Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 120

Thread: White House denies Texas secession

  1. #91
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    But again, a independent Texas doesnt care what the US Supreme Court says. Once they declare independence, they no longer have to follow US law.
    Except declaring themselves independent does not make them independent so and the Federal government and other states have the right to supress rebellion, which is what unilaterally declaring themselves independent would be. You can declare your house an independent country if you want to, but it would be meaningless. And a state declaring itself independent is likewise meaningless.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    The difference with Chechens and Texans is that Chechens are a different nationality than Russians. .......
    Not according to Putin and the Russian government.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I'd be hard pressed to think of another way the slaves would have been freed. Even gradual abolition plans would have left some people in slavery until the 1900's. The real motivation wasn't to free the slaves, but don't fool yourself - slavery is really what the Civil War was about.
    International pressure probably would have killed off slavery in the Confederate States fairly soon (of course, not soon enough if you are a slave).
    Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the western hemisphere, which they did in 1888. If the abolition of slavery in the south was voluntary, instead of being imposed by what they consider outside occupiers, perhaps the anti-African American backlash and resulting lynchings and Jim Crow laws etc. wouldn't have occurred.

  3. #93
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Not according to Putin and the Russian government.
    Even the Russian government recognizes Chechens as one of the constituent nations of the multi-ethnic Federation. Same as the Tatars, the Bashkirs...there's a lot of nationalities in Russia that have their own religion, their own culture, and their own language. The same cannot be said for Texas.

    International pressure probably would have killed off slavery in the Confederate States fairly soon (of course, not soon enough if you are a slave).
    Brazil was the last country to abolish slavery in the western hemisphere, which they did in 1888. If the abolition of slavery in the south was voluntary, instead of being imposed by what they consider outside occupiers, perhaps the anti-African American backlash and resulting lynchings and Jim Crow laws etc. wouldn't have occurred.
    That's a common argument among slavery's apologists. The institution of slavery was not as entrenched elsewhere as it was in the south with the possible exception of Haiti (which didn't exactly work out so well for the white population). EVERYTHING was based on slavery in the South. Economy, culture, livelihood...in the American South the most valuable property short of the land was the slaves. Think about that for a second. Except for your land (and in some cases, including your land), the most valuable resource you had was your slaves. They were just going to give it up? Of course not. Eventually, slavery would have been unprofitable and ended, but considering how long sharecropping lasted, it wasn't going to be soon. If the abolition of slavery in the South were voluntary, there might still be slaves.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  4. #94
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,033

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Except declaring themselves independent does not make them independent so and the Federal government and other states have the right to supress rebellion, which is what unilaterally declaring themselves independent would be. You can declare your house an independent country if you want to, but it would be meaningless. And a state declaring itself independent is likewise meaningless.
    Meaningless to the US. Which is irrelevant to Texas (in this hypothetical). Youre trying to convince me that the US interpretation of its own law is right. I say its wrong. There is no way to convince each other. So my point is, what the US law says is irrelevant. If Texas can enforce its independence, then its moot. Obviously is the US doesnt recognize someone unalienable right to be free and are willing to kill them to deny them freedom, then might makes right.
    Last edited by jonny5; 01-18-13 at 05:10 PM.

  5. #95
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Yeah, sure. Where do the money for the subsidies come from anyway?
    Well, for the past decade or so, that would be [borrowed from] China.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Even the Russian government recognizes Chechens as one of the constituent nations of the multi-ethnic Federation. Same as the Tatars, the Bashkirs...there's a lot of nationalities in Russia that have their own religion, their own culture, and their own language. The same cannot be said for Texas.
    For me, the language, history and culture of Texas is irrelevant. If a clear majority of the residents want to secede, I believe that it should be their right to decide. Usually the truth is that secession is opposed because of the valuable resources in the seceding territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    That's a common argument among slavery's apologists. The institution of slavery was not as entrenched elsewhere as it was in the south with the possible exception of Haiti (which didn't exactly work out so well for the white population). EVERYTHING was based on slavery in the South. Economy, culture, livelihood...in the American South the most valuable property short of the land was the slaves. Think about that for a second. Except for your land (and in some cases, including your land), the most valuable resource you had was your slaves. They were just going to give it up? Of course not. Eventually, slavery would have been unprofitable and ended, but considering how long sharecropping lasted, it wasn't going to be soon. If the abolition of slavery in the South were voluntary, there might still be slaves.
    I'm not informed enough to get into this history in detail, so I'll acknowledge that you may be right. However, my point is, war is incredibly destructive, and its impossible to foresee how it will work out. In my opinion, war is rarely worthwhile to prevent secession. Also, because the fight is often actually about access to resources, other reasons for the fight are routinely trumped up to justify preventing a region from seceding. For example, Lincoln used the Emancipation proclamation to motivate greater enthusiasm for the war.

    "The Proclamation did not apply to the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army; emancipation there would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[1]

    .....The Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy....
    Wikipedia

  7. #97
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    For me, the language, history and culture of Texas is irrelevant. If a clear majority of the residents want to secede, I believe that it should be their right to decide. Usually the truth is that secession is opposed because of the valuable resources in the seceding territory.
    That's fine, but it still creates a different situation.



    I'm not informed enough to get into this history in detail, so I'll acknowledge that you may be right. However, my point is, war is incredibly destructive, and its impossible to foresee how it will work out. In my opinion, war is rarely worthwhile to prevent secession. Also, because the fight is often actually about access to resources, other reasons for the fight are routinely trumped up to justify preventing a region from seceding. For example, Lincoln used the Emancipation proclamation to motivate greater enthusiasm for the war.

    "The Proclamation did not apply to the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army; emancipation there would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[1]

    .....The Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and weakened forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy....
    Wikipedia
    There's no doubt that Lincoln's primary motive was not to free the slaves, but to preserve the Union. Yes, the Proclamation was a war measure. That doesn't change the "right" or lack thereof to secede.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Is there an argument (not based on federal law) against the right to self determination that would not apply to opposing the right of the American colonies to secede from Great Britain in 1776? In other words, why was it OK for the American British colonies to seek independence, but not Texas? (assuming a majority of Texans support independence)

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Well, for the past decade or so, that would be [borrowed from] China.
    So, do you agree subsidies are wrong or it's OK to borrow money from China to prop up food prices?

  10. #100
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White House denies Texas secession

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Is there an argument (not based on federal law) against the right to self determination that would not apply to opposing the right of the American colonies to secede from Great Britain in 1776? In other words, why was it OK for the American British colonies to seek independence, but not Texas? (assuming a majority of Texans support independence)
    Why should we stop at the state level? If a majority in any area want to secede, why shouldn't they be able to? Why shouldn't Orange County, Florida be able to secede from the Union? How about, Los Angeles County, California? Why shouldn't we be able to define our own area that may want to secede, and not follow any existing political boundaries? How many people should have be in an area before it is has the "right" to secede? Can Wyoming secede? What do we do about the obligations which the secessionists are a party to, such as national debts? This is especially important if the seceding area is a significant portion of the population. What if Washington, Oregon and California want to secede? That would be a lot of people who suddenly would have off loaded their obligations to those left behind.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •