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.

[BroJoeK]

[unnamed] "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."

False.
Both the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution were ratified with unanimous mutual consent of all 13 colonies/states.
No effort was ever made by any state, or small group of states, to "go it alone".

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "57th attempt."

No, you're up to 237 posts on this thread, still number one, still the thread dominator, even though all equally wastes of everyone's time, not to mention your own.
But we should also note that since early February jeffersondem has out-posted FLT-bird roughly two to one.
He seems unlikely to ever match your 237 posts, but does at least have a lawyer's talent for diverting attention & asking somewhat interesting questions.

[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.

58th attempt.

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

P.S. about a quarter of my posts in this thread are now simply logging your attempts to keep dragging me back after I’ve made it clear there will be no further conversation with you on the subject. That speaks to your obsession and desperation. How pathetic. Get a life.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "...about a quarter of my posts in this thread are now simply logging your attempts..."

Even subtracting those out you still dominate this thread among Lost Cause posters.
You're still number one overall here, though as you meekly fade away, others picked up your lead.
I mentioned already, in recent weeks jeffersondem has out-posted you about two to one.

Indeed, you seem now to be playing more the role of jeffersondem's puppy dog, though of course I'd never accuse you of, ahem, yapping.

[FLT-bird]

How many posts are in response to you? I’d guess at least half of them.....a product of the strange compulsive need you have to respond to me....even months after I’ve finished all conversation on this topic with you.

This is not the first such thread on this subject you’ve done this in.

As I said before, get a life.

[BroJoeK]

"...strange compulsive need you have to respond to me.."

LOL!
I respond to all lies & lairs.
You just happen to be the biggest one on this site, by far.

[FLT-bird]

The liar here...not to mention pathetic obsessed loser is you.

[jeffersondem]

“Both the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution were ratified with unanimous mutual consent of all 13 colonies/states.”

That is an interesting comment: that the Constitution was ratified with (mutual) consent.

As recently as post 1,219 you claimed one state forced ratification of the pro-slavery U.S. Constitution by “threatening” the other 12.

Consent obtained by threats is not consent.

Your arguments conflict. That’s because you don’t have sound schemata.

[DiogenesLamp]

Consent obtained by threats is not consent.

Exactly the point I make about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

[jeffersondem]

“Exactly the point I make about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.”

You and I have been consistent: consent obtained by coercion is not consent. There was a time when none denied it.

We must continue to repeat this point until everyone that totes a smart phone understands.

[rockrr]

So you’re still in favor of keeping slavery alive. Good to know...

[jeffersondem]

“So you’re still in favor of keeping slavery alive.”

That is an interesting comment.

May we see your data?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "As recently as post 1,219 you claimed one state forced ratification of the pro-slavery U.S. Constitution by “threatening” the other 12.
Consent obtained by threats is not consent."

Nonsense, politics is politics.
Representatives often agree to provisions they dislike in order to obtain a larger goal they want more.

One now famous politician wrote a book about it, perhaps you've heard, "The Art of the Deal"?

jeffersondem: "Your arguments conflict.
That’s because you don’t have sound schemata."

"Sound schemata"?
Well... there's a $2 word for a mere "schoolboy".
Even if, after a few years, you've now become an "old boy", that's still a pretty specialized term, suggesting some rather focused learning.

Regardless, my arguments are not in conflict and my "schemata" are simply the facts of history.

You should look them up someday.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Consent obtained by threats is not consent."

DiogenesLamp: "Exactly the point I make about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments."

rockrr: "So you’re still in favor of keeping slavery alive. Good to know..."

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

Clearly our Lost Causers, typical Democrats, wish to have it both ways on this.
On the one hand they deny the 13th, 14th & 15th were legitimately ratified, on the other they claim to support emancipation and citizenship for former slaves.

The key facts they ignore are:

1. The 13th, 14th & 15th were lawfully ratified by representatives of legal voters at the time.
   Those voters included former slaves but excluded former Confederates.

2. In early 1865 what Lincoln called a "pernicious abstraction" argued Confederate state ratifications were no longer necessary.
   That would reduce the requirement to 19 states.
   But in the end, all 36 states of the time ratified.

3. Congress passed laws requiring former Confederate states to ratify before sending representatives to Congress.

4. The 13th, 14th & 15th were eventually ratified by every state which originally rejected them and no state today remains in opposition to them.

Bottom line: "consent of the governed" depends on who, exactly, is asked to consent.
Slaves were never asked to consent to slavery and Confederates were not asked to consent to abolition at the time.
Today descendants of slaveholders are free to withdraw their states' ratifications of the 13th, 14th & 15th at any time and yet none -- zero, zilch, nada, not one -- has ever chosen to do so.
Nor, so far as I've seen, has any Lost Causer here suggested it.

In my opinion that qualifies as "consent of the governed."

[DiogenesLamp]

Reading anything you write is like listening to North Korean propaganda. Who has time for any of that nonsense? I don't even have to bother. It will always be biased, and contain no objective admissions against interest.

You studiously ignore any information that contradicts your cheerleading position, and so you aren't worth bothering with.

[jeffersondem]

“Clearly our Lost Causers, typical Democrats, wish to have it both ways on this. On the one hand they deny the 13th, 14th & 15th were legitimately ratified, on the other they claim to support emancipation and citizenship for former slaves.”

I'm sure there is a Latin word to describe your faulty logic but I do not know what it is. I just call it wrong-headed.

Yes, I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. And yes, I opposed the mob that attempted his high-tech lynching. But there was no “both ways” about it.

The elimination of the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution was necessary and advantageous but it should have been done peacefully using the agreed upon amendment process without all the war and killings.

[DiogenesLamp]

We must continue to repeat this point until everyone that totes a smart phone understands.

I believe human nature is such that the only way to get them to understand it is to put the shoe on their foot.

For some reason, many people do not comprehend objectivity, or why we should want it.

[jeffersondem]

“Clearly our Lost Causers, typical Democrats, wish to have it both ways on this. On the one hand they deny the 13th, 14th & 15th were legitimately ratified, on the other they claim to support emancipation and citizenship for former slaves.”

I'm sure there is a Latin word to describe your faulty logic but I do not know what it is. I just call it wrong-headed.

Yes, I supported Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. And yes, I opposed the mob that attempted his high-tech lynching. But there was no “both ways” about it.

The elimination of the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution was necessary and advantageous but it should have been done peacefully using the agreed upon amendment process without all the war and killings.

[jeffersondem]

“Regardless, my arguments are not in conflict . .”

This is another instance where your self-exculpatory statements do not quite settle the matter.

You have argued the South (one southern state at least) forced the other states to adopt a slavery-enshrined Constitution BUT you have argued that all the states adopted the slavery-enshrined Constitution by mutual consent.

If it was forced, then it wasn’t mutual consent.

All this, of course, ties back into the “at pleasure” superstructure of your discredited mother church.

What you should do now is to point out that you were unwittingly, and deliberately, led into a trap. You probably were.

[jeffersondem]

“Nonsense, politics is politics. Representatives often agree to provisions they dislike in order to obtain a larger goal they want more. One now famous politician wrote a book about it, perhaps you’ve heard, “The Art of the Deal”?”

Brother Joe, you are getting close to recognizing that slavery - which some believe the northern states knew to be morally wrong before the Revolutionary War - was enshrined into the United States Constitution as part of a deal for the North to obtain a larger goal.

That “goal” has been referred to elsewhere as the North’s economic and political best self interest.

Some say many years later an archetype Lincoln famously explained how the deal came unglued. See the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g