(33) comments Back to story

Wayne D Holt

White citizens of Texas feared that Lincoln’s election affirmed what they called “the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men.”

Which would have been an odd thing to think, considering Lincoln's known pro-slavery position. In 1860, African American abolitionist H. Ford Douglas pointed out Lincoln was not committed to ending slavery in the states where it already existed and was seemingly willing to admit new slave states into the Union. Furthermore, Lincoln favored enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, a draconian measure that Douglas denounced as one that "not only strikes down the liberty of every black man in the United States, but virtually the liberty of every white man as well." 

So you see, there is much to correct in American history, including the myth that all Confederate soldiers were fighting for slavery, which makes sense since very few who fought and died in those bloody battles owned slaves and eked out there subsistence living on small plots of land unaided by slave help.

It might be instructional to seek out the Northern banking interests and wealthy families who were intent on making the South a colony of the industrialized North, one big plantation for their business interests. Are we ready to tear those images down yet? Until we do, I support remembering the sacrifice of the common solider of the Confederacy who, like most soldiers throughout human history, was drawn into a tragedy that was not of their making.

Paul Tramonte

With respect to your comments about Lincoln, one has to look at the context of Lincoln's positions regarding initially preserving the Union and then keeping the border states in the Union once succession began. He wasn't pro-slavery, but he was taken to task by abolitionists for not initially taking a pure abolitionist position. Lincoln understood the politics of the matter and that he had to balance elements that were tolerant of slavery even in Union if the North were to keep up support for the war. Once the North began to gain the upper hand he was able to take stronger measures such as the Emancipation Proclamation. To be fair, you didn't claim he was pro-slavery.

Carlos Ponce

Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston on September 18, 1858:

Abraham Lincoln stated,

"I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to intermarry with white people. I will say then, I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the negro should be deprived everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year and never have had a black woman for either for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making slaves or wives of negroes. " - Chicago Press and Tribune September 21, 1858.

Pro slavery? No.

Pro equality? No.

Wayne D Holt

Paul, thanks for sharing your thinking on this. Indeed, even scholars of this period of American history are not in general agreement about where Lincoln stood. My purpose in sharing the position of a black contemporary of Lincoln was to show how complex some of our national traditions and myths are in comparison to the simple depictions of Blue=Good, Gray=Bad that are often broadcast. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

Carlos Ponce

“ ' purity of motives' ” for which those men fought - that motive was slavery"

Here we go again. I posted this on Aug 19, 2017:

Many people have a problem with the phrase "purity of motives" going under the FALSE assumption it referred to the dense of slavery. What was meant by "purity of motives"? Let me re-post this excerpt from the GDN written as the monument was dedicated in 1912:

From the Galveston Daily News June 4, 1912 Page 12

"Imposing Ceremony Marks Unveiling"

Address by Charles B. Macgill, nephew of Gen. J. E. B. Stuart: "Because it was their duty to themselves, their country and their God to defend their homes against the invasion of those who would usurp that most sacred safeguard of personal liberty, the inherent and cherished constitutional right of a free people to govern themselves, the confederates sacrificed all save honor. For four long years, with an army numbering at the most not 900,000 men poorly armed and equipped, without resources and without reserve forces, they held in check, and in most battles defeated the best armed, equipped and organized army on earth, numbering: three million men or more, with resources and reserve forces unlimited. From first Mananas to Appomattox were fought the bravest and bloodiest battles the world has known."

"Purity of motives" meant the defense of their homes, their farms, their towns, their families, NOT slavery. Slavery was and still is bad, evil but that's not what this monument is about.

And let me add in 2020, this monument displays a DEFEATED SOUTH. Isn't that what you want?????

Carlos Ponce

Allow me to correct my 2017 post:

Many people have a problem with the phrase "purity of motives" going under the FALSE assumption it referred to the defense of slavery.

Wayne D Holt

Carlos, you have touched on something that is certainly worth individual consideration. I am speaking of the constitutional right of a federated state to secede. There is nothing in the founding documents of which I am aware that indicated the separate, sovereign states of the federal union were bound there for all time despite the majority of their state citizens wishing to remove themselves from that union. Lincoln took a number of steps that, in hindsight, can be see as unilaterally declaring a de facto "national" entity, not a federation of freely associating states.

The constitution for the united States of America (as it was originally cast) gives no powers to preserve that union against the wishes of its sovereign constituents; Lincoln took it upon himself to do that.

For those who doubt the idea that the states are sovereign, in today's IRS code you will still find references to states as "foreign" to the central authority. The fact that this distinction has been so distorted and/or obliterated by generations of usurpation by Washington doesn't make it constitutionally acceptable, IMHO.

Carlos Ponce

This from my post Jul 12, 2015:

There are some people who "just don't get " the meaning behind the monument. Either that, or they REFUSE to understand the meaning. This monument does not glorify war. This monument does not glorify the secession of those states from from the Union. This monument does not glorify slavery. The name of the monument is "Dignified Resignation". Grasp the meaning of that. Grasp the symbol behind the "broken sword". Those who remember the television series "Branded" starring Chuck Connors know what that broken sword means to a soldier. It means defeat, he can no longer fight... alongside is a dismantled firearm. The scroll at his feet states "Glory to the DEFEATED". As to "Purity of Motives", an overwhelming majority were not slave owners. Their motive was to protect their homes."Because it was their duty to themselves, their country and their God to defend their homes against the invasion of those who would usurp that most sacred safeguard of personal liberty, the inherent and cherished constitutional right of a free people to govern themselves, the confederates sacrificed all save honor." -Charles MacGill at the unveiling of the monument in 1912 (GDN June 4, 1912 page 12)You may debate the reasons why the war was fought but this monument celebrates the MEN who fought, not the cause. It celebrates the END of the war, a return home, a reunification of the United States.

Leigh Cowart

Put it in the ballot for November and let the people decide.

Leigh Cowart

Put the decision to remove monuments in the hands of voters in November....enough of the dialogue.

Carlos Ponce

The question on the ballot will have to be put in the form of a referendum. The final decision left to County Commissioners. There was a non-binding petition on change.org in 2015. The vote on July 13, 2015 was Keep the Statue 1095,

Remove the Statue 69 but the vote was open to anyone, not just Galveston Countians.

Carlos Ponce

“The monument, which is cast in bronze, is representative of typical Southern warrior. He is shown after having fought with his whole might and found himself - powerless. His sword is broken, his gun dismantled and the only thing left to him is the confederate flag for which he has fought, He presses this flag to his heart and his whole attitude becomes one of "dignified resignation" while the implements of war represent both the army and the navy.” The Galveston Daily News Page 12 November 7, 1911

Samuel Collins III

Here is some more history about the first slave Abraham Lincoln actually worked to free long before he was President: https://www.denverpost.com/2015/07/18/first-slave-abrahama-lincoln-freed-traced-to-minnesota/amp/

Jeff Patterson

You are welcome to your own opinion but you’re not welcome to your own facts. Im quite surprised that a history teacher paints Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and the Union as an army of sympathizers willing to die to free the enslaved man of the southern states. One problem is that is it isn’t the truth is it? ThreeFifths compromise of the Constitutional Convention set the south up to dominate the North in both congressional delegates and electoral votes. Fact is pre civil war, the North wanted the slaves counted as PROPERTY for greater taxation purposes while the South counted 3 of every 5 slaves as a PERSON. States rights was the conflict. In the fall of 1862 just months before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation of Jan.1 1863, he’d signed a contract to RECOLONIZE freed slaves to Haiti and parts of SA. By this time, the vast majority of the slaves were born here, this was in fact their homeland. Well into 1863 Lincoln was still trying to implement these plans but there were complications like small pox outbreaks and that the first crops of the recolonized areas failed? In fact that contract signed AFTER the the Emancipation Proclamation called for 5k slaves a year for 10 years for a total of 50k slaves to just one area alone and many more were in play. Actually in 1862 Congress had allocated funds for this effort and well into the year after the proclamation Lincoln was still pursuing this. The intent of the Civil War was to destroy the South’s economy, thus destroying their control over politics... it wasn’t till much later that the notion became a sympathetic one... and that was a much more noble cause with which to sell to the American citizens who were weary, tired and heartbroken with war than the actual intent which was to free the slaves, ship them out of here, cripple and destroy the south economy. After all Lee was the highest ranking General for Lincoln and in fact when He married, his wife came with slaves...which he set free. So why would the highest ranking Union General leave to go join the South’s fight to keep slaves which he didn’t subscribe too to begin with? Doesn’t make sense does it! Lee along with the Confederates were fighting to protect their home, their land, their states rights. If fact when Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House it was considered official protocol to take his sword. Grant being a lesser ranking General than Lee would not accept it. He was an honorable man who fought an honorable war but lost... and so were the rest of the confederates who fought and died alongside him. It was the most brutal bloody war ever fought in America but the country was finally unified. Now that doesn’t exactly fit the narrative of the SYMPATHETIC north fighting the mean south. But those are the facts for anyone to read. So no, don’t tear down these monuments, teach the whole history and the truth of the civil war instead of gleaning and twisting one datapoint to draw a conclusion that fits the modern narrative.

Bailey Jones

Facts are facts. Confederate leaders were traitors and should be vilified as such for ever and ever, amen. The confederacy was formed to ensure the perpetuation of slavery and white supremacy and should be vilified as such forever and ever, amen. The treason indictment for Jefferson Davis is easily available online, as are the founding documents of the confederacy. I recommend that everyone read them, in particular, confederate vice president Alexander Hamilton Stephens cornerstone speech, and the Texas Declaration of Causes: February 2, 1861.

But I do agree with your last sentence - we should teach the whole history. I commented on this particular monument in an earlier article. I'll repeat that comment here:

"I don't believe the confederate statue is especially egregious, despite it's comical signage. The main objection to these monuments is that they glorify the civil war, and by extension the slavery and white supremacy that were the founding principles of the confederacy, and they do so on the grounds of the very place were the descendants of slaves must petition for justice. This statue is different, however. It doesn't depict anyone instrumental in the treasonous dissolution of the union - like Jefferson Davis, for instance - but rather, the average foot soldier who simply did what all young men do when asked by their political leaders to go to war - they go to war. It also shows the soldier in defeat, not in some revisionist glory about the Lost Cause.

Instead of taking down this statue, I suggest adding a statue to commemorate Galveston's more memorable contribution to history - the emancipation of Texas slaves. I know there is a statue at Ashton Villa - a rather stiff rendition of a politician in a suit holding up a holiday declaration - but the courthouse deserves something with the same emotional intensity as the Dignified Resignation statue. Something like The Dream of Freedom` by David Newton, which is in the Freedmans Memorial in Dallas.

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/dream-freedom-david-newton-inside-freedman-s-cemetery-memorial-dallas-texas-pictured-bronze-sculpture-titled-162992234.jpg

Since so many people seem to rely solely on statuary for their understanding of history (at least that's what I gather from the comments that always accompany the removal of confederate monuments) surely there would be no objection to adding an extra history lesson to the site. A second statue would allow both aspects of the civil war to be displayed - the failure of white supremacists to perpetuate an empire of slavery, and the end of the institution of slavery - the first step toward fulfilling America's founding principle of equality. What better message for the grounds of the people's courthouse?"

Carlos Ponce

So does Bailey believe the founders of CHAZ are also traitors?

Wayne D Holt

It is a much easier emotional sell to paint the Confederate armies as hoards of racists intent on keeping slaves in chains. It is not an easy narrative to forge an accurate account of the economic vice the north was willing to apply to the south in order to retain its own influence in shaping America and profiting in the process. The symbolism of slavery is a powerful one that decent people are repelled by. There isn't a useful analog for the economic warfare the north was prepared to wage to make sure the south remained servile to the north's rich and powerful class.

BTW Lincoln not only was a political opportunist when it came to logrolling on slavery, he also indulged such notable anti-freedom antics as suspending habeas corpus, declaring martial law in all states of the union and applying charges of sedition to newspapers who opposed conscription and the war in general.

Here's the cherry on top for those who maintain the war was about freeing slaves. In negotiating with one anti-war newspaper that pledged to only discuss slavery rather than the war in order to be allowed to continue printing, the government's response is illuminating: “Since the war in 1861 was not being fought on the question of slavery but to preserve the Union, the request was approved” (Sprague; Freedom Under Lincoln , pgs 146-147).

Bailey Jones

I'm well aware of the complexities of the relationship between the north and south, but it's futile to try to discuss anything with that level of subtlety here. Speaking in wide generalities, the politics leading up to the war were about the north trying to contain the political power of the south and eliminate slavery, and the south trying to preserve both. The importance of maintaining the balance of power between slave states and free states which began with South Carolina's threatened secession during the Jackson administration and the Missouri Compromise permeates every aspect of politics in the 1820s - 1850s.

I agree that economics were paramount - in 1860, slaves represented the largest class of capital in the country, and northern banks had no scruples with letting southern planters over extend themselves using their slaves as collateral - indeed many of the earliest settlers came to Texas specifically to hide their slaves from the repo man. A major insult that southern states refer to over and over again is the reluctance of the federal government - and in particular, several northern "sanctuary cities", to borrow a modern term - to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

It's also true that the union entered the war not to destroy slavery but to preserve the union. But the issue isn't why the union entered the war, but rather, why the south seceded. Nor are the racial opinions of Lincoln, Grant or anyone else in the union relevant. And while the south had a long list of complaints against the federal government, you would be hard pressed to find a single historian who believes that there would have been a civil war had there not been slavery.

I see a lot of cherry picking in these comments - a snippet here or there exaggerated to disprove the narrative - but when you examine the bulk of political discourse during the time, it's clear that the south seceded in order to preserve the institution of slavery and the economic and political hegemony that it provided.

I've read numerous modern histories of events that led to the war, the war itself, and its aftermath. If you know of any books that tell an alternate tale, that were written in my lifetime, I'd be happy to read them.

Carlos Ponce

"that were written in my lifetime" Unless you also read real time books and articles that reflect the political, economic, historical and cultural climate of the time period, you're missing a huge chunk of the puzzle.

Bailey Jones

It seems a little ironic to me that the Republicans who go to such great lengths to associate the Democratic Party with slavery and white supremacy (and rightly so) are the very ones who want to continue to honor those Democrats most associated with slavery and white supremacy.

It also seems ironic that those southerners who now call themselves Republicans express such love and reverence for these pro-slavery Democrats while simultaneously expressing the opinion that their party's greatest president was actually much overrated.

It does make one wonder what the modern Republican Party is really all about.

Meanwhile Democrats hate their pro-slavery white supremacist predecessors and tout the Republican, Lincoln, as America's greatest president.

Carlos Ponce

"continue to honor those Democrats most associated with slavery and white supremacy." Bailey fits that description.

Aren't you a resident of Galveston County or the City of Galveston named after Bernardo de Galvez, former Spanish governor of Louisiana who imported slaves into Spanish Louisiana?

Don't you live in an area whose largest city is named after Sam Houston slave owner?

Don't you live in a country whose capital is named after another slave owner George Washington?

Have we heard from Bailey about renaming these localities or will he continue to honor those associated with slavery and white supremacy by allowing their names on a city, an island, national capital?

Jeff Patterson

On December 31, 1862, the night before the Emancipation, Lincoln signed a contract with a proprietor of an island off the coast of Haiti called Ile a’ Vache. Congress had approved the funds to subsidize transit and supplies to this island. This was one of several locations procured by Lincoln. Most of the agreements were to accept and recolonize 5 K slaves a year for 10 years for a total of 50k. One Island accepted 50k as a onetime event. The plans were also to relocate the slaves to these many locations away from America. SO ANSWER ME THIS (Bailey)... if these were freed slaves, why is Lincoln delegating where they would live and how they would work for 10 years beyond emancipation , all the way to 1872? AND WHY did the Emancipation Proclamation not apply to those slave states that boarded the northern states and were in support of the Union? They had slaves too ... Because it wasn’t about the sympathy towards the enslaved person, it was a military operation to cripple the south. Actually, when you consider the north’s indifference towards slaves, they wanted them counted as property, they didn’t want them taking their jobs and Lincoln himself had plans to relocate them...those whole damn country was racist. But the Civil War WAS NOT about freeing the enslaved man for any sympathetic cause to their plight. PERIOD. People who continue to paint the south as evil racist and the north as the great emancipator continue to propagandize this narrative and foster hate. The south has become the scapegoat for the entire countries crimes. For 85 years America was indifferent to slavery and you think they suddenly became woke because of Lincoln? On December 31, 1862, the night before the Emancipation, Lincoln signed a contract with a proprietor of an island off the coast of Haiti called Ile a’ Vache. Congress had approved the funds to subsidize transit and supplies to this island. This was one of several locations procured by Lincoln. Most of the agreements were to accept and recolonize 5 K slaves a year for 10 years for a total of 50k. One Island accepted 50k as a onetime event. The plans were also to relocate the slaves to these many locations away from America. SO ANSWER ME THIS (Bailey)... if these were freed slaves, why is Lincoln delegating where they would live and how they would work for 10 years beyond emancipation , all the way to 1872? AND WHY did the Emancipation Proclamation not apply to those slave states that boarded the northern states and were in support of the Union? They had slaves too ... Because it wasn’t about the sympathy towards the enslaved person, it was a military operation to cripple the south. Actually, when you consider the north’s indifference towards slaves, they wanted them counted as property, they didn’t want them taking their jobs and Lincoln himself had plans to relocate them...those whole damn country was racist. But the Civil War WAS NOT about freeing the enslaved man for any sympathetic cause to their plight. PERIOD. People who continue to paint the south as evil racist and the north as the great emancipator continue to propagandize this narrative and foster hate. The south has become the scapegoat for the entire countries crimes. For 85 years America was indifferent to slavery and you think they suddenly became woke because of Lincoln?

Bailey Jones

I don't really disagree with you Connie. The whole nation was racist. The freeing of the slaves was limited to states in rebellion. Lincoln believed, rightly so, that slavery was protected in the constitution, and could only be abolished by constitutional amendment, which is what happened after the war. He found a backdoor - the idea of seizing and destroying the enemy's military industrial capacity - and used it to free the confederate slaves in an attempt to defeat the south.

But all of this is irrelevant. We're not talking about Lincoln, or statues of Lincoln.

The question before us is simply, "was the confederacy created to perpetuate slavery?" And the answer to that question is yes. Slavery was the reason for secession and secession was the reason for the war. We know that the creation of the confederacy was about slavery because the confederacy's founding documents tell us so, and the confederacy's founders' own words tell us so. We have the Cornerstone Speech. This is the speech given by the vice president of the confederacy specifically to explain the creation of the confederacy and its constitution. It presents not only the prevailing opinions of the confederacy, but the south's prevailing opinion about the north with regard to the races and slavery. It is absolute proof of the motives of the confederacy.

Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

BY Alexander H. Stephens

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. 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 government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone 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. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph."

And even all of this is irrelevant, in my mind, to the discussion of the removal of confederate statues from public places. My objection has never been that these guys were slave owners, but that these guys were traitors against our country, and that the reason for their treason was nothing more or less than the eternal perpetuation of the most evil institution ever conceived by mankind.

Bailey Jones

Connie, I just noticed that I didn't answer the first half of your question, "why is Lincoln delegating where they would live and how they would work for 10 years beyond emancipation". The reason is that no one knew what to do with the freed slaves. Northerners didn't want them - they were 1) racist and 2) concerned about competition for jobs. There was a very real fear that leaving them in the south would lead to bloodshed - which was the case with the rise of the KKK after the war. One solution that sounded good to northern whites was to put them on a boat and ship them away, either to Africa or some island. Your question implies that this was being planned without consulting the soon to be freed slaves, and that is correct. As far as I know, no one ever bothered to ask the slaves what they wanted, except General Sherman, who was informed by black leaders that what the freedmen wanted was their own land so they could fend for themselves. Hence the "40 acres and a mule" of legend (the army had a huge mule surplus after the war).

Jeff Patterson

Not sure why it double copied my comment... maybe some folks need to hear it twice😂

Charles Douglas

Lincoln wasn't the best! Kennedy wasn't the best! Trump Diesel IS the best! Give me three LOUD,...Trump Diesels! Say them so LOUD ..XI JINPING can hear them in Beijing![smile][beam][wink]

Ted Gillis

Just because a statue was erected on the courthouse grounds years ago, does it mean it has to stay there in perpetuity? I know this is Galveston, were structures seem to hang around forever, but this one has served it’s purpose. It can be removed, just like we removed telephone booths.

We tore down the Galveston County Courthouse to build a new building (granted the former one was damaged by a tornado). The Ursulines tore down the Ursuline Academy to build a new building (again there was tornado damage). Most of the Henry Rosenberg’s public fountains were torn down after their usefulness had passed (I think one was actually relocated to the courthouse grounds itself.)

The same is true with this statue. Even though it’s not that offensive, as far as confederate monuments go, it’s usefulness has passed. It can be removed. Maybe donate it to one of the local museums. We have many beautiful monuments in Galveston. This is not one of them.

Bailey Jones

And it was a real shame about the Ursuline Academy. In 1950, if you lived on 26th street you could look up one way and see the Ursuline Academy, and look the other and see the great Central High building. Now all that's left is a very drab utilitarian school building at the Ursuline Academy, and the annex (library) at the Central High. But we did get a statue of Jack Johnson, so there's that.

Carlos Ponce

"Just because a statue was erected on the courthouse grounds years ago, does it mean it has to stay there in perpetuity?" Yes, apparently you don't get it, Ted. It commemorates the END of the old South which based a large part of their economy on slavery. Why remove it? Do you think the South to rise again?

Ted Gillis

Obviously not Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

So Ted wants to remove a statue depicting the end to the Confederacy.

Kimberley Jones Yancy

The Confederate Statue in Galveston represents Slavery and White Supremacy. It must go!!! It is a burning cross on my front lawn. My grandparents explained to me as a little girl that the statue in Galveston was for White folks and don’t even look at it. My grandparents generation looked away, my generation won’t. It’s got to go! Lincoln is dead and gone. We are here now and I don’t want my grandchildren to ever view a statue in a public place that glamorizes slavery. Slavery and Jim Crow Laws was a horrific time for my ancestors. The Confederate Statues in public view has been psychological slavery to justify America’s original sin of racism. It’s got to go!

Carlos Ponce

Kimberly posts: "The Confederate Statue in Galveston represents Slavery and White Supremacy." Take a close look at it: Broken sword, dismantled firearm shows a defeated Confederacy. It does not represent slavery nor white supremacy. But Kimberly wants to remove a statue that shows a DEFEATED Confederacy. Odd....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.