TSA Threatens to Shut Down All Texas Air Travel

[RPB]

Scott in Houston
We used to say "I hear you" now it's
"I feel ya" .... wait no, that's them ...

[Jasonw560]

I just created this... new battle flag for Texas?

Me gusto mucho!! THAT is what I am talking about!!

[Slowplay]

For a historical perspective, however, the slide against States rights has gone on for a very long time. In spite of commonly held beliefs, the Civil War was about States rights and slavery just happened to be one of the issues under that topic. We all know how that turned out.

Love the rest of your post, but have to jump on this. Your statement shows what I believe is a southern myth about states rights.
It was first and foremost about slavery. States rights just happened to go along for the ride. (the other way around from your comment)

If it was truly *only* or *first and foremost* about states rights, then why couldn't a state in the Confederate States elect to ban slavery? They couldn't. Under the Confederate Constitution, slavery was required/mandated. No states rights there... They were all about ensuring the continuation of slavery. The whole process began even before Lincoln came into office just because they feared his anti-slavery point of view. Taxation and other states rights issues jumped on board after it began and was spawned by slavery.

I believe the real myth is the belief that the war was primarily about states rights. I think that belief of this myth is spawned from the fact that it's hard for us from the South to believe our ancestors would actually support and fight over such an evil practice, but the sad truth is, they did.

I realize this is off-topic, but you citing the "southern myth about states rights" made me want to reply.

The struggle between states rights and the federal powers existed DECADES before the civil war. The north and the south had different economies which were impacted by federal actions such as trade tariffs. The northern states with their industrial economy favored tariffs and sought protection from foreign trade. The southern states were mostly export oriented and were negatively impacted when the federal government imposed tariffs (non-uniform tariffs, at that).

Protective tariffs passed by the federal government in the 1820s and 1830s (to benefit northern states) were very much opposed by southern exporting states and South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification declaring that tariffs passed by the U.S. were not valid within the state of South Carolina.

In response, President Jackson sent the U.S. Navy to South Carolina and threatened to commence military action on the ground to enforce the tariffs. This was in 1832. ...and yes, that same South Carolina where Fort Sumter is located.

Your points about the Confederate States not being able to elect to ban slavery is lost on me. The confederacy permitted and protected the institution of slavery, but it was not absolute. Individual states COULD ban slavery within their individual state, but such a state could not deny the right of transit or temporary stay of citizens of other states (and their slaves). Also, international slave trading WAS banned by the confederacy.

You have to consider the context and circumstances when the confederacy was established. The only hope of southern states mounting a defense was to unite and have financial backing. So, southern secessionists and slaveholders agreed on the establishment of the confederacy, but you have to remember who would have influence on the process. As in any case with politics, those with financial means tend to get what they want. So when the confederacy was established, the CSA constitution reflected mostly a duplicate of the U.S. Constitution, with modifications to placate plantations/slaveholders and other secessionists (permitting slaveholding and limiting the federal powers that had hurt the south - read non-uniform tariffs).

So, there were many other factors involved and they started even before anyone in the south had heard of Lincoln.

[Scott in Houston]

I never said that states rights was a myth in and of itself. What I said was, saying that the civil war was fought primarily over states rights and not slavery, is not true.


States rights was an issue even before the Constitution! I'm very aware of the history of states rights and the struggle there. The founders struggled with it themselves. The Articles of Confederation reflect this... giving too much power to each state. Finding that balance was and will always be a struggle.

Thanks for the well thought out and educational post. I think you may have misunderstood what I typed to mean one thing it didn't.

My point is, the civil war was fought because of slavery. That was the tipping point. Had we not had slavery as an issue or part of the struggle, we would still have the states rights struggle as we do now, but we would not have seen bloodshed.

[UpTheIrons]

I just created this... new battle flag for Texas?

I hope you don't mind - I just "appropriated" this image for my Facebook profile.

[Scott in Houston]

I hope you don't mind - I just "appropriated" this image for my Facebook profile.

Ha! Awesome! Send royalties check to...

[Bennies]

I just created this... new battle flag for Texas?

Love it. I wonder if this could be made into a sticker? I would post it dead center on my flight bag.

[Slowplay]

I never said that states rights was a myth in and of itself. What I said was, saying that the civil war was fought primarily over states rights and not slavery, is not true.


States rights was an issue even before the Constitution! I'm very aware of the history of states rights and the struggle there. The founders struggled with it themselves. The Articles of Confederation reflect this... giving too much power to each state. Finding that balance was and will always be a struggle.

Thanks for the well thought out and educational post. I think you may have misunderstood what I typed to mean one thing it didn't.

My point is, the civil war was fought because of slavery. That was the tipping point. Had we not had slavery as an issue or part of the struggle, we would still have the states rights struggle as we do now, but we would not have seen bloodshed.

I believe Lincoln's election was a tipping point, but keep in mind that Lincoln had said he was only against allowing any expansion of slavery (considered a moderate republican). He claimed that the federal government did not have the unilateral authority to prohibit slavery during the campaign (unless the Constitution was amended, which it was in 1865 with the 13th Amendment).

Also consider that perceived power at a governmental level comes from the belief that your interests and positions are held by those elected and in power (it's not a sure thing even when you get someone in there you think is on your side...e.g. campus carry).

Lincoln was elected President, but around 60% of the popular vote was against him (he carried a majority of electoral votes with industrial northern states and their significant electoral size advantage). So, if 60% of the nation voted for someone other than Lincoln, how many people in the southern states do you think voted for Lincoln?

In a struggle for political power (or at least some protection from those in power), it's hard to imagine many in the south being comfortable with Lincoln's election since it's likely very few southerners could identify any friends or neighbors that had voted for Lincoln. They felt disenfranchised and didn't want to be railroaded by a federal government that didn't represent them (and had hurt them in the past with non-uniform tariffs). Besides, when did Lincoln issue the emancipation proclamation and why didn't it cover all slave states?

ETA: I like your battle flag too

[Scott in Houston]

Thanks. All going points. I love discussing history. It's truly amazing really how big the picture is and how many angles can be viewed of the same situation. You're obviously a student of history.

Now, I'm all for starting the revolutionary fight all over again... I am talking the Texas revolution. Speaking of myths... I wish the myth of Texas' ability to secede was true. I'd be all over a legit political movement to do so.

[UpTheIrons]

I have to honestly have to say that Dan Patrick is a political coward...I am not impressed at all with his performance this session, and I believe that is a fair assessment...

Why introduce a bill, that is obviously contraversial, slaps the Feds in the face, and then pull the bill you introduced, just because someone from the Justice Department brings you a letter threatening commerce in your state???

I heard Patrick interviewed about this a while earlier in Kevin Wall's show on KTSA. His reasoning was that there is no way he'll get enough votes to bring it up for discussion, and he didn't want it killed outright, so he pulled it. Once he saw that there was no way he was going to get the 21 votes he needed, he gave up.

Apparently, he had 30 votes for it when it came to the floor, but as soon as it went to the floor, Dewhurst started distributing "The Letter" and senators started dropping off right and left. They even came up to Patrick on the floor when he was discussing it and said that Dewhurst was trying to kill it out from under him.

He said that he was ready to go a few days ago, and Dewhurst wasn't ready to bring it up; he kept telling Patrick to wait. Then, Dewhurst apparently used Watson to get "The Letter" out (which Dewhurst apparently requested be written) so Dewhurst wouldn't have "his fingerprints" on the killing of the bill. Watson's office phones were so blown up by today that he and his staff were loudly proclaiming that Dewhurst was behind it, even though it was supposed to be a secret deal to keep Dewhurst clean.

That's Patrick's say on it, FWIW.

[mamabearCali]

Glad to know the person who thwarted the will of the people of the state of TX is being "outed" hopefully this miscarriage of the will of the people will have consequences for his political career. Perhaps Gov. Perry can call another session and have a chat with some of the nervous senators and explain to them that this is a TSA bluff and there is no way the DOJ wants to pull this stunt in the political climate we have. The Lt. Gov should be ashamed of himself I hope his phone lines are overwhelmed with the number of angry voters. I hope he is scanned and patted down every time he flies.

[bigred90gt]

I am copying this from another forum I frequent. Just figured some here might want to join in.

It appears now that Gov. Perry's office is taking a public opinion poll on whether or not to push ahead. If you are a Texas resident and support this bill, call (512) 463-2000 NOW and tell them you are SUPPORT HB 1937.

Then please pass this on to all of your Texas friends.

[Bennies]

I am copying this from another forum I frequent. Just figured some here might want to join in.

It appears now that Gov. Perry's office is taking a public opinion poll on whether or not to push ahead. If you are a Texas resident and support this bill, call (512) 463-2000 NOW and tell them you are SUPPORT HB 1937.

Then please pass this on to all of your Texas friends.

Done!

[McKnife]

I just called and was told by the nice lady from the governor's office that the bill was dead and there is no way to bring it back without attaching it to another bill.

She was unaware of any voice pole or opinion.

Anybody else have similar responses?

[Katygunnut]

Thanks. All going points. I love discussing history. It's truly amazing really how big the picture is and how many angles can be viewed of the same situation. You're obviously a student of history.

Now, I'm all for starting the revolutionary fight all over again... I am talking the Texas revolution. Speaking of myths... I wish the myth of Texas' ability to secede was true. I'd be all over a legit political movement to do so.

Texas (or any other state) has the ability to secede if we want to. The only question is whether the government of that neighboring country (the USA) would try to stop us.

Kind of like saying that I have the ability to withhold my Federal income tax check. I just need to have the backbone to live with the consequences of that action.