“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country.” Robert E. Lee 1856

Could General Lee’s sentiments deter the “tear down those monuments” crowd? Probably not.

Given their current success in removing monuments to Confederate generals, ignorant politicians and those whose hobby is going through life seeking to be offended, will soon run out of things to be offended by. Why not broaden the list of “offensive” symbols to include slaveowners Washington and Jefferson and a host of other founders? Here in Texas you could add slave owning Texas heroes such as Houston, Bowie and Travis.

Should we banish from public view all monuments to past historical figures who supported white supremacy, advocated secession, or made racist comments?

Consider Abraham Lincoln. In addition to the Lincoln monument in the nation’s capital, there’s probably not a major city in the country without a school, street, or park named after Lincoln. What do Lincoln’s own words tell us about “Honest Abe”, “the Great Emancipator”?

During one of the famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . I am not now nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Lincoln’s prejudices weren’t limited to blacks. During another debate with Douglas, Lincoln opined: “I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels . . . there’s not one person there out of eight who is pure white”.

In Lincoln’s 1861 inaugural address, he endorsed a constitutional amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment which would forever protect slavery where it existed, telling the audience: “I have no objection to its [Corwin Amendment] being made express and irrevocable”. Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union, writing to abolitionist Horace Greeley: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it”.

Virtually all white men of that time were white supremacists. Lincoln was no exception, and his comments above belie his reputation.

Was Lincoln opposed to secession? Consider his remarks he made in Congress on January 12, 1848: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one which suits them better.  Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit.” This is exactly what the seceding states did in 1861.

Another discomforting fact for today’s advocates of political correctness: In 2011 I sponsored a commemorative license plate for Buffalo soldiers, iconic black U.S. Cavalrymen who served on the frontier. Couldn’t today’s Native Americans claim Buffalo soldiers participated in a genocidal war against an entire race of people – the American Plains Indians – enslaving them on reservations?

If we’re going to measure Confederates of 150 years ago by today’s standards, shouldn’t we do the same with Lincoln?

Today it’s Confederates. Who’s next? Buffalo soldiers? Our nation’s founders? Our Texas heroes? The possibilities are limitless.

Jerry Patterson

Jerry Patterson is a former Texas state senator, former Texas Land Commissioner, and retired Marine Vietnam veteran. He resides in Austin, Texas.

Dan Crenshaw is a true hero in every sense of the word!  He is a former Navy SEAL who served three tours in Afghanistan.  He lost his right eye when he was wounded by an IED.  He now wears an eye patch.

When Dan won the Republican nomination for Congress in TX-2 for the mid-term election his picture was plastered all over the nation.  It got the attention of NBC’s Saturday Night Live comedian Pete Davidson.  During the November 3 Weekend Update segment of the show, Davidson pointed to a picture of Crenshaw with his eye patch and quipped:

“You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas, and not a hitman in a porno movie. I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war, or whatever.”

What a disgusting and disgraceful joke to make about a wounded war veteran.  The only war Davidson has ever fought in is the TV ratings war.  Also disgusting and disgraceful was the laughter of the studio audience.

After a storm of criticism struck SNL, Crenshaw was invited to appear on Saturday’s show.  Sitting next to Crenshaw, the comedian said:

“I mean this from the bottom of my heart.  It was a poor choice of words. The man is a war hero and he deserves all the respect in the world.”

In accepting the apology, Crenshaw got in a few quips about Davidson, such as: “[He] looks like if the meth from Breaking Bad was a person” and “He looks like a troll doll with a tapeworm.”

Crenshaw also got serious and said:

“Americans can forgive one another—we can remember what brings us together as a country and still see the good in each other.  This is Veterans Day weekend, which means that it’s a good time for every American to connect with a veteran.”

And Crenshaw showed what a classy guy he is by calling attention to the fact that Davidson’s father was among the heroes honored on Veterans Day because he was a firefighter who died on 9/11 when the comedian was only 7-years-old.

The folks in the 2nd Congressional District of Texas are very fortunate to have Dan Crenshaw as their representative in Washington.