Fight for Historical Marker Sparks Race Concerns
Reigniting a racially charged debate many thought had flamed out, the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans association is working to install another historical marker on the Texas Capitol campus recognizing the Confederacy.
“It’s nothing, frankly, that anybody needs to get their knickers in a twist about,” said Kirk Lyons, the group’s colorful lawyer.
The organization argues that it is simply trying to highlight an interesting and important tale about how the Texas Supreme Court building came to exist through the use of Confederate veterans’ pension funds. Critics, including 12 lawmakers who fired off a letter Tuesday opposing the ...
Comments (42)
Mamie Dolemite Joseph via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The war was about States Rights...to own slaves.
The war was about economics...the economics of slavery.
Atech Homenet via Texas Tribune on Facebook
will this kind of thing never die(?) Kingofallclergy Ed
BiffTannen
“We need to get that up,” -- heard in every Confederate-wannabe's bedroom.
Fort Martin Scott Museum Association via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Please help us stop the neo-confederate Former Texas Rangers Foundation from bulldozing and building at this union loyal fort. The men of Fredericksburg trained at Fort Martin Scott and left to join the Union Army but were murdered while they camped on Nueces 150 years ago.
Bologna Vest
“The state of Texas owes an inordinate, immense debt to men who came back from the war,” Lyons said.
Um, no. They did, and they paid it out of the pension fund. Once paid, the remaining funds were used for other purposes. No more debt is owed.
JC DemocratofTejas
...“It’s nothing, frankly, that anybody needs to get their knickers in a twist about,” said Kirk Lyons, the group’s colorful lawyer."
Real classy Kirk! We all know this is racially motivated, and total b.s.
Why don't you put your stupid hisitorical marker where the sun don't shine.
Fort Martin Scott Museum Association via Texas Tribune on Facebook
When the Civil War ended, Maj. John B. Jones did not want to give up his slaves, so he tried to take over Mexico. When that failed, the post-reconstruction Governor Richard Coke hired him to kill Native Americans. He later started the El Paso Salt War, where he led his rangers on a murder spree. Please help us stop the Maj. John B. Jones Masonic Rangering Company/Former Texas Rangers Foundation. Tell them to leave Fort Martin Scott alone!
Luisa Inez Newton via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Like many Americans, my ancestors fought on both sides of the Civil War and there are vast amounts of monuments to both. Enough is enough. NO MORE MONUMENTS to the long dead past!
David Edmonson
“The state of Texas owes an inordinate, immense debt to men who came back from the war,” Lyons said. “The C-word is going to be there. I’m sorry. People just need to deal with history.”
If they want to be called "c-words," I'm sure a lot of people will take them up on that offer.
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Really!! Your going to tell me that the Southern family sent their sons, brothers, and fathers to fight to keep man in bondage?? Really have any of you read and studied history out side of reading a biased history text book.......ya'll condenm the South but, forget that Lincoln wanted to send all "blacks back to Africa" he also said that the "black man will never be equall to the white man." .......but yes the Confederacy is racist....no more than 20% of Southerners owned slaves(it was obviously dying off).....and one more thing...Confederate General Stonewall Jackson started a sunday school for blacks.....but of course you won't read this.....do some real research....just because ignorant groups such as the KKK and other "white supremacy" groups use the flag doesn't mean its a flag of racism, these same groups use the christian and american flag-where's the outcry when those flags are used??.....here's another fact..NOT ONE CONFEDERATE FLAG FLEW OVER ANY SLAVE SHIPS......the "stars and stripes" did though.......the Confederate soldier wasn't a "white racist" fighting to keep blacks in slavery-there were Hispanics, Blacks, and many other non white groups that fought in defense of the South. Colonel Santos Benavides was the highest ranking hispanic-American to fight for the South.....just wish people wouldn't get so worked up over monuments and flags....we should honor our veterans! shame on all of you!
Scott Nicol via Texas Tribune on Facebook
As to the coment just ahead of mine - yes, the South really did send their sons to die to maintain human bondage. It sounds abhorrent because it was abhorrent.
David Edmonson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Christoper/Julieann: the how do you explain the Texas declaration of secession (https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html), which contained these choice quotes: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law." ... and ... "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Since the men that made the choice to secede thought this was about slavery, how are you in a better position to substitute your judgment for theirs?
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
To the comment above(Scott)---No they didn't.....the north had slaves too,before the War... northerners were the first to threaten to "break up" the union why is the South the only ones that suffer for it?....i can sit here and list all kinds of facts- but apparently you obviously won't change your mind......I guess TRUE history doesn't matter anymore..........
Jose B. Gonzalez via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Christopher - you are twisting information and making irrelevant comparisons... You're grasping tid bits of history information & twisting them into false and misconstrued points...
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Ok, Jose.....how am I twisting information?
Donna Rene Johnston via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yall just need to ignore him. He can obviously barely read or form a complete sentence. He is just ranting and making lots of noise. Bless his heart.
Whit Goodson
Oh, I think that there should be a small Confederate marker adjacent to the south entrance to the Capitol building.
On a bronze plaque no more than 18 inches by 18 inches should be the quote from Sam Houston that went something like: "Don't get mixed up with Jefferson Davis. He is a crook and a fool."
Below that the text, "We should have listened to you Sam."
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
In no way am I advocating for slavery, but our problems is when you look at history from a modern day point of view- yes it's horrible, but don't forget that in the 1800s the Constitution of the US recognized slavery(Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 9, and Art. 4, Sec. 2) Whereas the Constitution of the Confedearcy prohibited the slave trade. So how are they wrong to have slaves- it was protected by the Constitution?
We look at the Revolutionary War as the War for Liberty, no one has problems with the Revolutionary War- but yet while they were fighting for freedom- they had slaves in bondage...so now do we have to not erect anymore monuments of Washington, or memorials to the Colonial Patriots, because at that time, north & South had slaves......should we forget about that as well?
Lincoln made it very clear that the War wasn't about slavery....
You can post "Secession documents" all you want but slavery was recognized by the US Constitution! Secession was taught at West Point during this time to. It was widely regarded as a right....
But yes I'm just making noise, and since I don't know how to read made all this up Donna......lastly with all due respect if you don't like the South, the Confederacy- here's a news flash Texas sent many of her sons to fight for the South if you don't like this stuff or like when people honor their Confederate heritage- then what in the world are you doing here? Move up north then......then you wouldn't have to worry about anything Confederate......
Jeremy Warren via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Ok, you have not idea what youare talking about. The Constitution of the Confederacy expressly permitted (even demanded) slavery.
Jeremy Warren via Texas Tribune on Facebook
ARTICLE IV
(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….
(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.
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Hey Jeremy you don't know what your talking about I said "slave trade" obviously you don't know the meaning.......
andré delepierre
From France,
En 1944; we have been fortunate to be freed by citizen soldiers of the USA, White ou Black, Indian or whatever, Confederate or Yanks, no matter. Many of them rest in peace in the valleys and in the countryside in neat graveyards under the American flag. They helped us to get rid of a special kind of white Aryans real supremacist fascists dressed in black uniforms with skulls and swastikas on their shirts. These " Aryans" committed many crimes in Europe against Jews and Democrats of all kindsa and creeds, French born or not. It is always an astonishment to discover these "Aryans" still have followers in America. Is this sufficiently "colorful" for Mr Lyons or does he want some more explanation?
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
What about the bans that many northern states had on blacks entering their states? C'mon the list goes on-
if they want to erect a monument let them.....they want to honor their heritage. Don't we live in America, is it against the law to honor your heritage? With that I'm done....hope ya'll delve into some history research and get past the misconceptions that are upon the Confederate soldier.....y'all have a great one.
Chris Bazan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
^this guy doesn't know crap out the Civil War...what a buffoon
Jeff Paulk
The statement you made ( “Here's what it was: an insurrection against the United States government with the main goal of maintaining the institution of African slavery.” )is an absolute lie, and it is you, Senator Rodney Ellis, and those like you, who have revised history to denigrate the South, and elevate the North. Lincoln waged an unconstitutional, illegal war of aggression against a people who posed no threat whatsoever. The only “rebellion” there was consisted of the North’s rebellion against the Constitution. Frankly, I am sick and tired of the Confederacy being slandered. The war was about the South’s desire to perpetuate slavery? Then tell me, oh knowledgeable sir, why the CSA did not sign onto the Corwin Amendment? What was the Corwin Amendment? Glad you asked. It was the original 13th Amendment, which Lincoln approved, which would have FOREVER protected slavery if the South would rejoin the union. Here it is:
“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 such state.”
If the war was over slavery, all the South had to do was to ratify the original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, and slavery would have forever been protected by the Constitution. Why did the South NOT accept this amendment? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery.
Also, read the following U.S. Resolution stating that the war was NOT about slavery:
On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:
“Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”
This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery. The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous. It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern industrialists. You scalawags and Yankee sympathizers are conducting cultural genocide against the Southern people, and have been since Reconstruction. You have rewritten the actual accounts of history and deny the truth. Where did the slaves come from? Yankees traded rum for them and brought them to the U.S. on cramped, dirty slave ships that flew the flag of the United States and sold them. You hypocrites! Make money off the sale of slaves, then condemn the ones you sold them to for buying them. You vile, hate-spewing scalawags, along with the NAACP stir up strife and animosity relating to anything connected to our great heritage. All the South was trying to do was separate itself from an overbearing, intrusive government and live by the Constitution, which was totally violated by Lincoln, and continues to be today. Study up on some real history, sir, and forget that mythology taught in the government indoctrination centers.
Carl W. Roden via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The question you should ask yourselves is: was the War itself because Texas and the Southern States seceded over slavery, or was it because of an illegal and unconstitutional invasion by the Union Army sent by a US President who did not even bother to declare war?
Adele Roberson
Oh, go ahead... let them have their memorial. They have been peeing in their pants ever since they lost the war, maybe now they will stay dry. The smell is bad on Texas' hot days.
And it is sort of a consolation prize. It will keep them happy for ten days or so and then they will need another memorial to keep from getting depressed again.
I saw Joe Barton on TV today, he looks like he has been hitting the bottle hard again..
maybe a memorial will help in some way. God knows he needs help.
Christopher- Julieann Maldonado via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Thank you Carl!
Jeff Paulk
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
SECTION 9.
1. 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.
Why is it that the South is shackled with the history of slavery? It existed in the North as well, and it was the North that built the slavers that sailed to Africa to buy the slaves. Slavery existed in the U.S., including the time before the Revolution, for over 200 years, it existed in the CSA for four years. Those who cling to the mythology that "the war was all about slavery" have swallowed the Yankee Kool-Aide of rewritten history. The very letters and journals of union officers tell a different tale than the "history" books do, as do the "Slave Narratives". In the book, "Truths of History", by Mildred Lewis Rutherford written in 1920, page 14 says, "Simon Cameron, Lincoln's Secretary of War, wrote to General Butler in New Orleans: "President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Of course, it did arise with the Emancipation Proclamation, which was strictly a war measure and freed not one solitary slave. Those who do not believe this have not read it. It "freed" them where the U.S. had no control, yet specifically stated that the areas under U.S. control would remain as if the proclamation had not been written. What is really appalling, and quite sad, is the number of Southerners who have been brainwashed with the revisionist history that was started during Reconstruction. Indoctrination is what is was, to instill in Southern children how "bad" the South had been to secede from such a "wonderful" country, and what "traitors" they had been to do so. But nobody was tried for treason because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that "What was won on the battlefield would be lost in the courtroom." He knew that secession was a legal right. Just a few books that need to be read; “The Real Lincoln”, by Charles L.C. Minor, “The South Was Right”, by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, “Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists” by Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr., ”The Un-Civil War” by Leonard M. Scruggs, and “Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865”, by George Edmunds. There are many more books to read where you can learn some true history.
Carl W. Roden via Texas Tribune on Facebook
No problem.
Kirk Lyons
The causes of the war have nothing to do with the SCV's application for an historical marker, nada, nichts, nothing. The marker seeks to tell how all the downtown state office buildings came to be built - mostly through the efforts of Gov Bill Daniel of Liberty. By stumping the State he was able to push through a constitutional amendment that allowed the State to transfer excess money from the Confederate Pension Fund and pour into the State Building Fund. The Texas Supreme Court was the first building built and the constitutional mandate dedicated it to Texans who served the Confederacy. Whether you like it or not, that is history - whether you like it or not the Texas Supreme Court is the largest Confederate Memorial in the world, and all the money came from the Confederate Pension Fund. it is an important story - all those buildings, Supreme Court, Reagan Bldg, Austin Bldg, State Library & Archives and Insurance building were not created from Pixie dust - they were sorely needed, the state didn't have the money or the budget and Rep Bill Daniel & Gov Alan Shivers figured out a way to get the money without raising taxes. A fascinating true story of Texas politics, that needs to be told. And I'll close with this, since the argument seems to center on issues that have nothing to do with the SCV's application - absent Lincoln's proclamation for 75,000 troops to put down a rebellion and his goon squad tactics in Maryland & Missouri - all he has to deal with is the secession of the lower South. His proclamation, Lincoln's threatened invasion, not slavery, not secession, pushes North Carolina, Virginia & Tennessee into the arms of the lower South - A secession thy were not willing to consider before - war becomes a certainty.
skiler smith
https://www.facebook.com/groups/119352624808016/doc/307754955967781/
Read about how the war was unjust from Lincoln himself.
Jeffrey Murrah via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The Court house plaques were removed illegally. In essence, they were stolen under the cover of darkness. Bush took them down without the authority to do so. The powers that be need to allow the markers to be returned. Trying to revise history by removing markers or changing them is unacceptable. Changing history by stealing it is not honorable or honest by any means.
David O
People still debate (and will continue to debate) what the underlying cause was for the Civil War. The cause is irrelevant. All those that took up arms against their country were traitors to the United States. Rather than use the democratic mechanisms set forth in the Constitution to effect change, they chose to go to war with their country. I have no problem putting historical markers up recognizing the Confederacy or its supporters as long as each contains the caption, "A traitor to his country."
Least you think I am one of those "yankees," my family goes back to the late 1850s in Texas and it bears the stain of having a traitor in it as well. My great-great grandfather mustered into the Confederate army from Texas and, by his service, I am eligible to join the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I decline. It is unfortunate that my great-great grandfather did not have Sam Houston's strength of character to refuse to join the Confederacy.
Jon Edens
These senators and representatives from Texas quoted the Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession in their letter, but apparently they choose to deny the other parts of the Declaration as they are still apparent today.
"The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."
Even back in 1861 Texas was complaining about illegals crossing their borders and the federal government's refusal to address the situation or protect them.
Texas also cited the failure of other states to follow through with the extradition of criminals, specifically murderers, for the purpose of prosecution.
"They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved."
They also cited improper taxation and fees designed by the federal government to disable the state of Texas.
"They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance."
So when the senators and representatives say in their letter, "After all, who better knows why the Civil War was fought than those who actually fought it," maybe they should include ALL of the reasons noted in the document.
Jeff Paulk
"All those that took up arms against their country were traitors to the United States. "
You, my ignorant fellow, are as wrong as can be. Is it wrong to defend yourself from invasion? That is what the South was doing. The South did not "choose to go to war with their country". Lincoln chose to violate the Constitution and go to war with a people who posed no threat at all. Your stand on this matter holds no merit whatsoever and has been repeatedly disproved. Lincoln could not bear to see his revenues disappear, so he pinned the "union" together with a bayonet, after waging total war on Southern civilians. If there was treason on the part of the South, why was nobody tried?
You need to quit regurgitating that tired old rewritten history and learn the truth. "But the South fired the first shot". Yes, and if a burgler comes into my home, I will do my level best to fire the first shot. Lincoln may have been a tyrant and a despot, but he was not entirely stupid. He knew that trying to restock Ft. Sumter would initiate a response from the South. The one who causes the first shot to be fired is the agressor. Lincoln called up 75,000 troops to invade the South, which caused more states to secede. You people who have been brainwashed with Yankee propaganda in the government indoctrination centers need to grasp onto some real history. It is not wrong to be ingnorant; it is wrong to STAY ignorant. School didn't teach me WHAT to think; it taught me HOW to think. The truth is out there. Research and find it like millions of others have done.
David O
Thanks for the humor Jeff. Always fun to read the brand of revisionist history the loser's side comes up with.
As for why no one was tried, it was due primarily to a general amnesty and presidential pardons.
Jeff Paulk
No, David, the revisionist history was produced by the North during "Reconstruction". Nobody was tried for treason because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court knew the South had done nothing illegal. He said that, "What was won on the battlefield would be lost in the courtroom". Even the "Official Records: War of the Rebellion" (of course there was no rebellion) supports what the South has said all along. The following prove that the war was NOT about slavery; 1. The Corwin Amendment, 2. U.S. Resolution stating that the war was NOT about slavery, 3. Lincoln's Secretary of war writing to General Butler in New Orleans: "President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." 4. Illegally formed West Virginia allowed to secede FROM the South INTO the North, on the condition that it could keep its slaves. It is quite pathetic how you brainwashed people cling to the propaganda you have been fed. Ignorance can be fixed, but you can't fix stupid. Those who just swallow what their beloved government tells them as the truth, and do not question it, can't be taught anyway. And what is so frustrating is that it is so easy to research and dig a little to get the truth. But that would upset your little make believe world where nanny government protected you from the mean old South, and made everything right again. I have read, "Never argue with a fool; from a distance nobody can tell the difference." With that said, I bid you a good day, and sincerely hope you may one day open that closed mind and get a real education.
Eddie Inman
I suppose the thing to have done is for the Southern States to have remained in the Union and ratified the Corwin Amendment, which was so enthusiastically endorsed by Abraham Lincoln ---
March 2, 1861
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.
36th Congress 2nd Session
March 4, 1861
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Abraham Lincoln - 1st inaugural speech
Bobby Beard
Federalist Papers No. 28 (Hamilton)
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them.
Federalist Papers No. 32 (Hamilton)
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by the act, exclusively delegated to the United States.
The South voted to leave the Union to keep their sovereignty, a right even big government Hamilton conceded was theirs. How could it have been a rebellion when it was put before the populace of the states for a vote? That being said, the State had no problem using the money put aside for Confederate Veterans, there should be no problem giving them recognition. Don't like it then bulldoze the building and let those ignorant offended fools pay for a new one.
Bill Hicks
The Texas veterans who served in the War for Southern Independence did so to honorably to protect their state and new country from an invasion by an maniacal president who violated the Constitution and declared martial law. He was so popular in the North, he had to imprison 30,000 newspaper editors who disagreed with his views. The North kept their slaves throughout the war and his Emaciated Proclamation freed none. The Texas Supreme Court Building should be dedicated to these veterans, and thank God for the S.C.V., the Honorable Kirk Lyons and the Honorable Mr. H.K. Edgerton for taking their stand. Terry's Texas Rangers (8th Texas Cavalry Regiment) was brigaded with my Great Grandfathers unit, the 8th Tennessee Cavalry (Smith's) and were there all the way to Bentonville. So, as a Tennesseean, as was the Honorable Davy Crockett who fought for Texas, I have a say in this also. Any memorial which attempts to whitewash history is no memorial. Texans, be proud of your Confederate veterans and treat their memory with honor.
GS Crispus
The South fired on Fort Sumter. The US Government has an obligation to protect its troops and assets. Perhaps P.T. Bueregard should have disregarded orders and demands from the Confederate government, and waited the additional day for Union troops to surrender due to lack of supplies, and let the conflict end peacefully. They wanted war, they got it, and they lost it.
Regardless, for anyone to argue that the war, at its roots, was not about slavery is cherry picking what they want to believe. We do not get to this conflict at a national level if slavery is not involved. The issue had permeated the courts, territories, and legislatures for decades. The Southern aristocracies' knee jerk reaction to Lincoln is one of fear in losing their property and to secede. It was not the first time they made their interests seen and heard. The State Constitutions enshrine it.
Does that mean that the average foot soldier for the South was screaming about the defense of slavery? No. Neither was the average footsoldier in the North. People get caught up in war, and we do not do do anything for one reason. Paycheck? Boredom? Glory? Duty? Whatever.
The irony of the states right argument is that the 1850s was one of federal encroachment of pro-slavery policy at the federal level. The Dred Scott decision ended any notion of "state's rights" when the court ignored that a black man had been forced to live in bondage in a free state to protect the property rights of his owner. That decision destroyed any notion of state's rights on the matter.
Unsurprisingly, in a desperate bid to further protect the property rights of slave owners, the elected bodies of the federal government took it upon themselves to pass fugitive slave laws at the federal level to demand and deputize northern men into rounding up their escaped property. This type of regulation has a tendency to turn public opinion against you. It brought the issue to a level the average American was forced to deal with in their life personally. Perhaps this is why we see a 3rd party, radical, take the stage over the next ten years... one that eventually elected Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency.
So, what do we have at Fort Sumter? A rebelling aristocracy, willing to point and fire a gun at federal troops to make their interests known. A rebelling aristocracy that had already pushed their agenda on Americans at every level of government for decades. A rebelling aristocracy that would soon feel the full force of an awakened North that, at the time, felt more like they were dragged into a war by rebellious malcontents.
In the end, it did bring about the end of slavery, and new roles for our federal government. As sharecropping soon would prove, it did not end the rebellious aristocracy of the South.