Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote

WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

[TexasGunLover]

AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.

The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.

[FLT-bird]

They never have a good answer to Congressman Lincoln espousing secession....”a principle to liberate the world”. The 13 colonies of course seceded from the British Empire with absolutely no legal right to do so.

So the PC Revisionists try to just mindlessly repeat “slavery, slavery, slavery” hoping nobody will bother looking at the facts and seeing it clearly wasn’t about that. What’s funny is seeing people here who claim to be Conservative lining up with those big government, centralized power, Leftists in Academia who espouse this BS.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Grade B-plus for the intro . . . absolutely wonderful slap-down of your hapless associates. It must have rankled you to see them routed by the authority of the stop sign."

I can only guess "they" were hoping to avoid your next comeback:

jeffersondem: "Grade A-minus for clarity of the text of the body of your post.
There can be no mistaking your rejection of the Declaration of Independence."

Your grade is F-minus for diversion and deception.
That's because there's no legitimate comparison of 1776 and 1860.
In 1860 Southerners already had everything 1776 Founders went to war to win, not one item in the 1776 Declaration was repeated in 1860.
Acknowledging that, 2/3 of Southerners refused to secede in early 1861.

That's the reason Jefferson Davis needed war to start at Forts Sumter or Pickens.
War immediately nearly doubled the Confederacy's size & population.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "They never have a good answer to Congressman Lincoln espousing secession....'a principle to liberate the world'. "

Whether you admit them as "good" or not, the answers are:

1. Lincoln never considered Southern declarations of secession constitutionally legitimate.
2. In March 1861 Lincoln promised to accommodate secessionists so long as he could continue to enforce US laws.
3. Lincoln also promised there'd be no war unless secessionists started it.

So Confederates rejected Lincoln's peace offer and started Civil War.
The rest, as they say, is history.

FLT-bird: "The 13 colonies of course seceded from the British Empire with absolutely no legal right to do so."

Absolutely false, since Founders' legal right was spelled out in the Declaration, "a long train of abuses and usurpations" leading to British unilateral abrogation of legitimate American self-government.
No such abuses remotely existed in 1860.

FLT-bird: "So the PC Revisionists try to just mindlessly repeat 'slavery, slavery, slavery' hoping nobody will bother looking at the facts and seeing it clearly wasn’t about that. "

But "slavery, slavery, slavery" was absolutely the major issue listed in Deep South "Reasons for Secession" documents.
And once war began, slavery soon became an issue when Union troops freed Confederate "contraband of war" and Confederates seized Union freedmen for sale in Confederate slave markets.
By 1862 Civil War was not just for Union, but also for emancipation.

FLT-bird: "What’s funny is seeing people here who claim to be Conservative lining up with those big government, centralized power, Leftists in Academia who espouse this BS."

But there was nothing "big government, centralized power" advocated by Republicans in 1860 or later, except as a consequence of the war itself.
Excluding debt payments, Federal spending was 2.6% of GDP in 1858, 2.5% in 1871.
Today's is roughly 20%.

As for our academic Leftists, it's remarkable how eagerly Lost Causers grasp their economic dialectics, or anything else except the real reasons, to explain everything Civil War.

"Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860:
'African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence.
Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.'
Later in the same speech he said,
'The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy.
We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States.' "

"Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina:
'The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . .
This war is the servant of slavery.'
[The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]"

Those do sound like "slavery, slavery, slavery" to me.

[DoodleDawg]

Historians sympathetic to Lincoln and his invasion of the South have cobbled together some good-faith explanations of President Lincoln's decision to reverse his earlier advocacy of the Declaration of Independence.

And those opposed to Lincoln have a habit of twisting his words out of recognition.

Our back and forth is not sustainable unless you agree to make serious responses.

Agreed, considering how ridiculous your posts are. I noticed that you didn't try and address the point question I asked. Where did Lincoln say that the success of rebellion was guaranteed? Or that it would never be opposed?

[DoodleDawg]

Historians sympathetic to Lincoln and his invasion of the South have cobbled together some good-faith explanations of President Lincoln's decision to reverse his earlier advocacy of the Declaration of Independence.

And those opposed to Lincoln have a habit of twisting his words out of recognition.

Our back and forth is not sustainable unless you agree to make serious responses.

Agreed, considering how ridiculous your posts are. I noticed that you didn't try and address the point question I asked. Where did Lincoln say that the success of rebellion was guaranteed? Or that it would never be opposed?

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

52nd attempt.

You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day.

[jeffersondem]

“I noticed that you didn’t try and address the point question I asked. Where did Lincoln say that the success of rebellion was guaranteed?”

Lincoln’s 1848 statement, previously referenced, did not address guarantees so I did not mention guarantees. I was addressing what the man did say; not what he didn’t say.

But, for the purpose of this post, let’s take a look at your contention that Lincoln intended to imply guarantee of success was necessary before the sacred rights provision could be invoked.

Lincoln’s statement would now read, in part:

“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 that suits them better. However, this sacred right is only available to larger, more powerful people seeking to shake off governments of smaller, weaker people and whose chance of success can be guaranteed. This sacred right IS NOT AVAILABLE (emphasis added) to smaller, weaker people seeking to shake off governments of larger, stronger people and whose chance of success can not be guaranteed.” - Abraham Lincoln

Is this your understanding of what Lincoln was saying?

[jeffersondem]

“In 1860 Southerners already had everything 1776 Founders went to war to win . . .”

The 13 Free and Independent states that defended themselves against King George, and the 13 free and independent states (say 11) that defended themselves against Lincoln - all of them had slaves. Is that your point?

[DoodleDawg]

Is this your understanding of what Lincoln was saying?

No. In fact that interpretation is almost as ridiculous as your original interpretation.

[jeffersondem]

“No. In fact that interpretation is almost as ridiculous as your original interpretation.”

That is an interesting comment.

Let's take a look at my post 1154 (in its entirety) where Lincoln's 1848 statement was introduced.

“It is not just me saying “consent of the governed.” Just a few years before Lincoln invaded the South, some really famous people up North were saying this: ‘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 that suits them better. This is a most valuable,— most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 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 of the territory as they inhabit.’”

You contend my juxtaposing “consent of the governed” with Lincoln's “sacred right” to revolutionize is ridiculous. As if, Lincoln was going on record as repudiating the DOI - or Lincoln's sacred right to revolutionize was something totally different than what the founding fathers did.

Somehow you have gotten on the wrong end of the argument again. You need to walk back your statement as quickly as you can.

[FLT-bird]

jeffersondemL The 13 Free and Independent states that defended themselves against King George, and the 13 free and independent states (say 11) that defended themselves against Lincoln - all of them had slaves. Is that your point?<.i>

THE big difference was that there were two competing superpowers in the 1770s. There were not in the 1860s.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " all of them had slaves. Is that your point?"

No, my point is our Founders went to war in 1776 to make possible their 1787 Constitution.
In 1860 Confederates declared secession from that Constitution and in 1861 war against it.

That's what makes any comparisons of Founders to Confederates totally bogus.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "THE big difference was that there were two competing superpowers in the 1770s.
There were not in the 1860s."

Plus the fact that the South in 1860 already had the Constitution our Founders fought to make possible in 1776.
That makes any comparison of Founders to Confederates totally bogus.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Somehow you have gotten on the wrong end of the argument again.
You need to walk back your statement as quickly as you can."

More nonsense.
Note in my post #1163 above I listed three explanations but left off the most obvious point, which Lincoln himself gave publicly:

"I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules...

…"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' "

Whatever interpretation we give to young Lincoln's opinion expressed in 1847, that was at least subsumed, if not overridden, by the oath of office he took in 1861.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day."

You have unlimited time to post Lost Cause lies, but none to answer to historical truth.

Right.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

53rd attempt.

You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day.

[FLT-bird]

Your repetitive responding to respond in order to waste as much time as possible while failing to read and/or just claiming any source that is inconvenient for your arguments is automatically untrue, has likewise come to an end. Buh Bye.

54th attempt.

You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day.

[OIFVeteran]

The founding fathers didn’t secede, they rebelled. They knew this, they never claimed they had any legal right to leave the British Empire. They claimed they had a natural right to revolt after a long chain of abuses and after trying for years to get London to listen to them.

Contrast that with a bunch of slave owners rebelling because a person they didn’t like was elected in a free and fair election.

[OIFVeteran]

I have to disagree with you that the founders had a legal right to secede. There was noting in English law allowing a colony to become free and independent from the British Empire. Just like there is nothing in the US constitution allowing a state to declare its independence from the federal government.

The founders did claim a moral right under natural law to rebel for a long train of abuses and usurpations. Contrast that with the fire-eaters that tried to claim a legal right existed under the constitution to declare themselves free. After someone they don’t like is elected in a free and fair election.

[FLT-bird]

OIFVeteran: The founding fathers didn’t secede, they rebelled. They knew this, they never claimed they had any legal right to leave the British Empire. They claimed they had a natural right to revolt after a long chain of abuses and after trying for years to get London to listen to them. Contrast that with a bunch of slave owners rebelling because a person they didn’t like was elected in a free and fair election.

They seceded. They declared independence from the British Empire. They were not seeking to overthrow the British Government, displace King George, dissolve Parliament, etc. They Left. That was their aim all along. That's secession. Oh and by the way, all 13 colonies had slavery at the time. And then there is the matter that the sovereign states do have the legal right to unilaterally secede....to "resume the powers of government" they had delegated to the federal government as the express provisos passed by several states at the time of ratification of the constitution plainly said. They were on much firmer legal footing than the 13 colonies had been considering the colonies were not sovereign.