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 62 of 124 FirstFirst ... 1252606162636472112 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #611
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    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
    Slavery was only protected for 20 years after the signing of the constitution and after that it was to be banned....

    Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

    Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    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.
    That was the agreement that the South broke when it not only continued slavery after 1808 but increased it.

  2. #612
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So basically it was act of war to take back what you own. D:

    Ok?
    Ft. Sumter was the property of the United States government. We've been over this before. "We want it" is not a valid property claim. How does this escape libertarians who are usually all about property rights?


    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.

  3. #613
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Slavery was only protected for 20 years after the signing of the constitution and after that it was to be banned....



    That was the agreement that the South broke when it not only continued slavery after 1808 but increased it.
    No, it was agreed that the foreign slave trade wouldn't be touched for 20 years, and the foreign slave trade was banned. The domestic slave trade and slavery were both completely legal.


    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. #614
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    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
    By this logic, all Cuba has to do is tell the US to leave Guantanamo Bay. We know it's far more complicated.

    By what legal process were they confiscating the property? Was that even legal?


    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.

  5. #615
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The Supreme Court makes its decisions basesd on the Constitution. Slavery was protected due to their decisions.
    The Supreme Court also decided in Texas v. White that the secession of the South in 1860-1 was unconstitutional. They made that decision based on their decision. You're picking where you like the SC and where you dislike the SC.

    In Dred Scott, what they decided was property rights. You had the right to take your "property" (in this case another human being) wherever you choose. Interestingly, from a states rights point of view, they invalidated any state making slavery illegal.

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

    Slavery was protected under the Constitution.
    It doesn't protect the institution of slavery from being banned. It merely protected, again, "property" rights. (FYI, in any case I will always put the word property in quotes when referring to a human being.). It also protected you if your indentured servant flew the coop.

    It did not say that abolition of slavery wasn't a possibility.

    So, why should the South secede to preserve slavery if slavery was protected.
    If I had a time machine, I'd go back and find out. I'd take a copy of Jeff Davis' memoirs and I'd ask Stephens if the war wasn't about slavery, why was that the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy? Alas, I cannot do that.

    Preserving their labor system, which was based on slave labor, was a big part of why the Southern states seceded. It's a perfectly understandable action. Just not legal.


    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.

  6. #616
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    It was just regular people doing stupid regular people things. There's a lot of weirdness in Lexington, and I presume it's due to Missouri being a bastard state that can't decide if it's union, or confederate.
    We know we're "Union", I have no idea what others think of us nor do I particularly care. Like any population there will be some who long for "the good old days", which are, of course, mythical.


    Ed:
    Well, I suppose there are a few down south (what we often call "Hillbillies") who would probably go for it. Ever hear of the "State" of Ozarkia? It's been proposed, too. It would be more correct to group Hillbillies with the Libertarians, though.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-23-12 at 01:25 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  7. #617
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    It specifies that the former colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states does it not?
    I'm not sure the meaning of "states" in that usage is "13 separate entities", no. If that's the only thing you have on which to hang your hat then I'd say you're on shaky ground. Would a concession by the King of England override the pledge made by the states to each other on 4 July, 1776?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-23-12 at 01:18 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #618
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    It specifies that the former colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states does it not?
    You could read it like that, sure. I'm sure that it made it easier for the British to swallow if they did it like that -- they couldn't quite bring themselves to recognize the United States.

    At any rate, the Treaty of Paris, and what may or may not have been more palatable to King George does not carry the same force as the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union at that point.


    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.

  9. #619
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    We know we're "Union", I have no idea what others think of us nor do I particularly care. Like any population there will be some who long for "the good old days", which are, of course, mythical.


    Ed:
    Well, I suppose there are a few down south (what we often call "Hillbillies") who would probably go for it. Ever hear of the "State" of Ozarkia? It's been proposed, too. It would be more correct to group Hillbillies with the Libertarians, though.
    Point being that secessionists aren't just some Texas thing, as was suggested by some other guy. Other point is, most of us don't much care for the secessionists here, either.
    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.

  10. #620
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    I'm not sure the meaning of "states" in that usage is "13 separate entities", no. If that's the only thing you have on which to hang your hat then I'd say you're on shaky ground. Would a concession by the King of England override the pledge made by the states to each other on 4 July, 1776?
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    You could read it like that, sure. I'm sure that it made it easier for the British to swallow if they did it like that -- they couldn't quite bring themselves to recognize the United States.

    At any rate, the Treaty of Paris, and what may or may not have been more palatable to King George does not carry the same force as the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union at that point.
    Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?

Posting Permissions

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