beowulf

Up to the Civil war it was commonly believed that the United States was a voluntary union of states. States joined the union on their own accord and believed they could leave the union when ever they wished. Then Lincoln enforced a non voluntary union. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and is often wrong. Just look at the ruling on Obamacare. Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together. Lincoln was by far the worst president ever.

Secession is allowed in the constitution. The constitution supports a coalition of independent states and a weak federal government. What we have now with this massive Federal Government isn't what the authors of the Constitution intended to happen. Just like fiat currency was not what the authors wanted. I think they were right on both accounts. The states seceded for a bunch of reasons. I think the biggest reason was due to financial repression by the Northern states. I don't really see any way to say what we currently have would be better then what might have been if the states were allowed to secede. We don't know what that route would have been. You are just guessing as to what might have been. I think Lincoln's biggest motivator was probably economic. He certainly didn't care that much about the constitution or the legality of secession. He did a number of things that were later ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think Lincoln's main goal was to end slavery. I don't think he cared that much about it. I think it was motivated much more my money then slavery. The loss of the southern states would have meant a big loss in tax revenue and he wanted to keep the union together at all costs was a factor. I think they used the slavery issue as a political tool.

Heard from the CEO of Skyventure that it's on the list. Dallas is the next tunnel to be built. I don't know what the order is but the Chicago tunnel is in the list of the next 4 tunnels to be built.

I don't know about that. If there's a 20 year mandatory prison sentence for being in possession of one, then it will surely discourage a lot of Rambo wannabes. It would, for example, be difficult to hide it if you took it to a range to test it. And who would they pay to check each magazine to see if it was made commercially or not? That bill doesn't outlaw existing high capacity magazines or even the current commercially available magazines. I think you are assuming a total ban on high capacity magazines and not just future sales.

I don't think the Northern states liked blacks enough to go to war just to abolish slavery. Blacks weren't treated much better in the northern states then they were in the southern states. I am not trying to say slavery wasn't an issue or that it didn't happen like the crazies saying the holocaust didn't happen. I just don't think it played as big of a role as you think it did.

And for every one you post I could post 2. I don't have time to play dueling articles. So stand by your posts; I certainly stand by mine. And if you truly believe that but for tariffs, but even with the ongoing existence and expansion of slavery, the US would never have fought its Civil War, I have some nice investments to sell you. I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. I don't think tariffs were the only reason for the civil war. I just thing they played a bigger role then you think and that the north wasn't as pious as they made themselves out to be regarding slavery.

That's revisionist history. Had slavery not existed in the United States, the Civil War would have never happened. I don't think anyone is saying slavery had nothing to do with the civil war. I am saying that the tariffs had a much bigger role then is commonly thought. There is no way to confirm whether not having slavery would have prevented the civil war. So that is a silly statement. Lincoln could have let the southern states secede. That would have saved a lot of lives and avoided a civil war.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html Here is a good case for tariffs being more important then you seem to think.

You can make laws to outlaw anything you want. But if the law is essentially unenforceable then it makes a mockery of the judicial system.

I don't buy that the Republicans were really that pious in the views of slavery. Like I said earlier I find it more likely that they were using it as a propaganda tool. The reason for secession is better explained by the Republicans and Lincolns support of more tariffs which really hurt the southern states. And that is what upset the south when Lincoln and the Republicans swept into office, not their position on slavery.

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude. Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible. I have read up on the sources. Being over 50 myself and having been a close student of US history for most of my life, I do find it to be a reasonable analysis. No, the War wasn't solely over slavery; there were multiple factors. However, but for the existence of slavery as part of the (entire) US economy, and the conflict over whether it should or should not exist, in particular in newly-admitted states in the MidWest, it is highly unlikely that either the Southern secessions or the Civil War would have happened. Yes, each side, and their respective regional descendants, have engaged in revisionist history. But in the final analysis, the still-institutionalized Southern insistence that the slavery issue was mainly an afterthought in the conflict is just silly. I think slavery was used as a political propaganda movement to get people to support the war. The northern states didn't have as much of a problem with slavery as is claimed. Their issue with the south was much more financially motivated. Lincoln specifically said that if he could keep the states together with out abolishing slavery he would. I am sure you have seen the following quote. I think it very much shows that the primary motivation was keeping the union together and I think that was primarily motivated by financial interests. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Abraham Lincoln

Thatt's what each side says about the other side's version, dude. Yes, but if you read up on it and check the sources you can get an idea of how valid the claims are. I don't find that version to be credible.

That is pretty much the propaganda version.

Thomas DiLorenzo has written some very interesting books on this subject. He does a good job of citing his sources. A lot of people don't realize that before Lincoln was president he was the highest paid lawyer in the US. He worked primarily for the big railroad companies.

Lincoln didn't care about ending slavery at all. His only interest was Federalism and keeping the states together at all costs. His plan for blacks was to send them all back to Africa.

My god! That almost makes perfect sense. Except we're talking about SLAVERY. You do NOT get the moral high ground when you're talking about the "rights" of states when those states completely strip the real HUMAN rights of people. Some people want to think it's their "right" to own SLAVES? Fuck the those people. The Civil war had little to do with slavery. It was about oppression of the southern states by big businesses of the north. To be more specific it was about tariffs that supported northern businesses and hurt the southern states who relied on exports.

I am glad I live in Texas.

A gun in the home with owner present and behind said gun is a deterrent and you know that is what was meant. You are just presenting a straw man argument.

Where is your office? My office is in Plano at Coit and 15th st. It's only about 20 minutes from my apartment. I will be broke too. I have time booked for Feb 15th and 16th if you can make it down to Austin, come fly with me.

Near the Stonebriar Mall, 121 and the Dallas North Tollway. I was told it's going to be the same design as the Austin tunnel. Just got back from Austin yesterday and that tunnel is freakin awesome!!!

The OKC Skydivers I know of jump mostly at Skydive Dallas.

Yeah, I know better. Thankfully I don't deal with the court system very often.

Post pictures!

Silly me, I tend to associate our court system with logic.