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.

[OIFVeteran]

Do you have a source for that quote?

[rockrr]

It looks like: George Washington, Jared Sparks (1835). “The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private”, p.159

[OIFVeteran]

Thank you.

[jeffersondem]

“But no Founder and no Founding document ever claimed an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure.”

That is an interesting comment.

What, exactly, did the founding document say about “at pleasure.”

[FLT-bird]

jefersondem: That is an interesting comment. What, exactly, did the founding document say about “at pleasure.”

As always the PC Revisionists have it exactly backwards. They seem to come at it from the belief that the state's powers flow from the federal and that barring an express grant of power by the federal government to the state governments then the states don't have it. Wrong! Its exactly the opposite. Barring an express grant of power from the states to the federal then the federal does not have it. Nowhere is the federal government given the power to prevent secession nor are any conditions put on when a state may exercise its right to secession.

[jeffersondem]

“I doubt that you will encounter a more miserable pair of Lost Cause Losers than we have with these two.”

That is an interesting comment. May we see your data?

Otherwise, this seems to be another case of supposed insiders seeking to influence each other to create a defining stereotype for supposed outsiders.

[rockrr]

What’s this “we” crap - you got a mouse in your pocket?

[jeffersondem]

“As always the PC Revisionists have it exactly backwards.”

I have that concern too.

However, Brother Joe makes reference to the phrase “at pleasure” frequently and knowing him he will be boiling in here any minute with multiple citations - book, chapter and verse - conjoining “at pleasure” to the founding document.

[jeffersondem]

“What’s this “we” crap - you got a mouse in your pocket?”

In your post 1,200 you make mention of a “pair.”

A pair still means two.

[jeffersondem]

“As always the PC Revisionists have it exactly backwards.”

I have that concern too.

However, Brother Joe makes reference to the phrase “at pleasure” frequently and knowing him he will be boiling in here any minute with multiple citations - book, chapter and verse - conjoining “at pleasure” to the founding document.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "So Washington and I do agree."

Then you must disagree with Confederates who claimed:

"The South is invaded.
It is time for all patriots to be united, to be under military organization, to be advancing to the conflict determined to live or die in defence of the God given right to own the African"
---Richard Thompson Archer (Mississippi planter), letter to the Vicksburg Sun, Dec. 8, 1859."

"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."
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860.

"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."
-- The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade, November 1862.

jeffersondem: "But at least the other poster did not call any of the founders 'yapping dogs.'

So which of the above quotes would you call "yapping"?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "What, exactly, did the founding document say about 'at pleasure.' "

There was nothing "at pleasure" about the Declaration.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "As always the PC Revisionists have it exactly backwards"

Nonsense.

FLT-bird: "They seem to come at it from the belief that the state's powers flow from the federal and that barring an express grant of power by the federal government to the state governments then the states don't have it.
Wrong! "

More nonsense.
Our Founders considered "disunion" acceptable under two, but only two conditions:

1. From necessity, abuses, usurpations, injury or oppression as spelled out in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.

2. At pleasure with mutual consent as in adopting their new Constitution in 1788.

No Founders ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, but that's what Confederates did in 1860.

FLT-bird: " Nowhere is the federal government given the power to prevent secession nor are any conditions put on when a state may exercise its right to secession."

Nor did Democrat President Buchanan take any steps to stop secession or prevent the Confederacy forming.
Even President Lincoln took no military action against Confederates until after they provoked, started, declared & began to wage war against the United States.

[jeffersondem]

“At pleasure with mutual consent as in adopting their new Constitution in 1788.”

This is an interesting comment. It combines mutual consent and something called “at pleasure” which we are told is not the same as a necessity.

All of which brings to mind the previous unanswered question: How did one state force 12 other states (a tenet of Brother Joe’s mother church) to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution against their will?

This question needs to be revisited now that it’s confirmed (post 1213) that the Constitution was adopted “at pleasure” which is said to be different than a necessity.

[jeffersondem]

“There was nothing “at pleasure” about the Declaration.”

I am beginning to doubt the dogma of “at pleasure” is based on the sacred text of our nation’s founding document. Brother Joe has preached “at pleasure” in nearly every sermon and I had assumed it was carved into stone.

[jeffersondem]

“So which of the above quotes would you call “yapping”?”

“Yapped like a dog” was a disrespectful term you introduced to denigrate a southern founding father.

I decline your invitation to spread its usage in civil discussions. I have made reference - for academic purposes - to its use by you.

[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.

57th attempt.

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

[FLT-bird]

jeffersondem I am beginning to doubt the dogma of “at pleasure” is based on the sacred text of our nation’s founding document. Brother Joe has preached “at pleasure” in nearly every sermon and I had assumed it was carved into stone. Of course not. Are you kidding? Each state was free to determine necessity for itself - just as they did in 1776. No state required any sort of permission from others to declare independence just as no colony required the permission of the rest of the British Empire to secede.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem referring to the 1787 convention: "How did one state force 12 other states (a tenet of Brother Joe’s mother church) to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution against their will?"

By threatening disunion.
Even as late as 1860 Northerners still wanted Union more than they opposed slavery.

jeffersondem: "This question needs to be revisited now that it’s confirmed (post 1213) that the Constitution was adopted 'at pleasure' which is said to be different than a necessity."

The 1776 Declaration of Independence defines such words as "necessity", "abuse", "usurpations", "injury" & "oppression".

The 1787 US Constitution defines such terms as "mutual consent", "consent of the governed" and "at pleasure".
In 1787 there was no necessity remotely similar to those of 1776 so Founders, in a sense, "seceded" from their old Articles of Confederation at pleasure by mutual consent.

In 1860 there was neither necessity nor mutual consent so Confederates declared unilateral, unapproved secession at pleasure.
No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral secession at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I decline your invitation to spread its usage in civil discussions.
I have made reference - for academic purposes - to its use by you. "

Nooooo, not for "academic purposes", strictly for purposes of argument -- to deflect, distract, divert & sidetrack from the point being examined.
It's what you always do when your alternative is defending the indefensible, right?