Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate plaque in Texas Capitol to come down after vote
WFAA ^ | January 11, 2019 | Jason Whitely

Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: dixie; legislature; purge; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,1601,161-1,1801,181-1,200 ... 1,261-1,267 next last
To: jeffersondem

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.


1,161 posted on 02/16/2019 10:14:43 PM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1154 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; DoodleDawg
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.

1,162 posted on 02/17/2019 2:49:22 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1160 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird; jeffersondem; DoodleDawg; rockrr
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.

Those do sound like "slavery, slavery, slavery" to me.
1,163 posted on 02/17/2019 4:14:28 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
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?

1,164 posted on 02/17/2019 5:24:36 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1159 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
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?

1,165 posted on 02/17/2019 5:24:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1159 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

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.


1,166 posted on 02/17/2019 8:57:28 AM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; FLT-bird; DiogenesLamp; Pelham; wardaddy

“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?


1,167 posted on 02/17/2019 10:45:49 AM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; FLT-bird; DiogenesLamp; Pelham; wardaddy

“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?


1,168 posted on 02/17/2019 11:01:01 AM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1162 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
Is this your understanding of what Lincoln was saying?

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

1,169 posted on 02/17/2019 12:33:42 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1167 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
“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.

1,170 posted on 02/17/2019 1:27:42 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1169 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
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.

1,171 posted on 02/17/2019 3:25:35 PM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem
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.

1,172 posted on 02/18/2019 2:47:00 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
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.

1,173 posted on 02/18/2019 2:50:42 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1171 | View Replies]

To: jeffersondem; DoodleDawg; rockrr
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:

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.
1,174 posted on 02/18/2019 3:09:37 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1170 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
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.

1,175 posted on 02/18/2019 3:11:33 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1166 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

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.


1,176 posted on 02/18/2019 5:52:31 AM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1173 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

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.


1,177 posted on 02/18/2019 5:53:08 AM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

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.


1,178 posted on 02/18/2019 6:00:01 AM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

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.


1,179 posted on 02/18/2019 6:04:48 AM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: OIFVeteran
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.

1,180 posted on 02/18/2019 8:04:05 AM PST by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,1601,161-1,1801,181-1,200 ... 1,261-1,267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson