View Poll Results: Texas secession?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Anytime they want

    69 60.00%
  • Bad times only

    2 1.74%
  • No way

    41 35.65%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Other

    3 2.61%
Page 41 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #401
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,149

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    If that were the case, would Article II still be in force?

    "Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

    Sure, each state maintains sovereignty with in its borders, but they are still in a Union with the other states.


    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.

  2. #402
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Nobody said it wasn't considered. Just that it didn't happen. Which is true.
    I responded to your post #270 where you said,

    "because nobody tried to secede before"
    "It wasn't an issue before that"

    Quantrill

  3. #403
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Sure, each state maintains sovereignty with in its borders, but they are still in a Union with the other states.
    Cool. Someone earlier had indicated that the states were never sovereign. I'm glad we've established that they were and continue to be sovereign, free, and independent.

  4. #404
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Article VI says that engagements made under the Articles still count. I would call the engagement into a "perpetual union" a rather important engagement. Now generally, I'd agree that the Articles were thrown out, but the Constitution specifically states that engagements made under the Articles still apply unless otherwise stated. So, your contention is either that the Constitution DID state otherwise, or that this engagement doesn't count.

    So I'll throw the Constitutional argument back to the pro-secessionists. Where is the language in the Constitution that negates the "perpetual union" put in place by "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

    If the Constitution ever negated that part of the Articles, that would be different. I don't see that it did, therefore the "perpetual union" applied in 1860, as it does today.
    The constitution of 1787 replaces the Articles of Confederation. The declaration of perpetual union is not an engagement. Its a declaration. The union is not perpetual because the union under the Articles was destroyed. It was now a different union.

    Qunatrill

  5. #405
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    First of all, the right to seced is not based on oppression. If a state wants to seced, it had the right period.

    The Southern states were being oppressed. They consisted of the Southern white people.

    Quantrill
    Now I know where the poster is coming from - a complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  6. #406
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Which is also part of why the secession failed. Jeff Davis was unable to muster the resources and troops to win. Money is also why they seceded, specifically that tariffs that they felt unfairly hit them hardest.
    No, it was the constant movement of the North in treating the Southern States as unequals. It was the Norths constant refusal to acknowledge the Souths rights under the Constitution.

    Quantrill

  7. #407
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,786

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    That is what the constitution says. That is fact. 'We the people' mean we the people of the States.

    What are you saying 'We the people' refers to? Support it?

    Quantrill
    I believe WE THE PEOPLE means WE THE PEOPLE..... the citizens.............. the humans beings .......... the Americans.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #408
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The constitution of 1787 replaces the Articles of Confederation. The declaration of perpetual union is not an engagement. Its a declaration. The union is not perpetual because the union under the Articles was destroyed. It was now a different union.

    Qunatrill
    Earlier in the thread, a comment was made that referenced a SCOTUS case, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) (There's another Texas v. White decision from 1975, not relevant to this topic)

    The majority decision as written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase had the following:
    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
    (...)
    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States
    my emphasis

    Now - you were saying? Of course, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned at any sitting of the SCOTUS but normally, precedent does hold a strong position in determining such rulings. The present Roberts-led court does have a record of rejecting earlier decisions.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  9. #409
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Now I know where the poster is coming from - a complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.
    Oh, and I see you didn't contribute anything toward any knowledge. Waiting.

    Quantrill

  10. #410
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I believe WE THE PEOPLE means WE THE PEOPLE..... the citizens.............. the humans beings .......... the Americans.
    You believe it means Americans as a whole, and not as represented by the States? Then the States need not ratify. Americans as a whole are represented by the delegates already in the 1787 convention.

    Quantrill

Page 41 of 124 FirstFirst ... 3139404142435191 ... 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
  •