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 69 of 124 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179119 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #681
    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 dabateman View Post
    Right, coming back the states were forced to accept it. And that was done. Sad story... now they can get over it.
    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

  2. #682
    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
    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
    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

  3. #683
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    If the land belonged to SC then there would have been no reason to add in the 'serve processes' clause.
    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

  4. #684
    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
    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
    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

  5. #685
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    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.
    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

  6. #686
    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
    So, not once, not twice, not even three times, but FOUR full times do they assert that this is a perpetual Union.
    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.

  7. #687
    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
    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."
    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.

  8. #688
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    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
    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)
    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...."
    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
    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 by Moot; 05-24-12 at 09:01 AM.

  9. #689
    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 Quantrill View Post
    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.
    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 by MoSurveyor; 05-24-12 at 10:37 AM.
    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

  10. #690
    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
    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.
    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 ...
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 05-24-12 at 10:35 AM.
    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

Posting Permissions

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