• 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!

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

  • Anytime they want

    Votes: 47 54.7%

  • Bad times only

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • No way

    Votes: 35 40.7%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    86
winston53660 said:
And it is very boeing talk.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.
 
Moot said:
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.
Click to expand...



To Texans it is basically a joke.
 
Moot said:
Hey, it's fun to brush up on history. I like the details that help paint the larger picture, so it probably is boeing talk to some. But we ain't gonna stop talking until Texas secedes dagnabbit. So it will probably be awhile.
Click to expand...

Or until we purge the annoying ones that somehow always find their way in front of a camera. I'm all down for a real, serious talk on the issue of secession, because it's an interesting topic on State Rights, but certain types that just like to beat the ground, and toss grass in the air can secede from the US via getting the **** out, and decreasing the surplus population for all I care. They won't, though, because even they, at some level, realize how much they rely on the Federal Union.
 
dabateman said:
Right, coming back the states were forced to accept it. And that was done. Sad story... now they can get over it.
Click to expand...

Whats sad is you missing the point entirely. We are discussing the South's legal standing in seceding. In other words what is passed in 1869 plays no role in the matter. Do you see? 1861 is before 1869. 1869 is after 1861.

Yes its a sad story because its usually told by the yankees and full of lies. So we like to set the record straight. If its too much for you, then stick with that line of bull and smoke they have been feeding you and others all these years.

Quantrill
 
Moot said:
Okay, I concede both your points. However, it does appear that after Article 1, section 9 expired congress could ban slavery and I'm not seeing where slavery is protected after 1808....


Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution
Click to expand...

Slavery was protected by the Constitution. Article 4 sec. 2. If a slave escaped then it was required that whoever found or caught him return him to his master. Fugitive slave law. It protected the right of slavery.

The issue that was front and center just prior to the war was the 'expansion' of slavery. But what that really boiled down to was the right of the Southernor to be able to take his slaves where he wanted. That would be settled, or should have been settled in the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court which said the Southernor could go anywhere in the U.S. he wanted with his slaves.

In other words, slavery was protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Courts decision based on the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
MoSurveyor said:
If the land belonged to SC then there would have been no reason to add in the 'serve processes' clause.
Click to expand...

The land was South Carolinas. The Fed. govt was given use of the land for whatever reasons and whatever conditions. When a state secedes, she is no longer part of the Union. The Fed. govt. leaves. Its tresspassing.

Quantrill
 
Moot said:
It only retained Service to Process jurisdiction.

What year are you talking about? It looks like your talking about 1861 instead of 1838 when S. Carolina ceded the land to the US government. That might be where your confusion lies.

The Constitution is all about respecting contracts and recognizing property rights and the US has a 1838 contract that ceded the land to it and that didn't go away just because S. Carolina decided to secede in 1861.

Interesting, apparently Fort Sumter was built on a man made island. The rocks and land fill came by ship from New England. So whatever sovereignty S.Carolina had was under water. lol Technically, wouldn't the land belong to New England? lol jk
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when South Carolina let the Fed. govt. use the land. In 1861 all of that was finished when South Carolilna seceded.

Quantrill
 
MoSurveyor said:
OK, having just read the Articles of Confederation again - it's been awhile - these are the last two paragraphs:

(emphasis added)
So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.
Click to expand...

Sure, the union based on the Confederation. Shame they threw it out the window and we are under a different Constitution. A different union.

Quantrill
 
MoSurveyor said:
So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.

This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
 
rocket88 said:
So yourConstitutional argument isn't even based on the Constitution? The wording of a treaty doesn't mean much as far as the "right to secede."
Click to expand...

It matters quite a lot. The states were, and are, free, independent, and sovereign. They entered into a compact in which they have delegated some specific powers to the federal government, to act as their agent. That compact contains no restrictions on the right of any of the members to unilaterally secede. Thus, as sovereign states involved in an inter-state treaty with no restrictions on exit, they naturally have the legitimate authority to withdraw from that compact when they wish.
 
Quantrill said:
It doesn't matter when South Carolina let the Fed. govt. use the land. In 1861 all of that was finished when South Carolilna seceded.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
The US government never recognized S. Carolina's succession and never recognized the South as separate from the Union nor recognized the confederate government. They never left the union. Sorry....
CHAPTER XLIV

CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS OF THE CIVIL WAR

....Technically, the uprising could be held to be a rebellion, and it was so named and so considered. All through the four years of conflict, the government studiously refrained from recognizing the Confederacy as a de jure nation or combination of nations....

However tenuous the insurrection theory might seem to be to foreign governments, and however much the actual conduct of the war distinguished it from an ordinary suppression of an utterly lawless uprising, there is no great difficulty in recognizing the right of a government, when faced by a powerful opponent, to accord to the opponent the full rights of a belligerent. So the war was of a dual character: in strict theory it was an insurrection; but in the conduct of the war the insurgents were treated as forces of an independent government.
McLaughlin: Constitutional History of the United States (1936)
Click to expand...

Lincoln proclamation - September 24, 1862...
"....that during the existing insurrection ... all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commissions...."
Click to expand...

From Lincoln's last speech before his assassination....
"....We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier, to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these states have even been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. ....
Abraham Lincoln "Last Address" Transcript
Click to expand...

Scalia said in his letter, "Is the state suing the United States for Declartory judgement? But the United States cannot be sued without it's consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit."

Conclusion: Lincoln nor the US government never recognized the states seccession. Now let's hear your rebel yell. lol
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
The land was South Carolinas. The Fed. govt was given use of the land for whatever reasons and whatever conditions. When a state secedes, she is no longer part of the Union. The Fed. govt. leaves. Its tresspassing.
Click to expand...
Feed that line to your buddies but don't bother doing it here. SC made an agreement with the government then didn't want to honor it. They should have thought of it before they handed over the deed and the Fed spent money building on site. Did they bother to give or even offer the Fed money for the improvements? Of course not. They knew what they were doing was wrong - they just didn't give a ****.

And if you believe the kind of thing SC tried to pull flies in other parts of the world you should ask Castro about Guantanamo Bay.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.

This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
Click to expand...
They signed the Declaration, which plainly showed they were "The United States", then they signed the Articles, which showed the same thing. You started quoting the Articles to back your claim, not me. Now that the Articles quit working for you, you want to leave them behind and move the goal posts again. But by the time you get to the Constitution it all over with. You backtracked to those other documents originally because you were spinning your wheels trying to use the Constitution.

You'll have to excuse me but ... :lamo
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
Sure, the union based on the Confederation. Shame they threw it out the window and we are under a different Constitution. A different union.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.

If, as Centinel does, you view it as a treaty of sorts, the "treaty" of the Articles of Confederation, which by its wording is a "perpetual union," is valid. It is as valid as the treaties and agreements entered into with France during the Revolution and immediately following.
 
Centinel said:
Yes of course. The articles had no explicit duration, and thus the treaty was considered to be perpetual. That is to say, it had no built-in sunset provision.

This has no bearing on whether the signatories were free, independent, and sovereign states prior to entering the treaty, nor does it imply that states were not free to leave the treaty, which they did in fact do.
Click to expand...

So why is that "treaty" less valid than others?
 
rocket88 said:
And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.
Click to expand...

Please look up that clause. I told you already why it doesn't apply to the AOC. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
 
MoSurveyor said:
They signed the Declaration, which plainly showed they were "The United States", then they signed the Articles, which showed the same thing. You started quoting the Articles to back your claim, not me. Now that the Articles quit working for you, you want to leave them behind and move the goal posts again. But by the time you get to the Constitution it all over with. You backtracked to those other documents originally because you were spinning your wheels trying to use the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The articles have not quit working for me. They still clearly show, as does the treaty of paris, that the colonies were free, sovereign, and independent stats. The fact that it had no expiration and was thus perpetual means nothing. If a state is sovereign (which the former colonies were), then entering into a treaty does not indicate that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, especially when that treaty explicitly indicates they they retain their preexisting sovereignty.

So, having established that the states were sovereign prior to entering into their first confederation under the articles, and also establishing the fact that they retained their sovereignty under these articles, the question then becomes, when did they state that they were relinquishing their sovereignty under the constitution, and where in the constitution does is the prohibition against any of the sovereign states leaving the compact?
 
Centinel said:
The articles have not quit working for me. They still clearly show, as does the treaty of paris, that the colonies were free, sovereign, and independent stats. The fact that it had no expiration and was thus perpetual means nothing. If a state is sovereign (which the former colonies were), then entering into a treaty does not indicate that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, especially when that treaty explicitly indicates they they retain their preexisting sovereignty.
Click to expand...
The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Centinel said:
So, having established that the states were sovereign prior to entering into their first confederation under the articles, and also establishing the fact that they retained their sovereignty under these articles, the question then becomes, when did they state that they were relinquishing their sovereignty under the constitution, and where in the constitution does is the prohibition against any of the sovereign states leaving the compact?
Click to expand...
Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The Articles didn't state the document (Articles) was perpetual, it stated the Union was perpetual. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

Only in your own mind have you established these facts. I think you've mis-interpreted those documents. Prior to signing the Declaration they were English colonies. After signing the Declaration they were "The United States". No where in the middle were they countries unto themselves and at no time since 4 July 1776 has that been the case.
Click to expand...

You continue to insist that the former colonies were never sovereign states despite the fact that the are expressly described as free, sovereign, and independent in the articles?
 
Centinel said:
You continue to insist that the former colonies were never sovereign states despite the fact that the are expressly described as free, sovereign, and independent in the articles?
Click to expand...
The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The Articles also repeatedly describe the Union as perpetual. So, yes, if your assessment precludes a perpetual Union, which you seem to be asserting it does, then I do not agree with your assessment. None of the States were ever nations unto themselves.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree, I suppose.
 
Centinel said:
Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I take that phrase, "free, sovereign, and independent", to mean the States were that way with respect to each other. In other words, no State had any rights over any other State. I think it also means what the 10th Amendment actually says, that States have all the power except what they handed over to the Fed.

However, all the things they expressly handed over to the Fed are exactly those things that make an independent country on the world stage; international military, printing and control of money, negotiating treaties with foreign powers, controlling imports & exports, etc. It seems very plain to me that no State ever declared itself to be a nation unto itself. We have and (God willing) always will be the United States.

If that means we agree to disagree then so be it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom