• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

So true.

Until 8th grade, we were told it was about slavery.

Until 12th grade, we were told it was about state's rights.

In college, we found out it was about sectarianism and economics.

I wonder if part of getting a phd in american history involves being let in on the secret that it was really about lincoln being gay.

In truth, it was a combination of all those issues. But people like Yagmi will sit there and tell you it was about a single issue, vilifying the south as some kind of empire of slave traders that had to be stopped at all costs.

That's simply not true and the North had just as much hand in the events that led up to the South seceding as any other factor. Slavery really was secondary to the whole issue. With the advent of the cotton gin, slavery would have probably died out in the South anyway, given a few more decades.
 
In truth, it was a combination of all those issues. But people like Yagmi will sit there and tell you it was about a single issue, vilifying the south as some kind of empire of slave traders that had to be stopped at all costs.

I don't believe I ever said that it was the only issue. I was pointing out that it was the driving force behind secession and the formation of the Confederacy, according to the Confederates themselves. You're the one being dishonest by saying the war was not about slavery at all.

That's simply not true and the North had just as much hand in the events that led up to the South seceding as any other factor. Slavery really was secondary to the whole issue. With the advent of the cotton gin, slavery would have probably died out in the South anyway, given a few more decades.

I'd say that it was better to end slavery rather than wait a couple more decades. Even without that there seems to be little evidence that the South was going to phase out slavery. The cotton gin is commonly credited with helping slavery survive and expand. Making it easier to process cotton does not eliminate the labor needed to plant, maintain, and harvest the crop.

I'm not sure you understand the issue. Allow me to create a parallel:

If a state passes a law that allows it to deny extradition of criminal to another state, the state who has been denied extratidition has had its rights violated. If the federal government refuses force the state that refused to extradite that criminal, then the state that ha sbeen denied extradition has had its rights violated.

The issue regarding the FSU is similar.

Okay I thought that we were going by the definition of state's rights that is commonly used today where states are able to control their own laws independently of the federal government. I apologize for misunderstanding.

Do you think that it would be justifiable for countries to attack us for harboring refugees who would be punished by their government due to things such as their religion or showing political dissent?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe I ever said that it was the only issue. I was pointing out that it was the driving force behind secession and the formation of the Confederacy, according to the Confederates themselves. You're the one being dishonest by saying the war was not about slavery at all.

At this point, all I can say is get back to me after you've read a history book.

I'd say that it was better to end slavery rather than wait a couple more decades. Even without that there seems to be little evidence that the South was going to phase out slavery. The cotton gin is commonly credited with helping slavery survive and expand. Making it easier to process cotton does not eliminate the labor needed to plant, maintain, and harvest the crop.

The lack of depth which your analyses exhibit is alarming. The cotton gin itself wasn't a deciding factor. It was what the implication of machinery being able to do what people once had to do by hand. The technology that brought you the cotton gin also brought you other machinery that took the place of many menial tasks on a farm.

You don't have to feed and house and clothe and discipline and supervise and guard a machine. And you certainly don't have to listen to it sing spirituals about wanting to be free. Slavery would have died out shortly after the cotton gin just due to economics.
 
Okay I thought that we were going by the definition of state's rights that is commonly used today where states are able to control their own laws independently of the federal government. I apologize for misunderstanding.
No problem.

Do you think that it would be justifiable for countries to attack us for harboring refugees who would be punished by their government due to things such as their religion or showing political dissent?
This is a misrepresentation of what happened, and isnt relevant to the 'reason for secession' argument.

In any event, the 'attack' came when the Union refused to remove troops from Southern territory, which, clearly, the South had the right to insist upon, and, just as clearly, had a right to act upon.
 
Last edited:
At this point, all I can say is get back to me after you've read a history book.

I prefer primary documents and scholarly journal articles on the subject. Perhaps you should try doing the same. I'll be happy to provide some when I get to my laptop and have the resources with me.

The lack of depth which your analyses exhibit is alarming. The cotton gin itself wasn't a deciding factor. It was what the implication of machinery being able to do what people once had to do by hand. The technology that brought you the cotton gin also brought you other machinery that took the place of many menial tasks on a farm.

You don't have to feed and house and clothe and discipline and supervise and guard a machine. And you certainly don't have to listen to it sing spirituals about wanting to be free. Slavery would have died out shortly after the cotton gin just due to economics.

With the advent of the cotton gin, slavery would have probably died out in the South anyway, given a few more decades.

Where exactly did the machinery for the fields come up? You mentioned the cotton gin as being something that would lead to a lessening of slavery, it did the opposite. You did not say due to modernization of farm equipment that there would be less need for field hands, you only brought up the cotton gin. I'm also wondering how long you were expecting for the cotton gin to have this effect a century? Eli Whitney developed his version in the 1790s.
 
You can doubt it all you want -- but until you show where secession is an act prohibited by the Constitution, your doubts are withoug merit -- and so,you would have to prove that with something other than your opioion.

There is NO doubt what the 10th amendment says, just as there is NO doubt that the Constitution contans NO language that prohibits secession.


You would have to prove that with something other than your opioion.


This has been explained to you -- the act is not prohibited by the Constitution, and therefore is a right retained under the 10th amendment.

Note also that 'secession' and 'dissolution' are seperate things -- there is nothing in the Constititon that prevents the states from passing an amendment that declares the Constititon null and void, thereby dissolving the untion.

You truly did not give me any evidence to support your claim. So therfore I will have to say they are baseless.

Again, the whole issue of Secession was solved 140 years ago. so this who non sense from The Texas Gov. is just that; nonsense.
 
You truly did not give me any evidence to support your claim.
Well, lets see:

-I cited the 10th amendment
-I noted that there is nothing in the Constitition that prohibits secession.

That's all the evidence necessary to support my claim -- there is NO doubt what the 10th amendment says, just as there is NO doubt that the Constitution contans NO language that prohibits secession

What evidence to the contrary have YOU supplied?
 
I'm not sure you understand the issue. Allow me to create a parallel:

If a state passes a law that allows it to deny extradition of criminal to another state, the state who has been denied extratidition has had its rights violated. If the federal government refuses force the state that refused to extradite that criminal, then the state that ha sbeen denied extradition has had its rights violated.

The issue regarding the FSU is similar.

The Supreme Court could easily order the extradition; secession would be a completely over reaction of the sitiutation. Or better, yet, the attorney general could probably get the extradition done by sending in federal marshals. either way, this is not a good analogy for the debate of sucession.
 
The Supreme Court could easily order the extradition;
This would be covered under "If the federal government refuses force the state..."

secession would be a completely over reaction of the sitiutation.
Your opinion, which means nothing.

Either way, this is not a good analogy for the debate of sucession.
You'll note that this was a parallel, drawn to illustrate how the FSA violated the rights of the southern states.
 
Well, lets see:

-I cited the 10th amendment
-I noted that there is nothing in the Constitition that prohibits secession.

That's all the evidence necessary to support my claim -- there is NO doubt what the 10th amendment says, just as there is NO doubt that the Constitution contans NO language that prohibits secession

What evidence to the contrary have YOU supplied?

-It is highly debatable that the 10 amendment supports destroying the country

-There is nothing in the constitution that says it's okay to succede. So we are still at square one if you ask me.

My whole argument is, you don't have one to support this notion of succession.
 
This would be covered under "If the federal government refuses force the state..."


Your opinion, which means nothing.


You'll note that this was a parallel, drawn to illustrate how the FSA violated the rights of the southern states.

You left out the part where I stated the attorney general could order federal marshalls to get the prisioner that needed to be extradicted. If your going to qoute me make sure you don't just use the part that suits you.
 
Perhaps, if you continued to read the thread...

You said "there was a lot more to the Civil War than Slavery" I asked, "Like What?" That was your opinion, not the thread.

I ask again, Like what?
 
-It is highly debatable that the 10 amendment supports destroying the country
-There is nothing in the constitution that says it's okay to succede. So we are still at square one if you ask me.

My whole argument is, you don't have one to support this notion of succession.
So, you admit that you have nothing at all to counter my argument, and that you refuse to accept that argument based on nothing more than your unsupported opnion of what you think the 10th amendment was/was not for.

Roger-roger.

As I said: there is NO doubt what the 10th amendment says, just as there is NO doubt that the Constitution contans NO language that prohibits secession
 
You left out the part where I stated the attorney general could order federal marshalls to get the prisioner that needed to be extradicted. If your going to qoute me make sure you don't just use the part that suits you.
:yawn:
This would be covered under "If the federal government refuses force the state..."
 
Last edited:
Slavery was intrinsictly tied to the Civil War, there's no question about that.

However, how much of the "reason" it was for it is extremely debatable.

State rights, economy, societal issues all played into it. Slavery tied to many of these things.

However, for me, the breaking point is here....Would it still have happened if we had never had slavery in the first place?

I think, essentally, yes. Slavery was the ignition more than the root cause. The root cause in my mind was the disconnect between the industrious north and the agricultural south, and the disagreement in regards to the amount of control one should be able to put upon the other in a governmental level. Slavery happened to be how it was manifested and BECAUSE it was, it is largely tied to it (the economy issues tie into slavery. The societal issues tie into slavery. even the state rights issues tie into slavery). HOWEVER, I think if it was not slavery it would've been something else.

Ultimately in my mind the civil war was a culture war based on States Rights and the societal differences between the two areas of the country. Slavery was directly tied to it all, but I wouldn't actually call it the root issue as much as the tool used by the issue.
 
No... the issue was the southern states being able to exercise the rights they had under the US Constitition. Secession followed a matter of principle.

Part of all that was slavery, but the -principle- behind it was the rights of states.

No. It wasn't. It was the stated justification, but it wasn't the principle.

The proof is in the pudding. When they wrote the Confederate constitution, basing it on the US Constitution, they did nothing beef up the rights of states as against the (con)federal government, changed nothing they were complaining about in the US Constitution, yet added no less than three provisions to bolster slavery.

It was about slavery.
 
No. It wasn't. It was the stated justification, but it wasn't the principle.

The proof is in the pudding. When they wrote the Confederate constitution, basing it on the US Constitution, they did nothing beef up the rights of states as against the (con)federal government, changed nothing they were complaining about in the US Constitution, yet added no less than three provisions to bolster slavery.

It was about slavery.

No, not at all. That is a patently false assessment of the core issues.
 
When the Nation of Texas joined the Union one condition was for our right to secede. We are the only Nation that joined the Union.

Sure, except for the independent republics of Vermont and California -- to say nothing of the original 13 states, which were each independent nations which voluntarily united. And Hawaii was an independent kingdom.

And there's no "condition" for the right of secession in Texas's joining the union, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom