Monckton: It’s Time For ‘Texit’ — Texas Should Secede, Thatcher Advisor Says

[Sanguine]

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right." - Alexander Stephens, March 1861

Slavery.

How about we re-fight the War on a thread of its own and quit hijacking this one?

@RedHead, perhaps you'd like to start one?

[TomSea]

OK, I give up. Y'all want to argue over past wrongs, y'all go ahead.  I'm outta here.   

This from someone who talked about Michigan? Folks there seem to even differentiate if you are from the yoopi.

Someone said, he didn't know if people from that state referred to themselves as Michiganians or Michiganders? But yet, I've seen civil war statues in the North of volunteers who actually made the choice to fight against Slavery. Now, from my neck of the woods and I'd hope anywhere, that's indeed a proud achievement.

I think those who diss the slavery issue, really do not understand its impact, that these were human beings.

And yes, in spite of the rhetoric and revisionism, that they also fled had further negative impact on the whole country.

[Sanguine]

This from someone who talked about Michigan? Folks there seem to even differentiate if you are from the yoopi.

Someone said, he didn't know if people from that state referred to themselves as Michiganians or Michiganders? But yet, I've seen civil war statues in the North of volunteers who actually made the choice to fight against Slavery. Now, from my neck of the woods and I'd hope anywhere, that's indeed a proud achievement.

I think those who diss the slavery issue, really do not understand its impact, that these were human beings.

And yes, in spite of the rhetoric and revisionism, that they also fled had further negative impact on the whole country.

This is not a civil war thread.  No more hijacking.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I disagree with your assessment of how the Texas Military would respond if a majority of Texans vote for independence.

We're talking about the Texas National Guard, right?  I mean...it's really not much of a military.  And while some of them might indeed agree to secede with Texas, I think you'd find a large number who would not want to abandon the flag under which they fought.

[MACVSOG68]

Stronger than the British Monarchy/Parliament form of government?     



What made the Union of the Colonies stronger than the Union of the Crowns?

The Declaration of Independence was indeed an illegal act, if morally right.  And it did of course lead to war.  A similar declaration by any state would also lead to war. 

[RedHead]

And which side invaded which?

Who attacked whom first?

[Bigun]

The Declaration of Independence was indeed an illegal act, if morally right.  And it did of course lead to war.  A similar declaration by any state would also lead to war.

Why?

Where is that provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot leave what it chose to join?

[DiogenesLamp]

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right." - Alexander Stephens, March 1861

Slavery.

Indirectly perhaps.    The primary cause of the war was Money.   

[RedHead]

First, currently it's not happening, and secondly, something like that wouldn't be up to you and me, so not sure what the point of arguing the finer points is.

Thirdly, you can't have it both ways.

It is happening.  You cannot go to a doctor in a foreign country and use Medicare.  Second, the government certainly does withhold Social Security if you give up your citizenship and either live or spend time in one of several foreign countries.  Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam are three I know of, there may well be others.  And if Texas walks out in an acrimonious manner then I could see them being added.  Finally, no you can't have it both ways.  You cannot simultaneously walk out and retain the benefits you walked away from.

[TomSea]

This is not a civil war thread.  No more hijacking.

Rosebear made that comment in the other thread and I thought that merited a response, so since you are giving orders.

Believe me, if we are talking about "Texas Independence", "Texas Sovereignty" etc. that has a lot to do with history.  "Texans fought for their freedom", then, I don't see why some say "Oh, but this is off limits".

Back to the nature of States, Hoosiers, no more words are necessary, one knows where they are if they hear that.

[RedHead]

Enlighten yourself. Read some of the books by James and Walter Kennedy such as "The South was Right."

I've read them both.  I love good comedy.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Declaration of Independence was indeed an illegal act, if morally right.  And it did of course lead to war.  A similar declaration by any state would also lead to war.

You mean it is simply unreasonable for a nation to believe in what it said when it declared independence? 


Were those statements of principles merely a propaganda tool intended to fool the rubes?   

[RedHead]

William Sherman- he who burned Atlanta? You must be joking. You have a very skewed view of history. Of course the victors rewrite history to suit their views and the truth has been lost. Read the James and Walter Kennedy books . I dare you but your mind is slammed shut.

You throw out the Kennedy brothers and accuse ME of having a skewed view of history?

[MACVSOG68]

Do you believe we have a "perfect" union? The language of "perpetual" union was removed from the Constitution for a reason. We have such a large land mass and sharp regional differences and extra-Constitutional national government that the fractures are becoming more apparent every day. I disagree with your assessment of how the Texas Military would respond if a majority of Texans vote for independence.

The Founders believed that the new Constitution did indeed perfect the confederation by strengthening the national government in a number of ways.  If you can find any evidence that they would have weakened it to the point of allowing an exit strategy past Article V, I'd very much like to see it.  Article V does provide for a change to the Constitution in several ways.  Past utilizing that, anything else would be extra-constitutional.  As for the Texas NG, if they rejected their oaths of office or enlistment on just a vote of independence, they would be guilty of treason.  Many would no doubt think about that before jumping into the movement.

[mirraflake]

 People ought to  be free to live in whatever country they like.   

Sounds like you have no problem with allowing 2-3 million Muslim refugees to enter the US then??

@Diogenes

[MACVSOG68]

Why?

Where is that provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot leave what it chose to join?

It can, through Article V.

[DiogenesLamp]

Who attacked whom first?

It appears that Lincoln attacked first,   but most people are unaware of it. 

[RedHead]

Texas did not start it.

No, but they fought for it like crazy.

Why did Lincoln free the slaves only in Confederate States and not in Northern States?

A little thing called the Constitution.  Perhaps you've heard of it?  And the 13th Amendment?

You are displaying breathtaking ignorance and need some serious schooling.

Seems to be a lot of that going around.

[Bigun]

It can, through Article V.

It can by the exact same method it joined in the first place!

[TomSea]

Why did Lincoln free the slaves only in Confederate States and not in Northern States?

This statement has not been proven to be true. It's a red herring, slavery was non-existent for all practical matters in the North. This is more of a statement routinely thrown out in the debate about the war between the States.

[RedHead]

Indirectly perhaps.    The primary cause of the war was Money.

In the South how did one differ from another?  Slavery was the pillar of their society, vital to their financial well-being, and how they differentiated themselves from the rest of the country socially and politically.   

[RedHead]

Why?

Where is that provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot leave what it chose to join?

States did not choose to join.  They were allowed to join with the permission of the existing states.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Founders believed that the new Constitution did indeed perfect the confederation by strengthening the national government in a number of ways.  If you can find any evidence that they would have weakened it to the point of allowing an exit strategy past Article V, I'd very much like to see it. 

No problem.   Here it is.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Article V does provide for a change to the Constitution in several ways.  Past utilizing that, anything else would be extra-constitutional.  As for the Texas NG, if they rejected their oaths of office or enlistment on just a vote of independence, they would be guilty of treason.  Many would no doubt think about that before jumping into the movement.

The laws of Nature and of Nature's God Trump both King and Constitution.   

[RedHead]

It appears that Lincoln attacked first,   but most people are unaware of it.

Well this should be interesting.  Let's hear it.

[MACVSOG68]

You mean it is simply unreasonable for a nation to believe in what it said when it declared independence? 


Were those statements of principles merely a propaganda tool intended to fool the rubes?   

The same people who supported the Declaration of Independence also created the perpetual union.  Perhaps they should have been more prescient and known what would happen in the 21st century.  Burke, thought by many to be the father of conservatism supported the monarchy, but also supported the American revolution, while severely criticizing the French revolution, for many reasons.