Even today, the same issue keeps coming to the surface. The CW is the one time there was a real effort made to address the states rights issue and of course that being used as a reason has been changed every which way from Sunday to suit the pc police. One would hope, with the poll numbers today showing there's support for a states right to protect itself the entire history of the 'issue' would be taken out of the closet once and for all. I know, it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the difference is in the 1860's the federal government felt the real threat to it's position and power (not to mention income) and it was worth going to war over even if they used leaving the Union as the reason to place the areas they were wanting the most control under their thumb for other reasons. A well armed armada to restock a measley fort? Part of the plan.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the states have NO power to protect themselves? If a Federal judge with a left leaning record can understand the 2nd Amend. means the citizens have the right to keep arms in their possession as written, for the protection of their property and if their state needs their services what is the reason the Fed gives for not acting if a state is in need of it's service to assist them in curtailing out of control invasion? Where is the line between a state calling up its militia and the Fed's helping out? Shouldn't be one but it sure seems to exist now.

There's a connection between the past and today. The Southern States believed they had the right to have more control over the issues in their state and the Fed was overstepping what they perceived as the line by asserting the power of the Federal forces. In 1860, the fine stepping, fine tuning of the really sneaky plans were put into play and it reached a very bittter end. It's still not ended. The same thing is going to happen again. There is a reason the Federal govt. (or those who push those buttons) want to ignore the invasion on our Southern border. How many of those 'undocumented' workers get 'documents' and hold jobs that are in the 'service' area? Like the 'union' sort of job. Even worse, they are using the Native Americans to help them get what they want and the Natives are falling for it. Sounds good. Reparations? Yep, sounds real good.

So, how is freeing those in bondage and paying those who 'have not' and for no good reason believe they are entitled to something any different if they're all gonna get something in the end?

It is also not surprising that while we have some beautiful land, some of the most interesting land, in the possession of the Federal Government that much of that land is very rich in mineral resources. It did not happen by accident from what I can tell. The idea of public land, set aside to preserve it's beauty and unique quality is one none can argue against. We've seen what 'urban sprawl' looks like and it ain't a beautiful sight to behold. Yes we do like our parks and public areas but there's going to come a day when they are not going to be 'open' to the public. By then, it's too late to rethink the path the fed has taken. It's reached it's end goal.

States Rights 150 years ago and States Rights today, it still has not changed. There is no clear definintion.

Pam