Eagles Requesting Campus Changes

[Mr. Deez]

However, my irritation with you, is in this case, you are like Neville Chamberlain and are an enabler. Your intentions may have been good, but the results are the results.

The big difference is that Chamberlain permitted the Anschluß and the annexation of the Sudetenland because he and the allies were weak and lacked resolve - not because they genuinely thought it was the morally correct thing to do. I don't support removing Confederate memorials because I'm weak. (That's why I'm willing to tell the current bands if idiots to go eff themselves.) I actually think it's a fair and just thing to do.

I believe you personally disagreed with the statues and that's where you draw the line.

To be clear, the statues don't bother me personally. The Confederates didn't do anything to me. In fact, I think they had the right to secede and that the North did not have the right to stop them. My position is one of empathy. They supported and were willing to go to war to enforce the dehumanization of an entire race of human beings. When those of that race tell me it offends them to honor people who denied their humanity, I understand and think their offense is justifiable.

Since we're making WWII comparisons, if a street in the US was named after a Nazi and Jews complained, I would support renaming it. It's not because I'm too weak to tell Jews that they're wrong about something. It's because I have empathy.

By the way, I never support vandalism or using violence to remove anything. If a bunch of thugs destroyed a Confederate statue, I'd want them arrested, charged with a felony, and thrown in the slammer. Even justifiable offense doesn't make violence ok.

However, 95% of people do not care about any statutes or memorials. It could be the peanut statue in Floresville or the FDR statue in DC or the WWII memorial and most people do not care.

I'm sure there were people who supported the removal out of bad faith and have now moved down the slippery slope to Columbus and George Washington. However, I don't buy the 95 percent figure. I think there are plenty of generally patriotic black Americans who don't like Confederate memorials but are fine with honoring the founding fathers.

 

[AustinBat]

IIRC based on what he said about not playing another down at UT, he won't even be on the field.

Sad but his choice.

 

[RainH2burntO]

Erasing history would be removing evidence of a person's existence. For example, if we renamed Washington, D.C. but also stripped George Washington from history books and destroyed all documented evidence that he ever existed, that would be erasing history.

Would that be worse than making George Washington politically toxic? I'm not sure that it would be. If we view the founding fathers as toxic, then we'll support destroying the system they created. That's the point.

...and that is the end game as any discerning person can see, but, alas, a few can't (won't) see it.....and this is how it happens.
It won't be pretty...and many will have naively been complicit in its occurence.

 

[utempire]

Sadly, politics will now be forever involved in all sports. Good luck with filling stadiums even after the virus.

 

[nashhorn]

Interesting.

*gets offended at possibly, thought not directly in any way, being linked to racism*
*posts a racist confession*

Well my writing skills certainly have not improved.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Erasing history would be removing evidence of a person's existence. For example, if we renamed Washington, D.C. but also stripped George Washington from history books and destroyed all documented evidence that he ever existed, that would be erasing history.

Would that be worse than making George Washington politically toxic? I'm not sure that it would be. If we view the founding fathers as toxic, then we'll support destroying the system they created. That's the point.

Ok lets just cut to the chase. Because George Washington owned slaves, which is more than we can say about Jim Hogg (who passed ant-lynching laws, soooo racist right?), why on earth should there be any monument memorializing him? Serious question here.

Obviously we must view all history through the lens of the present, so why stop with Hogg, who for his time seems to have been rather progressive?

Unfortunately if we are to listen to the players most of history needs to be scrapped because they have the privilege of 2020 hindsight and Mr. Hogg, and George Washington, dont.

 

[AustinHorn24]

I can tell you in all sincerity that I never saw skin color until the last year with all the new ‘woke’ crap coming forth.

Right, because it didn't affect you means it wasnt happening, am I right?

Guys like you are completely clueless, sticking their head in the sand with the same "I don't see race so therefore racism doesn't exist" BS.

Again, it's obvious to me how many of you have zero exposure to meaningful contact with black folks.

Tom Herman works all day long with black folks. I'll take his opinion all day long over people on this board whose only exposure to black folks was the one kid in school that they didn't bother to associate with.

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

Most of these players could not explain the Corwin Amendment or the first presidential veto. No one was going to war over slavery in 1860. Abolishment of slavery was the result of the war, but not the cause. I am tired of reading revisionist history regarding the the south’s war of secession. It was not a civil war.
Also Count me in as someone who is pissed off about the removal of the Confederate memorials on campus.
This University was founded by Confederate veterans and war heroes, once they ran the carpetbaggers and thieves out of office at the end of reconstruction.

Count me out of standing on a box in the public square condemning my ancestors while flagellating myself with the spikes of the Underground Railroad.

I was raised in the 50s and 60s, so I know what racism looks like and 2020 ain’t it.


Not sure which is worse, slavery or killing innocent unborn, but no one in this country went to war over either issue.

 

[RainH2burntO]

Well my writing skills certainly have not improved.

I like you, nashhorn. You are alright w me.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Right, because it didn't affect you means it wasnt happening, am I right?

Guys like you are completely clueless, sticking their head in the sand with the same "I don't see race so therefore racism doesn't exist" BS.

Again, it's obvious to me how many of you have zero exposure to meaningful contact with black folks.

Tom Herman works all day long with black folks. I'll take his opinion all day long over people on this board whose only exposure to black folks was the one kid in school that they didn't bother to associate with.

Who the F is saying racism doesn't exist? Get out of here with that crap.

 

[RainH2burntO]

Right, because it didn't affect you means it wasnt happening, am I right?

Guys like you are completely clueless, sticking their head in the sand with the same "I don't see race so therefore racism doesn't exist" BS.

Again, it's obvious to me how many of you have zero exposure to meaningful contact with black folks.

Tom Herman works all day long with black folks. I'll take his opinion all day long over people on this board whose only exposure to black folks was the one kid in school that they didn't bother to associate with.

Some of you guys ^^^^ on here extrapolate waaay more than you should from people's posts and it has more to do with your paradigm than their words, sentiment, or character IMO. ...And that's when you jump to wrong conclusions and get personal. Nashhorns one of the most humble, nicest guys on here and you wont make many friends "attacking" him.
And your hasty assertions (assumptions) about others and their level of exposure to, knowledge of, or concern (even love) for the black community is misguided and undermines any other points you desire to make. Simply put...you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[huisache]

Littlefield’s contemporary Breckinridge was a Unionist and equally involved in the promotion of the University as an institution of the first rank. He didn’t put up any statues. But, like Littlefield, he deserves respect for his contributions

 

[TEXAS1983]

"No one was going to war over slavery in 1860."

Wrong. Just wrong. In every way wrong.

From "A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.", the act of Secession for Texas:
"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

This is the first main paragraph of the document giving the primary reason for leaving the United States: preserving the institution of slavery.

The declaration then goes on to complain about the prevention of expansion of slavery to newly admitted states, and the activities of northern abolitionists to encourage "the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Additional complaints include not enforcing the fugitive slave act in the north and the use of the US mail to send abolitionist literature to Texas.

Finally, in case you don't get the point, the document included this: "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."

This is just Texas. Every state that included a detailed list of grievances in their articles or declaration of secession also listed the preservation of slavery as their first and primary issue. The proximate cause of secession and all the bloodshed that followed was one thing: the confederate states' fear of the loss of the institution of slavery. The southern states' very own words tell you that.

Hook 'em!

Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[TEXAS1983]

Sorry, link: DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union. | TSLAC

Hook 'em!

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Littlefield’s contemporary Breckinridge was a Unionist and equally involved in the promotion of the University as an institution of the first rank. He didn’t put up any statues. But, like Littlefield, he deserves respect for his contributions

There don't need to be any statues but its the politics of demanding the removal of the ones that are already up. They aren't hurting anyone.

"No one was going to war over slavery in 1860."

Wrong. Just wrong. In every way wrong.

From "A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.", the act of Secession for Texas:
"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

This is the first main paragraph of the document giving the primary reason for leaving the United States: preserving the institution of slavery.

The declaration then goes on to complain about the prevention of expansion of slavery to newly admitted states, and the activities of northern abolitionists to encourage "the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

Additional complaints include not enforcing the fugitive slave act in the north and the use of the US mail to send abolitionist literature to Texas.

Finally, in case you don't get the point, the document included this: "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."

This is just Texas. Every state that included a detailed list of grievances in their articles or declaration of secession also listed the preservation of slavery as their first and primary issue. The proximate cause of secession and all the bloodshed that followed was one thing: the confederate states' fear of the loss of the institution of slavery. The southern states' very own words tell you that.

Hook 'em!

Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

Don't let Eagles see this or he'll demand the entire state of Texas be abolished.

 

[nashhorn]

Thanks for the kind words Rain. I’m outta here. This has gotten beyond my comprehension, not unlike many things in this modern world. It’s a b**** getting old - on sooooo many levels.

 

[dukesteer]

Some of y’all are just so freaking obtuse. If you’re offended at things being called overtly racist, then don’t be overly racist. Not my problem you’re so fragile.

Dude, if everyone is racist, than no one is racist. You need to back off. Your attacks are coming from ignorance, not knowledge.

 

[LonghornCatholic]

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

To those of you thinking Texas would lose all of the black athletes if we don't give in to demands, where do you think they will go play? Alabama? Oops, no. Georgia? Oops, no. Ole Miss? Oops, no.

Texas is probably one of the most liberal and non-racist universities out there. Will they just decide not to play because every university is racist? I'm not understanding the end game because removing statues and changing building names and banning The Eyes of Texas isn't going to fix anything.

I still suggest that someone is filling their heads with a bunch of crap to get them riled up. What 2020 college athlete knows what happened in 1903? I guarantee they didn't just google it. I also would bet not one of these athletes had any idea who the statues on campus are until now. This just doesn't make any sense.

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

Texas 1983, Corwin Amendment pretty much guaranteed Texas could keep slaves without seceding. Passed by both houses of congress, signed by Buchanan(which was meaningless) and backed by Lincoln. Ratified by Yankees states Ohio, Rhode Island and Illinois before secession war took center stage. The secession passage you selected simply states what the rest of the country said they could have. Expansion simply was protection of balance of power.

 

[SabreHorn]

Vol,

We have been through the "no black players will go to Texas" when DKR was coach. "Royal is racist"; Texas is racist".

In actuality it was no player for sale would go to Texas.

Notice that no one brings up "The Emancipation Proclamation", which only freed the slaves in the South. Slave owners in the north (SURPRISE, THEY DID EXIST) got to keep theirs. Special thanks to Clarence Lasby for teaching real history not the revisionist **** being force fed now.

 

[TEXAS1983]

The Corwin Amendment represented a last ditch effort to avoid secession - by guaranteeing slavery where it already existed. As noted in my post above, even that was not sufficient for the southern states, who wanted to guarantee the ability to add new slave states to the union, and ensure that any slaves (personal property of the southern planters) would be apprehended and returned to slavery if they happened to escape to free states.

The Corwin Amendment's existence does nothing to mitigate the fact that the institution of slavery and its perpetuation and expansion were the primary causes for secession. It was, of course, also never ratified.

Even beyond that, complaints about the northern politicians' attacks on the southern economy also surrounded the institution of slavery. Approximately a quarter of southern GDP at the time was directly attributable to slave labor. The Economics of the Civil War https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy

Further, southern planters were often land poor: most of their economic capital was tied up in their property, of which an enormous percentage was human property, up to a total of $3.5billion in 1860. Chattel slavery was inseparable from any discussion of southern economic interests.

Discussion of "states rights" also meant one thing: the right to maintain and expand the institution of slavery. However much you want to get around it, or find it uncomfortable, the south seceded over slavery and it fought an insurrection that cost over 600,000 american lives over slavery. How Lincoln's personal views of the institution, its constitutionality, and emancipation changed over time does nothing to change that fact.

Hook 'em!

 

[TEXAS1983]

By the way, protection of the balance of power meant exactly the expansion of the system of owning other human beings to newly admitted states. How is that not about slavery?

Hook 'em!

 

[AustinHorn24]

Vol,

We have been through the "no black players will go to Texas" when DKR was coach. "Royal is racist"; Texas is racist".

In actuality it was no player for sale would go to Texas.

That's garbage. Royal himself admitted that he was slow to accept reality that Texas needed to integrate it's football team in order to compete.

Notice that no one brings up "The Emancipation Proclamation", which only freed the slaves in the South. Slave owners in the north (SURPRISE, THEY DID EXIST) got to keep theirs. Special thanks to Clarence Lasby for teaching real history not the revisionist **** being force fed now.

While it's true that some border states like Maryland were given execeptions by the Emancipation Proclamation. northern states only got to "keep" their slaves until the state constitutions were changed in 1864 and 1865.

By June 19, 1865, slavery was abolished in all states, confederate or union.

 

[Chinstrap]

Vol,

We have been through the "no black players will go to Texas" when DKR was coach. "Royal is racist"; Texas is racist".

In actuality it was no player for sale would go to Texas.

Notice that no one brings up "The Emancipation Proclamation", which only freed the slaves in the South. Slave owners in the north (SURPRISE, THEY DID EXIST) got to keep theirs. Special thanks to Clarence Lasby for teaching real history not the revisionist **** being force fed now.

Slavery was a horrible piece of American history, as it was for much of the rest of the world. But half truths do more harm than good. Nobody addressed the dirty little secret of the 3000+ Black slave owners, or the Native American slave owners. One of you smart people need to look up the 1860 census, or other databases....the total numbers are documented. Doesn’t make it right, but the whole truth needs to be told.

 

[theiioftx]

Right, because it didn't affect you means it wasnt happening, am I right?

Guys like you are completely clueless, sticking their head in the sand with the same "I don't see race so therefore racism doesn't exist" BS.

Again, it's obvious to me how many of you have zero exposure to meaningful contact with black folks.

Tom Herman works all day long with black folks. I'll take his opinion all day long over people on this board whose only exposure to black folks was the one kid in school that they didn't bother to associate with.

I’m guessing the 24 is either graduating in 24 or 24 years old because that last statement about Tom Herman demonstrates pure immature ignorance. If you had a job, you might notice lots of “black folks” have jobs and careers. Maybe if you started seeing them as equals, there would be fewer problems in the world.

 

[mchammer]

History is messy. Africans sold other Africans into slavery. Native Americans fought each other as viciously as the colonialists. The Mayans and Incas participated in human sacrifice on a massive scale. It’s turtles all the way done.

 

[Htown77]

@TEXAS1983

The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves or aspire to own slaves. The Texas Germans in the Hill Country and South Texas were mixed unionist and confederate, but almost none owned slaves or ever wanted to own salves despite having the money to afford them. My Texas German ancestors never owned slaves or aspired to own slaves yet fought for the South. Robert E. Lee inherited slaves and freed them. He had plenty of money to afford slaves and did not want them, yet fought for the South. One of my ancestors signed the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. After the war, despite knowing what what happen, he lost the last of his wealth and political power supporting African American voting rights and opposing Jim Crow. It seems bizarre to me a former confederate and ardent secessionist would sacrifice his wealth and influence to support the rights of African Americans... unless, of course, ultimately, Africans Americans were not ultimately what the civil war was about. Given that the Emancipation Proclamation did not come until 1863 and given the existence of the Corwin Amendment, it does not seem like African Americans were the issue at hand for at least 1861 and 1862 for either side. I will add the New York City Race Riots (New York City draft riots - Wikipedia) further indicate that neither side thought they were fighting to decide the question of slavery.

Now, as a Constitutional law scholar who focussed on constitutional history by taking far too many classes on the topic at the University of Texas School of Law, I can explain to you the secession ordinances. You need to understand the legal structure of how declarations of independence are written to correctly understand a document.

In the US Declaration of Independence "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands".

Did most Americans fight the American Revolution because they wanted to be an independent nation where they could make their own decisions or because they wanted to kill indians and take their land?

In the US Declaration of Independence "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"

Did most Americans fight the American Revolution because they wanted to be an independent nation where they could make their own decisions or because they were upset about quartering of troops?

Americans decided in 1776 they wanted to be an independent nation, control their own destiny and not leave decisions on their political questions in the hands of foreigners. Texans (and numerous other Mexican states) decided the same thing in the 1830s. In 1861, the South made the same decision. The message of a declaration of independence/secession document, is that the seceding party no longer feels they control their political future. In doing so, they must list examples where they have no political say. The thirteen colonies did this. Texas did this. Other latin american states did this. The South did this. Unfortunately for the South, it's example was a terrible and horrible one aka slavery. However, the endgame of the south was political freedom and independence, not slavery. How do I know it was not slavery or slavery alone besides the fact so many non-slave holders supported independence from the North?

If the South was just concerned about slavery, the South would have accepted the Corwin Amendment.
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

"Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, said of the Corwin Amendment:

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 ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The Corwin Amendment was ratified by Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois. There were 13 other slaves states that would have ratified it. That was 18 of the 22 states needed to pass a constitutional amendment and "save" slavery. If the South would have realistically rejoined the Union if the Corwin Amendment passed and add Abe Lincoln's support, I have no doubt that at least 4 other states would have ratified it. Ultimately, slavery in the South was not threatened. What WAS threatened was the South's political power in the Union.

In fact, the South and North were in a never ending power struggle for political power... and in fact this continues into 2020.

During the English Civil War, the Southern Colonies sided with the royalists and the Northern Colonies sided with Cromwell and the Roundheads.

The first Presidential Veto in U.S. history was from George Washington. (Apportionment Act of 1792 - Wikipedia) It concerned a bill supported by the northern states to give them more representation and therefore more power in Congress.

The War of 1812 was so unpopular in the North that (Hartford Convention - Wikipedia) that secession was considered among Northern states. States Rights were the main issue here.

South Carolina considered seceding from the Union in 1832 over tariffs favorable to the north and unfavorable to the South (Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia and Nullification crisis - Wikipedia).

Then the election of 1860 happened. For the first time in U.S. history, one region (the North), elected a president by itself. From 1788-1856, every US President enjoyed at least some support in both the North and South. Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President election without support in both the North and South. The South seceded in 1860, not because of slavery, but because the region as a whole had become political marginalized. The South felt it would lose its political freedom and be pushed around by the North (which it was completely right about and 100% has happened since 1865. I mean because of something that happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Eyes of Texas and confederate statues have to go).

You believe in the lie that the South and North were one happy family except for slavery. That is not the case. Even without slavery, the South and North were founded by different people (puritans/religious people in the north and profit seekers in the south). The power struggle and civil war between the north and south was always inevitable with or without slavery. It continues to this day without slavery.

The South was fighting for its freedom and independence, just like the 13 colonies, Texas and other states in the Western Hemisphere. The south believed the states themselves were sovereign over the central government. The South wanted its freedom to decide its own political destiny, makes it own mistake and not live under the heel of yankee rule.

 

[AustinHorn24]

Maybe if you started seeing them as equals, there would be fewer problems in the world.

I'm not the one saying that affirmative action is the only form of racism in America, or that "I don't see race" or that black folks have nothing to complain about.

That's you guys, not me.

 

[Htown77]

@TEXAS1983 Your slavery expansion argument can be shot out of the water very easily.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

If the south was obsessed with the expansion of slavery, they never would have agreed to the Missouri compromise in a million years. The South was okay with that and it pretty guaranteed slavery would not expand. The South never cared about the expansion of slavery. The South did care about keeping the balance of power and maintaining its power. The expansion of slavery may have been a way to achieve that, but it was not the end goal in and of itself.