Though I do remain very interested in what Texas' options are.  I may not understand it right, or know the details well enough, but my understanding is that they have a unique contractual document from their incorporation into the US, that actually has exit provisions.

Anybody know the details  ?

Although under enough despotic repression, I'm sure a prior legal agreement wouldn't really matter a whole lot.

Quote from: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:43:06 AM
Yes, individuals will never get anywhere except stomped by various agency thugs.

The war cry of every tyrant in history has always been:  "Divide and conquer!"  There is only one "individual" right:  the right to be crushed like a bug by an all-powerful central authority.

Without the right to local self-governance, the US Constitution is an empty sham.  The Tenth Amendment consists of the 28 most important words in the Bill of Rights.  It's pretty much the only text the Progressives never bothered to "re-interpret."  Instead, they simply pretend it does not exist.  It's the practice Japanese emperors used to call:  "Killing with silence."

Quote from: AndyJackson on October 14, 2013, 08:46:48 AM
Though I do remain very interested in what Texas' options are.  I may not understand it right, or know the details well enough, but my understanding is that they have a unique contractual document from their incorporation into the US, that actually has exit provisions.

Anybody know the details  ?

Although under enough despotic repression, I'm sure a prior legal agreement wouldn't really matter a whole lot.

Alaska had a related convention in their agreement with the fed Gov, but the Fed later passed laws nullifying that clause.
I'm sure the same has either already happened or in the works with the socialist scum in all three branches regarding Texas.

Quote from: daidalos on September 26, 2013, 12:30:49 AM
Lincolns war against the South was illegal and unconstitutional Lincoln himself knew it too.

The South started the war.   

And the Constitution mandates the government to "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty" - possible justification for a war to end slavery.  Remember that the southern states' secession was not on democratic consent of its people, because slaves, women and many poorer people did not have a say.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 04:46:29 PM
The South started the war.   

And the Constitution mandates the government to "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty" - possible justification for a war to end slavery.  Remember that the southern states' secession was not on democratic consent of its people, because slaves, women and many poorer people did not have a say.

Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

Yes, and it would have been "Constitutional" to boot!

Ek, I'm not arguing that the North was some enlightened bastion of progressive equality - I'm saying that it was all of the aforementioned in comparison to the South, which fanatically supported (openly so, in its declarations of secession) one of the most evil institutions known to mankind.  Its violations of the rights of millions of its own people far outstrip, say, the North imposing high tariffs...boo hoo.

Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities.

The southern states formed a new government on what authority?  Consent of its people?  No, it did not have anything approaching universal suffrage or even universal personhood; free minorities, slaves, women and disenfranchised whites had no vote in the matter.  Consent of an arbitrary selection of rich slaveowners, sure.

Quote
Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).

But not the most important, the issue of slavery.  And I would point out that the small government model espoused by the confederacy quickly proved to be utterly impossible when it came to actually waging a war, to the point where Davis had to enact "big government" policies that caused splinters within his base.

Quote
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

Who said the North was perfect?  I'm just pointing out that the South was worse.  It had institutionalized slavery, specifically identified in its declarations of secession slavery to be "the greatest material interest of the world" and the primary cause for secession, and accused the North of such horrible evils as trying to give free blacks voting rights. 

When it comes to evil, slavery >>>>>>>>> high tariffs or government taxes.  I'm sorry, but your south held no moral high ground whatsoever.  Nor did it have any legal right to secede from a permanent union, especially not by an undemocratic process.

Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

Yes, sir, you are correct. But the problem with the whole idea is the fact that the issue of slavery is not what started Lincoln's war. The issue was secession, or more properly stated, the maintenance of the union. Certainly, slavery was a hot issue of the day, but the war started because the Southern states seceded, not because they had slaves. Pennsylvania remained a slave state until 1847 and slavery was still legal in Delaware and New Jersey in 1860.

It was well over a year and a half before Mr. Lincoln even got around to issuing his Emancipation Proclamation, which was little more than a political stunt. Under the circumstances, his proclamation was worth no more than the paper it was written on.

The Civil War was about money, as most wars are. It began over slavery only insofar as slaves were legal chattel property with a great deal of value.

Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 03:35:34 PM
That would have saved a lot of money and lives.

What makes you think the south would have accepted such a deal?

1. Slavery was a long term economic investment, the slaveowners would recognize that a single large cash payment would hardly even out the economic loss.

2. Slavery was not only economical but also reflective of a racist ideology; many southerners believed that slavery was the natural state of blacks and that they were happier in such a state.  As of such, hostility to abolition extended far beyond pure economics.

3. Political publications of the time and, more prominently, the southern states' various declarations of secession indicate that many southerners had convinced themselves of a massive abolitionists conspiracy by the north to not only "take away" their "god given property rights", but also give blacks voting rights and even elected office.  Granted, the North was hardly as progressive as the reactionary south imagined, but they would certainly not take at face value an emancipation payment.  There was an emotional, paranoid atmosphere amongst the south that could not have been dispelled through sheer bribery.

4. Many southerners, the late Jefferson included, feared that freed blacks would take violent revenge on their former masters.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 18, 2013, 04:49:51 PM
What makes you think the south would have accepted such a deal?

What makes you think I give a shit!  As Tbone said, the issue was secession and the North losing all the revenue from the South.  I from the West and even I know that.   

Quote from: walkstall on November 18, 2013, 06:59:56 PM
What makes you think I give a shit!  As Tbone said, the issue was secession and the North losing all the revenue from the South.  I from the West and even I know that.   

So please feel free to explain how it would have "saved a lot of money and lives" if it did not convince the South to lay down its arms.  Also feel free to explain why you were agreeing with a post arguing that the North had some sort of obligation to "compensate" slave owners for their "property".

Every individual has the right to leave whatever association or agreement he wishes to. For to prevent such would be to make him your slave.

So if every man and woman has the right to secede, individually, then they can collectively enjoy this right, no less.

And they don't need to point to a passage in the Constitution to justify it. For it is their natural right as men.

Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on November 18, 2013, 03:28:28 PM
Good grief....the Southern states had formed a new government and adopted a new Constitution prior to any hostilities. Have you studied the Confederate Constitution?? It fixes several defects from the original (which are still in need of fixing).
If the North found it so compelling to "Free" the slaves they should have given "just compensation" for the property, about 4 million slaves at an average of around $1,000 dollars, or $4 billion (1860 dollars) and bought them their freedom, before they invaded the South and destroyed it.

I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860. Even if it was, it was quite legal. And selling a slave for a thousand dollars, knowing that exact slave would make you $2,000 next year (and every year thereafter), is rather stupid. I don't think every slave owner in the Confederate states was that stupid.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 19, 2013, 09:13:11 AM
I can't imagine that ever happening. To begin with, slavery wasn't the primary issue in 1860. Even if it was, it was quite legal. And selling a slave for a thousand dollars, knowing that exact slave would make you $2,000 next year (and every year thereafter), is rather stupid. I don't think every slave owner in the Confederate states was that stupid.

As I remember Democrats back then were not even that stupid.