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 61 of 124 FirstFirst ... 1151596061626371111 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #601
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    And you got that from??
    They never stopped being a part of the US.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  2. #602
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    They never stopped being a part of the US.
    That doesn't mean anything and I was looking for something with a bit more thought behind it.

  3. #603
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    That doesn't mean anything
    It's everything.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  4. #604
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    1. Leaving the union was NOT illegal.

    2. Lincoln was to respect that the fort was not his and the actions by the south were not illegal.

    3. He was to therefore leave the fort when ordered to do so.

    4. It is a fact that Lincoln needed to make the south look like the aggressor and there is no better way to do it than what he did.
    Wrong. The land that Fort Sumter was on was ceded to the US government in 1836 by the South Carolina legislature....

    Committee on Federal Relations
    In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

    "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

    "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

    "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

    "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

    "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

    "T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
    "In Senate, December 21st, 1836

    "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

    Jacob Warly, C. S.
    Fort Sumter belonged to the Federal Government.

  5. #605
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    It's everything.
    No, I'm afraid it means nothing.

  6. #606
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, I'm afraid it means nothing.
    Then check yourself into Betty ford, because you must be high.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  7. #607
    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
    The Dred Scott decision is not part of the Constitution. If it protected slavery with that decision, then it invalidated secession in Texas v. White. That court decision is just as valid, and just as much "part of the Constitution." You can't have it both ways. You can't cherry pick the SC decisions you like and disregard the others.

    I assume you mean this snippet of the Constitution:



    Does that say that black people are property? Does it say that slavery shall never be made illegal?
    The Supreme Court makes its decisions basesd on the Constitution. Slavery was protected due to their decisions.

    Yes, it was just a Constitutional 'snippet'. Article 4 section 2.

    Slavery was protected under the Constitution.

    So, why should the South secede to preserve slavery if slavery was protected.

    Quantrill
    Last edited by Quantrill; 05-23-12 at 06:48 AM.

  8. #608
    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 Moot View Post
    No, the South were the aggressors: first by refusing to ratify the Constitution unless it included a protection for slavery but with the understanding that slavery would end in 20 years, second continuing slavery long after it was to end and expanding it to the new states, third by using slavery to undermine the wages of the labor in the North creating an unfair economic advantage, fourth by trying to break up the union with succession and fifth by attacking Fort Sumter.
    That you don't like the Constitution is understandable.

    The ending of slavery your talking about was the end of bringing anymore slaves over. The slaves that were here continued to be slaves. And that was protected under the Constitution.

    Quantrill

  9. #609
    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 Moot View Post
    Wrong. The land that Fort Sumter was on was ceded to the US government in 1836 by the South Carolina legislature....



    Fort Sumter belonged to the Federal Government.
    Read the second paragraph. " Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal, issued under the authority of the State...shall and may be served and executed upon the same...."

    South Carlolina said leave. That was to be executed. It wasn't.

    Quantrill

  10. #610
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Read the second paragraph. " Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal, issued under the authority of the State...shall and may be served and executed upon the same...."

    South Carlolina said leave. That was to be executed. It wasn't.

    Quantrill
    LOL It says nothing of the kind. The part you quoted simply gives S. Carolina the authority to "service of process" (serve summons) for civil and criminal cases issued by the state courts or officers thereof. That means the state has the right to go on federal land to supeona witnesses or criminals that might be residing or hiding there. I don't how you derived at that nonsense about "leaving" when S. Carolina desperately wanted the federal government to build Fort Sumter there for it's own protection and the economic boost it would get from a military installation nearby.

    http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

    Service of process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Moot; 05-23-12 at 08:20 AM.

Posting Permissions

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