the onset of the War Between the States.

Confederate Soldiers and Statesmen fought for the same principles, which prompted the Revolutionary War, if one reads the Declarations of Secession the same complaints will be found that justified the Secession of the thirteen colonies from the rule of England.  Any tribute to men who fought for the principles of freedom should be revered and preserved and they certainly belong in an institute of higher learning.  Learning is about thinking for oneself and not just about memorizing facts, this is something not taught in the morass which has become the public school system in the country.  It would be shameful if these statues were removed in the interest of being politically correct.
}:)>

[MechAg94]

Yes, let us put up statues honoring the great Union army that systematically massacred the indians and forced them onto reservations.  That makes sense. 

[MechAg94]

A statue in tribute to Union servicemen should be placed on every Martin Luther King avenue in the US as well.

If you pay for them and their installation, you can pursue that yourself, right?

[natedog]

Treason?  Secession was the legal right of a free state in 1860 and is still a legal right in 2006.  The Confederate States removed themselves from the Union and Mr. Lincoln fought a war of aggression to negate that legal right of secession.  The declaration of Independence specifically states That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, while a historically important document, is not a part of US law. There is no provision given in the Constitution for a state to leave the Union.

Confederate Soldiers and Statesmen fought for the same principles, which prompted the Revolutionary War, if one reads the Declarations of Secession the same complaints will be found that justified the Secession of the thirteen colonies from the rule of England.  Any tribute to men who fought for the principles of freedom should be revered and preserved and they certainly belong in an institute of higher learning.

The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are not analogous. The Colonies had no elected representation, while the treasonous states did.   

To say the war was fought for states rights and not for slavery isn't really accurate. The only "state right" the South wanted to preserve was the 'right' to own another human being, and to expand slavery in to new states. Further, they decided they didn't like the results of the election of 1860 and choose sucession in response to their defeat. Recently, the Democrats took Congress. Can I move to sucede Kern County from the Union in protest? Maybe I'll fire on local Federal property, like the South did.

[Hugh Damright]

The Declaration of Independence, while a historically important document, is not a part of US law.

It isn't law, but it was a declaration, and it declared the right of secession as an American principle of government.


 

There is no provision given in the Constitution for a state to leave the Union.

That's like saying that there is no law which says I can do something ... but unless a law says that I cannot do something, then that thing is not illegal. There is no provision in the US Constitution which denies the right to secession.

The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are not analogous. The Colonies had no elected representation, while the treasonous states did.

Virginia seceded from old England to preserve free government, and then Virginia seceded from New England to preserve free government. It sure seems analogous to me.

The only "state right" the South wanted to preserve was the 'right' to own another human being

No, that just happened to be a most pertinent part of the US Constitution that the yankee traitors turned against.

[El Tejon]

If there is any question about why the South committed Treason, it is answered by a short hike from the University of Texas to the Texas State Museum.  Upon on its second floor is prominently displayed the petition of treason.  Slavery is front and center.  The states that left the Union first had the most slaves.  Look at where the Southern Unionists were from--non-slave country.  Heck, even state in the South field Union troops, except one state, Slave Stronghold South Carolina. 

Look at the CSA Constitution, slavery is the glue that held it together.  Look at what Bobby Lee said after the War of Southern Treason about how the war was to maintain white supremacy. 

Where is the world did this revisionist notion that the North was the aggressor begin?  General Early as well???  Just who attacked whom?  If not for Southern aggression, why was Kentucky a Union state?

Mech, I would be in favor of making African-Americans pay for the statues of the Union soldiers.  Afterall they now enjoy the blessings of my ancestors, it is only just that they pay for them.  Take the money out of "Black Studies" or the "Black Cultural House" or the like.

[meinbruder]

If there is any question about why the South committed Treason, it is answered by a short hike from the University of Texas to the Texas State Museum.  Upon on its second floor is prominently displayed the petition of treason.  Slavery is front and center.  The states that left the Union first had the most slaves.  Look at where the Southern Unionists were from--non-slave country.  Heck, even state in the South field Union troops, except one state, Slave Stronghold South Carolina. 

Look at the CSA Constitution, slavery is the glue that held it together.  Look at what Bobby Lee said after the War of Southern Treason about how the war was to maintain white supremacy. 

Where is the world did this revisionist notion that the North was the aggressor begin?  General Early as well???  Just who attacked whom?

You might try going here, http://www.secessionist.us/secession_intro.htm and read a few articles; it might change your mind.  Then again, maybe not.  Lincoln declared going into the war there was no intention to free slaves and was quoted before his Presidency as being in favor of the vile institution.  It was slowly dying without federal intervention, plantations using freemen were more productive at a lower cost than slave plantations. 

Lincoln abolished habeas corpus, instituted conscription to fight an unpopular war, nearly snuffed out the first amendment for the duration, and was the first President to hold Political prisoners.  Mr. Lincoln severely changed the country from its Republic roots into an evolving federalist state.  He set the foundation for future Presidents meddling in the affairs of other nations which resulted in over a hundred incursions into South America before the end of the century.

It could be argued that the Battle of Fort Sumter was nothing more than an eviction of Union troops from Confederate Territory, it wasnt really a fort yet as it was incomplete and had no garrison.  True, Confederate forces bombarded the facility; it should be pointed out it was on Confederate soil not Union.  The construction personnel and a security detachment withdrew almost without casualties, until two men were killed by a prematurely exploding canon firing a signal salute.  Mr. Lincoln followed the event with an invasion of the Southern Confederacy.  It could be considered his Gulf of Tonkin  Try reading this, http://sciway3.net/clark/civilwar/sumpter.html , but then youll need to read more beyond that as well.
}:)>

[El Tejon]

Once again the Lincoln chaff comes out.  Someday soon I expect to read that Lincoln and Haliburton flew black helicopters into South Carolina and fired the first shots at Fort Sumter.

Lincoln abolished habeus corpus, boo hoo hoo.  Yes, he sure did since he was facing a treasonous rebellion and the Constitution permits it.

Southern motivations did not include anything the Great Liberator did during the War of Southern Treason, excepting that the Southern States did not want to give up their slaves to Lincoln and his abolitionist fellows.  Southern motives were solidly slavecentric, i.e. they wanted their slaves and they weren't going to give them up without a fight.  They got one and got whipped bad.

The South fired first.  Is not the photo of the guy that fired the first shot in the Civil War still hanging in the South Carolina statehouse?  The revisionist historians claim of a Southern self-defense is shot to pieces at Fort Sumter and in invading neutral Kentucky.

[Robert Sears]

El Tejon,
  You sir are out of line. If the People of Texas decide to remove these statues so be it but someone from Ill has no say in it. You have a right to your opinion but PLEASE but out of Tx business. Fix your problem politicians in Ill before working on Tx. For the record my family comes from Mass(trace roots to Mayflower) and Geo. I was born in Mich and have ived in Tx since 1957. Sorry for the rant.

Bob Sears

[Tallpine]

Well, I am offended everytime I see a picture of Father Abraham Jesus Lincoln on our money, or hear the Battle Hymn of the Republicans   

[meinbruder]

Revisionist History?  Now there is an interesting notion.  The official history of any conflict is, and always has been, written by the victor of the conflict.  Eyewitness accounts will vary depending on point of view as well as politics.  Records from both sides will be conflicting in minor and sometimes major ways.  Very rarely will the entire truth be told to following generations.  More issues were cited by the Confederacy than slavery and there was no stated ambition to free them at the start of the war.

The first shot of record was an aerial burst, I suppose intended as a warning shot.  The small garrison of construction and security types couldnt last the existing siege and the North couldnt re-supply them.  No surprise there, the Fort was in South Carolina.  Historians will argue the points of the Civil War for years to come, some points are being discussed now as secession is once again a topic of possibility in the Red/ Blue split in modern politics.

There were heroes and brilliant generals on both sides as well as cowards, fumbling officers, atrocities, and losses due to poor judgment.  The Heroes should be remembered; all American soldiers should be given the respect due them, regardless of the color of the Uniform.       
}:)>

[bg]

I just wonder what this Nation would be like today if the Armies
of the Confederacy had won the War between the States..

[Hugh Damright]

I just wonder what this Nation would be like if the Armies of the Confederacy had won the War of between the States.

If the South had won, and we were two "nations" ... I think the US would be an awful place with no Southerners to balance the US Congress ... if I imagine a Congress full of nothing but Yankees and Californians, I bet that such a US would have national gun laws about like the DC gun laws ... but now, if I imagine a Congress with no Yankees and Californians, then that would be the CSA ... and it kind of seems to me like we'd be better off in every way ... but then we figured that out generations ago.

[El Tejon]

Bob, I do not feel I am out of line.  But what I offer is merely my opinion.  As I pay no taxes in Texas and am not alum, I don't have a say unless I start a website or such.

mein, slavery was still front and center to the South as the reason behind the Civil War.  Next time you are in Austin, mosey on over to the State Museum (great place) and take a look at the Civil War exhibit on the 2d floor.  You will see proudly displayed the reason Texas left the Union--slavery.  http://www.thestoryoftexas.com/

 

[Dannyboy]

but now, if I imagine a Congress with no Yankees and Californians, then that would be the CSA ... and it kind of seems to me like we'd be better off in every way ... but then we figured that out generations ago.

Yeah, it would be great...if you were white.  If there was no slavery, there'd still be segregation.  WooHoo, my kinda place.

[natedog]

The Declaration of Independence, while a historically important document, is not a part of US law.

It isn't law, but it was a declaration, and it declared the right of secession as an American principle of government.

No, it didn't. It simpy declared the Colonies independent from Britain. It set no legal precedet. It is not applicable elsewhere.

There is no provision given in the Constitution for a state to leave the Union.

That's like saying that there is no law which says I can do something ... but unless a law says that I cannot do something, then that thing is not illegal. There is no provision in the US Constitution which denies the right to secession.

Because there is no right to secession. Its a pretty important issue, don't you think? If the delegates had considered it remotely feasible, they would have addressed it. Rather, the Constitution set out to create a more perfect union from the PERPETUAL union established by the AoC. Even your own precious CSA prohibited secession. Talk about hypocracy  .

The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are not analogous. The Colonies had no elected representation, while the treasonous states did.

Virginia seceded from old England to preserve free government, and then Virginia seceded from New England to preserve free government. It sure seems analogous to me.

No, it isn't. Like I said before, the Colonies had no representation. The Southern States did. Rather using the legitimate, legal method way of representation in government, they instead chose violence. They didn't get their way, so like a spoiled child they decided they weren't going to play anymore.

The only "state right" the South wanted to preserve was the 'right' to own another human being

No, that just happened to be a most pertinent part of the US Constitution that the yankee traitors turned against.

This sentence is barely coherent. Care to elaborate? What other "rights" were the southern states trying to preserve?



"The Confederacy actively used the military to arrest people suspected of loyalty to the United States. They arrested at about the same rate as the Union arrested Confederacy loyalists. Neely found 2,700 names of men arrested and estimated the full list was much longer. Neely concludes,

    "The Confederate citizen was not any freer than the Union citizenand perhaps no less likely to be arrested by military authorities. In fact, the Confederate citizen may have been in some ways less free than his Northern counterpart. For example, freedom to travel within the Confederate states was severely limited by a domestic passport system." [Neely 11, 16] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_states_of_america#Government_and_politics

Yes, truly a bastion of freedom and liberty 

Not to mention that 1/3 of their population were completly without freedom (and thats not including women, either).

[Jamisjockey]

I just wonder what this Nation would be like if the Armies of the Confederacy had won the War of between the States.

If the South had won, and we were two "nations" ... I think the US would be an awful place with no Southerners to balance the US Congress ... if I imagine a Congress full of nothing but Yankees and Californians, I bet that such a US would have national gun laws about like the DC gun laws ... but now, if I imagine a Congress with no Yankees and Californians, then that would be the CSA ... and it kind of seems to me like we'd be better off in every way ... but then we figured that out generations ago.

That, and those pesky negros wouldn't be able to vote, eh?
You make me sick.

[Winston Smith]

Suddenly, I'm realizing... that conservativism is bullhooey too if it can give rise to this... revisionist... recidivist... trash.

Ughh

Disgusting.

This CALIFORNIAN seems to be more pro freedom than you, cowboy.

[/undirected vitriol]