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.

[rockrr]

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.

Please point out the provision of the United States Constitution that enumerates this pretend "legal right".

They were on much firmer legal footing than the 13 colonies had been considering the colonies were not sovereign.

Hogwash.

[FLT-bird]

rockrr: Please point out the provision of the United States Constitution that enumerates this pretend "legal right".

You have it backwards. Point out the provision in the constitution that says states do not have that right.

As usual, you're completely ignorant.

[rockrr]

Pot=kettle

As usual you’re too dimwitted to see the bigger picture. Of course the Constitution is silent on secession: it does not enumerate nor does it prohibit secession. Lincoln himself held that he was powerless to stop the states from seceding. He hoped that cooler heads and the rebel’s “better angels” would weigh in and stop the madness. Unfortunately there were none to be had.

What Lincoln did have was specific authority to defend the United States against acts of sedition, insurrection, and war. He did use those powers against the Slaver’s Rebellion - quite successfully I might add.

[Trump Girl Kit Cat]

WHY is it so DAMNED IMPORTANT to completely erase our history!! Are people in this country really so damn weak minded that they honestly can’t look at our history, REALLY!!! What the hell kind of people are we raising in this country?? Are people behaving this way in the work place today do they CRUMBLE when something does not go their way?? OMG!!!

[deport]

Some may CRUMBLE and/or others may GRUMBLE

[FLT-bird]

rockrr:Pot=kettle

Not at all. You're the ignorant one and its not even close.

rockrr:As usual you’re too dimwitted to see the bigger picture. Of course the Constitution is silent on secession: it does not enumerate nor does it prohibit secession. Lincoln himself held that he was powerless to stop the states from seceding. He hoped that cooler heads and the rebel’s “better angels” would weigh in and stop the madness. Unfortunately there were none to be had. What Lincoln did have was specific authority to defend the United States against acts of sedition, insurrection, and war. He did use those powers against the Slaver’s Rebellion - quite successfully I might add.

Again, you have it exactly backwards in your understanding dimwit. If the constitution is silent on it - which we both know it is - then it is a power retained by the states. Several states expressly reserved this power at the time of ratification and nobody said this in any way violated or was inconsistent with the constitution or that their ratifications of the constitution were thereby defective. Every state understood itself to have that right. What Lincoln did was deliberately start a war without Congressional authority to impose US sovereignty over foreign powers - ie the sovereign states which had seceded. He also violated the constitution he swore to uphold many more times in the course of the bloodbath he initiated for money.

[jeffersondem]

“Contrast that with a bunch of slave owners rebelling . . .”

Uh, the Founding Fathers were - your words - “a bunch of slave owners.”

Yes, George Washington owned slaves.

That was not a disqualifier, then or now, preventing him from being honored as Father of Our Country.

But if you think it is, say so.

[jeffersondem]

“You have it backwards. Point out the provision in the constitution that says states do not have that right.”

Your understanding of the constitution is, of course, right.

Amendment X reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Those that dispute the validity of Amendment X should also see Amendment IX.

This is one of the reasons for the disputes on this site. The schools do not teach the constitution anymore

[FLT-bird]

jeffersondem: Your understanding of the constitution is, of course, right. Amendment X reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Those that dispute the validity of Amendment X should also see Amendment IX. This is one of the reasons for the disputes on this site. The schools do not teach the constitution anymore

Yep. The IXth was put in specifically so that people could not claim a right did not exist if it wasn't listed among the bill of rights. The Xth makes clear that whatever the states did not DELEGATE (what a superior does with a subordinate) to the federal government, they kept.

Since nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to prevent secession, then that is a right retained by the states.

But of course over and above that the two sectional leaders Virginia and New York made it crystal clear they were keeping that right with express declarations saying so at the time that they ratified the Constitution.

Any argument put forth by the PC Revisionists to the contrary is a "might make right" argument. An analogous situation today would be a country leaving the UN after the UN passed ever more burdensome taxes that only fell on some countries while others stuck their snouts in the trough for the lion's share of the benefits without paying in nearly as much themselves.....then the UN going to war on the claim that a country could not legally leave the UN....or couldn't do so without a permission slip from others which would obviously never be granted - particularly if it were one of the countries paying all the bills.

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

“Whatever interpretation” he says, as if the meaning of Lincoln’s declaration is unknown - and unknowable.

Brings to mind the comment of Samuel Adams: “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.”

We’ve seen that with “shall not be infringed.”

We’ve seen that with “consent of the governed.”

We see that now with “any people anywhere.” (No! No! It doesn’t mean Americans!)

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "I have to disagree with you that the founders had a legal right to secede...
The founders did claim a moral right under natural law to rebel for a long train of abuses and usurpations. "

Right. Natural law right.

OIFVeteran: "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."

1860 secessionists claimed many rights, including:

"...the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted."
South Carolina "Reasons for Secession" December 1860

But you're right, of course -- 1861 Confederates seceded from and declared war against the government 1776 Founders fought to establish.
And this while their own Southern Democrats still ruled over Washington, DC.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "We see that now with “any people anywhere.” (No! No! It doesn’t mean Americans!)"

Sure, "having the power", so no power=no right.
If secessionists then test their power by declaring & waging war on their "former country", well they better have lots & lots of power.

jeffersondem: " 'Whatever interpretation' he says, as if the meaning of Lincoln’s declaration is unknown - and unknowable."

No, it's totally knowable but you guys misinterpret it.

Regardless of your misinterpretation, Lincoln's 1847 opinion was subsumed, if not overridden, by his 1861 Oath of Office.

jeffersondem: "Brings to mind the comment of Samuel Adams: 'How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.' "

Doubtless Adams had in mind the people who first abrogated Americans' charter of self government, then declared & waged war on Americans.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Since nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to prevent secession, then that is a right retained by the states."

Nor did Washington under Democrat President Buchanan take any actions to prevent secessions.

FLT-bird: "But of course over and above that the two sectional leaders Virginia and New York made it crystal clear they were keeping that right with express declarations saying so at the time that they ratified the Constitution."

But no state and no Founder ever claimed an unlimited right of secession at pleasure.
All tied disunion to necessities, abuses & usurpations as spelled out in their Declaration of Independence.

FLT-bird: "Any argument put forth by the PC Revisionists to the contrary is a 'might make right' argument. "

A Declaration Of War, as Confederates did May 6, 1861, is the ultimate "might makes right" argument.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Those that dispute the validity of Amendment X should also see Amendment IX.
This is one of the reasons for the disputes on this site.
The schools do not teach the constitution anymore"

But no Founder and no Founding document ever claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All tied disunion to necessity from abuses, usurpations, injuries or oppression.
No such necessity remotely existed in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Uh, the Founding Fathers were - your words - 'a bunch of slave owners.' "

But no major Founder, and very few if any lesser lights, claimed slavery a positive virtue.

jeffersondem: "Yes, George Washington owned slaves.
That was not a disqualifier, then or now, preventing him from being honored as Father of Our Country.
But if you think it is, say so."

Washington can speak for himself:

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

"Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly forsee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle."

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "54th attempt.
You are simply not going to steal hours of my day every day."

No, you're up to 232 posts on this thread, still number one, despite jeffersondem's recent attempts to narrow your margin.

[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.

55th 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.

56th attempt.

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

[jeffersondem]

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.”

So Washington and I do agree.

I did not agree with another poster who made a derogatory reference to “a bunch of slave owners.”

I thought that disrespectful of Washington and other founding fathers. Yes, George Washington owned slaves at the time of his death.

But at least the other poster did not call any of the founders “yapping dogs.”

[rockrr]

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

“Seldom right, but never in doubt”