Is it 1860 again?

The war that Lincoln began was over many things. Slavery was but 1 part, and we've debated that a lot. Ironically much back in 04/05 when I first posted my articles on secession.

This time around however, slavery is not a factor.

Interestingly enough though, many of the same reasons that launched both the American Revolution and the War of Southern Independence are with us again.

We've buried the lessons of history, we've rewritten tyrants and butchers like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan into heroes, we've allowed the Heirs of Hamilton their dream of a large and powerful Central government, to the detriment of We The People. We proclaim Washington, Madison and Jefferson "outdated" and "not applicable" as out non-representatives in Washington sell out our grandchildren's grandchildren to save their incompetent financial backers from ruin.

More than half the country is starting to wake up, people are taking to the streets, and things are in motion. Their outcome, uncertain. Is a sleeping giant again awakening, to reclaim their country and return us to a path we should never have left, or is this just another false alarm, and will snooze be hit again, as we are further disarmed, subjugated, and made dependent on the hind tit of a decomposing dead carcass painted red, white and blue?

Can Texas Really Secede?

Can Texas Really Secede?

That's the question floating around now that Texas Gov.

Neither the US Constitution nor the Texas Constitution specifically mention any way to separate.

The Texas Constitution says this about Texas and the US.

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This would seem to indicate that Texas consideres itself a partner with the United States, not a subservient section of it.

Now, we've established in the past (see below) that secession is legal despite the outcome of Mr. Lincoln's Illegal War and the forced at gunpoint readmission of the states that supposedly never left (How do you reenter end you never left?).

So, my take on this matter is, if Texas decides to secede, it will. A motion will possibly go to the state government, be passed onto the people to decide, and the "Will of the People" followed. Of course, there are economic, political and social matters to consider. This isn't something to do lightly, nor quickly. Care must be used, and if a division occurs, it should be peaceful, to maintain good relations between the 2. Both sides must be aware that we have enemies who will use such an event to their advantage, and our disadvantage. In the eyes of many, even if we divide, we are all the same to them.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a motion to consider the option put forth on this years ballot, so that the public's opinion could be weighed. A large number calling for consideration could carry as much weight if not more that actually doing it, and accomplish much of the same goals, while not rushing into something hastily.



Here's some related links.
The idea of Secession.
Chuck Norris Talks Secession (not recession)
Revisiting the Past : Part 1 - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery, cause for war. - Bob Hubbard

Another view on Government Corruption:

Another view on Government Corruption:
(From MartialTalk)

Quote:

The Washington establishment and its kept media are feigning outrage over the fact that the governor of Illinois has been selling political favors. So far, the biggest laugh line came from federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who claimed that Abraham Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he were to know that an Illinois politician was selling political favors to the highest bidder. In reality, Lincoln would be rolling his eyes over the stupidity of such a statement. As Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald has noted, Lincoln’s aspiration as a young pol was to be "the DeWitt Clinton of Illinois." DeWitt Clinton was the governor of New York who is "credited" with having invented the spoils system. By the time Lincoln ran for president, writes David Donald, he had become the master string puller in Illinois politics. He was what would today be called a "lobbyist" for the railroad corporations. In the late 1830s he led the effort to get the Illinois legislature to spend more than $10 million on "internal improvements" of roads and canals, none of which were ever finished; much of the money was stolen; and the taxpayers of Illinois were put deep into debt for many years. A Chicago politician is what we would call him today – a precursor of Mayor Daley and Congressman (and convicted felon) Danny Rostenkowski. As president, one of Lincoln’s very first acts was to call Congress into a special session in June of 1861 to begin work on the Pacific Railroad Bill, which would eventually result in the greatest spectacle of graft and corruption in American history up to that point (the Credit Mobilier scandal). Lincoln benefitted personally from this legislation which gave him, the president, the right to choose the eastern starting point of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad. He chose Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he had recently purchased a large parcel of real estate that is known to this day as "Lincoln’s hill." Many of Lincoln’s Republican Party luminaries, from Thaddeus Stevens to Justin Morrill and Oakes Ames, and even General Sherman, accumulated fortunes through graft and patronage that was created by Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad Bill (see my book, Lincoln Unmasked).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo163.html