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 74 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #731
    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, lets looks at this logically....

    South Carolina signed a compact with the US government called a Constitution. The Constitution is a contract between the people who inhabit each state and the collective states as a whole aka union, republic, nation.

    The land for the building of Fort Sumter was ceded to the US government by S. Carolina in 1838. It was a legal contract between two sovereign governments, the state and the federal, which gave the federal government exclusive rights over the property "provided" that S. Carolina would still have jurisdiction to serve summons and supeonas on the federal property.

    Are we in agreement so far?

    Twenty two later in 1861, and after great expense and effort to bring in landfill and material to build the island and the fort, which was still under construction, South Carolina decides to reneg on it's compact with the union, and reneg on it's contract that ceded property to the US government.

    Are we in agreement so far?

    So after S. Carolina renegs on two legal contracts you think the US government had no right to stay on Fort Sumter? Do you really believe that two binding legal contracts were null and void without the US governments consent, especially ones that they were party to? There were two legal entities that signed binding legal contracts and just because one side decides they don't like the terms years after the fact does not make those contracts automatically null and void. In fact if you think about it, the purpose of signing of legal contracts is to protect both parties from one side arbitrarily renegging on the agreement. No sir, the US government had a binding legal claim to Fort Sumter no matter how much of a hissy fit S. Carolina threw.

    I really don't expect you to be in agreement at this point because this same exact arguement has been going on since 1861 (see Lincoln's last speech) and no amount of reason or legaleze is going to convince you otherwise because you are obviously very vested in your version of the truth. But at least we seem to be in agreement that the Civil War put an end to the states right to secede.....aren't we?
    The U.S government violated the Constitution in its actions towards the South. Which caused the sceession. Which made null and void any agreements made with the U.S.

    The War between the States showed that though secession was legal, it wont occur without war. Which means anyone entertaining such ideas needs to know that.

    So, yes, we are a 'glorious union' based on the yankee bayonet, not willful agreement. It just make you so proud, doesn't it?

    Quantrill

  2. #732
    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 Removable Mind View Post
    God, are people who believe that Texas can secede from the Union eating massive numbers of bowls of Moron Flakes for breakfast everyday?
    In a word, yes.


    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. #733
    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
    Perhaps because they intended to fight, united as allies, against Britain.



    We declare that these united colonies are free and independent states.

    That doesn't sound confusing. The colonies are free and independent states. That's what I've been saying all along.
    Are they free (collectively) states? Yes. Are they independent (collectively) states? Yes.
    Are they 13 free and independent nations unto themselves? Not that I've read.

    We simply are going to have to agree to disagree. Because of what they decided for our nation's name, anything along these lines will continue to be ambiguous. You will always read it as distinct, states and I will read it as a collective of states. There is no way, within the documents presented, that we discern which is correct.
    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

  4. #734
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The U.S government violated the Constitution in its actions towards the South. Which caused the sceession. Which made null and void any agreements made with the U.S.
    What did it do to "cause" the secession?

    The War between the States showed that though secession was legal, it wont occur without war. Which means anyone entertaining such ideas needs to know that.

    So, yes, we are a 'glorious union' based on the yankee bayonet, not willful agreement. It just make you so proud, doesn't it?

    Quantrill
    No one "forced" or held a bayonette to the South's head to sign and ratify the Constitution. They were freemen acting on their own free will. But in signing the compact, one of the very first things the Southern states agreed to give the US government sovereignty over was "contracts".....


    United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. (Contract Clause):

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
    ; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.


    At the time of the Civil War, this clause was one of the provisions upon which the Court relied in holding that the Confederation formed by the seceding States could not be recognized as having any legal existence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrac...se#cite_note-0
    In 1787 the South ceded to the new US government the sovereign authority to uphold legal contracts and that is exactly what Lincoln was doing in 1861.

    ya know, I can't help but notice that you aren't backing up your opinion with any factual or credible evidence and sources. In fact, it looks like your grasping at straws.
    Last edited by Moot; 05-25-12 at 10:06 PM.

  5. #735
    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 Moot View Post
    ya know, I can't help but notice that you aren't backing up your opinion with any factual or credible evidence and sources. So what are you basing your opinion on?
    Revisionist history


    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. #736
    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
    What did it do to "cause" the secession?

    No one "forced" or held a bayonette to the South's head to sign and ratify the Constitution. They were freemen acting on their own free will. But in signing the compact, one of the very first things the Southern states agreed to give the US government sovereignty over was "contracts".....




    In 1787 the South ceded to the new US government the sovereign authority to uphold legal contracts and that is exactly what Lincoln was doing in 1861.

    ya know, I can't help but notice that you aren't backing up your opinion with any factual or credible evidence and sources. In fact, it looks like your grasping at straws.
    Then you must not be paying much attention. 'ya know'.

    For one the U.S. government allowed John Brown to roam free in the North while he planned his attack upon the South. John Brown was funded by the secret six, wealthy prominent men of the North. They were accessory to the terroristic plot of Brown. They were found out? What happened to them? Nothing. Why? Because the U.S government agreed with their efforts.

    Yet the Constitution said the Union was to establish justice. The union was to insure domestic tranquiltiy. Sure. The Southern people were constantly harassed by the North concerning trarrifs and slavery. The North claimed it acted under a higher law than the Constitution. Though slavery was protected by the Constitution, the North constantly tried to undermine the Souths right to slavery. A right protected by the Constitution.

    As Jefferson Davis declared " It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws, it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tarriff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union---generally to discriminate in legislation against the interest of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of thier compact to promote domestic tranquillilty."

    Again, your not paying attention. I didn't say anyone forced the Southern states to ratify the Constitution of 1787. Because we are talking about 1865. The South seceded from the Union. We didn't want to be with your union. And the North forced us by war to be part of your union. A union by the bayonet. So, sing along dear...'Glory, glory, halleluiah!' Just makes you proud on this memorial day doesn't it.

    In 1861 the Southern states seceded. Thus the union between us and you was dissolved. All that went before while in that union dissolved. Do you see? I didn't say you had to like it. Just, do you see?

    Quantrill
    Last edited by Quantrill; 05-26-12 at 12:41 AM.

  7. #737
    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
    Revisionist history
    Yeah, its been taught for years by the North.

    Quantrill

  8. #738
    Educator falcata's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North East Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    08-10-17 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    926

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The U.S government violated the Constitution in its actions towards the South. Which caused the sceession. Which made null and void any agreements made with the U.S.

    The War between the States showed that though secession was legal, it wont occur without war. Which means anyone entertaining such ideas needs to know that.

    So, yes, we are a 'glorious union' based on the yankee bayonet, not willful agreement. It just make you so proud, doesn't it?

    Quantrill
    Ok im calling B.S. on this one.

    First off both the South and the North played a few dirty tricks to get slavery or anti-slvaery legislation passed(and please don't be one of those people who say the Civil war wasnt about Slavery) And the Pushing reason for the South to secced was because Lincolm won without a single southern state.Dont get me wrong i dont like the electoral college and all that jazz either but either way he won .We went to war with the confederacy because as Moot said we were attacked by the South first, not nessacarily because they declared independence.

    You also make it seem like the south is being held against its will even today.

    But you know im glad I was born in a country that didnt completly crumble because of a civil war. So yes I am proud the North won the civil war as a citizen of the United States of America.
    I traveled with Ivanka
    the way I normally do
    How was I to know
    She was with the Russians too? - Poetics by TurtleDude

  9. #739
    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 falcata View Post
    Ok im calling B.S. on this one.

    First off both the South and the North played a few dirty tricks to get slavery or anti-slvaery legislation passed(and please don't be one of those people who say the Civil war wasnt about Slavery) And the Pushing reason for the South to secced was because Lincolm won without a single southern state.Dont get me wrong i dont like the electoral college and all that jazz either but either way he won .We went to war with the confederacy because as Moot said we were attacked by the South first, not nessacarily because they declared independence.

    You also make it seem like the south is being held against its will even today.

    But you know im glad I was born in a country that didnt completly crumble because of a civil war. So yes I am proud the North won the civil war as a citizen of the United States of America.
    Slavery was protected by the Constitution. Article 4 section 2. The Dred Scott Supreme Court case declared that the Southern slave owner could go anywhere in the Unitied States he wanted to with his property. So why should the South have to worry about slavery?

    And you believe a state can secede if it wants to? The Fed. Govt. will let it go?

    Well, be proud all you like. And of course in your 'pride' the Southern States were tratiors. Treason. Criminals. I mean, thats the view of you and the North. We needed to be pardoned for our crimes. What crime? Oh yeah, trying to uphold the Constitution. Trying to defend our families from the yankees who flouted the Constitution.

    But, yall come under a 'higher law' don't you? Its yall that determines what the Constitution should be. Glory, glory hallelujah.

    Quantrill
    Last edited by Quantrill; 05-26-12 at 09:07 AM.

  10. #740
    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?

    For the life of me, I can't see how anyone can make the moral case for preventing secession. If a minority wish to separate from the larger political structure and create their own political unit in which they exercise self-government, then what moral justification could anyone have for saying they can't do so. Preventing a minority from exercising its right to self-government seems to be driven by simple greed: "We own you, and we own the land upon which your homes are built. We will not let you govern yourself, because for you to escape our rule would mean that you are stealing from us."

Page 74 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2464727374757684 ... 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
  •