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 63 of 124 FirstFirst ... 1353616263646573113 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #621
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,186

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
    They willing entered into the Articles of Confederation, though sometimes made statements to that effect. I can't help but look at what they consented to, even in the Articles that abridged their sovereignty significantly. They didn't control their own military forces, didn't make their own money, and didn't handle their own foreign affairs. Are there any cases where they sent an ambassador to a neighboring state? Because an exchange of ambassadors and establishment of consulates is something that 2 independent states do when they recognize each other, so that would be a good clue as to their intentions.

    Define who thinks or considers on behalf of them. I'm sure that much like things are today, you could have found plenty of people on both sides of the issue.


    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. #622
    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
    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
    The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.

    Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.

    Quantrill

  3. #623
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    They willing entered into the Articles of Confederation, though sometimes made statements to that effect. I can't help but look at what they consented to, even in the Articles that abridged their sovereignty significantly. They didn't control their own military forces, didn't make their own money, and didn't handle their own foreign affairs. Are there any cases where they sent an ambassador to a neighboring state? Because an exchange of ambassadors and establishment of consulates is something that 2 independent states do when they recognize each other, so that would be a good clue as to their intentions.

    Define who thinks or considers on behalf of them. I'm sure that much like things are today, you could have found plenty of people on both sides of the issue.

    Then there is the ever so insignificant matter that those "free, independent and sovereign states" found that the Articles of Confederation weren't working too well, so some guys of little consequence got together and created another agreement, some document called the Constitution of the United States.
    “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

  4. #624
    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
    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.
    "importation" Big word. Slavery was legal and protectected by the Constitution. You just could no longer import slaves.

    Quantrill

  5. #625
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.

    Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.

    Quantrill

    I like this bit from the neo-Confederate "Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use." Using the same logic, the United States doesn't need all of the nukes sitting at air bases and aboard submarines around the world - they're "not in use"
    Last edited by Somerville; 05-23-12 at 07:35 PM. Reason: messed up quoting
    “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. #626
    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
    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?
    Actually its not complicated at all. If a country tells you to leave, then leave.

    Secession was legal. So, go away.

    Quantrill

  7. #627
    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 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.



    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.



    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.
    We are talking about 1860-61. When was the Texas vs White deceision you speak of. What year?

    Im keeping the context of the Supreme court decisons in the time period we are discussing. So again, slavery was prtoected by the Constitution. The Supreme court made it clear in the Dred Scott decision that the Constitution not only protected slavery, but that the Southern slave owner could go anywhere in the Unites States he wanted to with his slaves. Which again brings forth the question, why would the South secede to preserve slavery when slavery was protected?

    But slavery wasn't banned. It was protected and the slave owner told he could go anywhere he wanted with his slaves. Please keep the context in mind. We are not talking about after the war. We are talking about the cause of the war. It was said the South seceded to preserve slavery. Bull. Slavery was already protected.

    Sure. You know why the South seceded. Not to preserve slavery. But because the North wasn't going to let them live peaceably and protected under the Constitution concerning slavery. The North was not going to acknowledge the security of slavery under the Constitution. And so the South has to secede. They were dealing with a people who cared not for the Constitution.

    Oh yeah. Whose the traitors now.

    Quantrill

  8. #628
    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
    I like this bit from the neo-Confederate "Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use." Using the same logic, the United States doesn't need all of the nukes sitting at air bases and aboard submarines around the world - they're "not in use"
    Again, it wasn't even in use. It was not offering any defense as Moot said. In fact it was in disarray.

    Quantrill

  9. #629
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.

    Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.

    Quantrill
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Actually its not complicated at all. If a country tells you to leave, then leave.

    Secession was legal. So, go away.

    Quantrill

    and I'll bet when you're with your friends, you call that certain conflict "The War of Northern Aggression"
    “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

  10. #630
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Texas secession?

    Oh yeah. Whose the traitors now.

    Quantrill

    In my opinion, it was those Southern elitists who voted for secession in 1860 and today it includes those who continue to deny the reality of the period and seemingly advocate a return to that time when a segment of the population wasn't considered fully human. It definitely includes those who continue to fly a flag that represents those 19th C traitors as they promote racial division, advocate for the destruction of the United States and in some cases act in violent manner against the legitimate government.

    So that is who I think the "traitors are now"
    “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

Posting Permissions

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