• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

  • Anytime they want

    Votes: 47 54.7%
  • Bad times only

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • No way

    Votes: 35 40.7%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 3.5%

  • Total voters
    86
One need not know who William Tecumseh Sherman was, to be able to criticise the CSA.

such an argument is a dishonest red herring.
 
Now, that would also make a good signature line.

No, you really dont have to know. But, it would make your argument more credible if you did. In all sincerity, I would encouragae you to study that war in its totality. Not just what you have been told. Its a great study and quite revealing.

Quantrill

I pretty much already have an opinion formulated: The Union was good but not all good, it had the moral superiority over the CSA, but perhaps could have made better efforts to end slavery. I would study it for entertainment value; I already study history, especially Napoleonic wars.
 
Quantrill: I pose another question, if I may

Is slavery itself an institution that should have been kept or would you have it done away with? If you are pro-slavery, how do you justify it?
 
The constitution cannot be flexible else it wouldn't be a constitution. It can be ammeded however.

Quantrill

One need not know who William Tecumseh Sherman was, to be able to criticise the CSA.

such an argument is a dishonest red herring.

Perhaps in part. However, I've read some pretty outlandish claims on this crazy thread that indicate that just a little knowledge of the Civil War would be very useful (Example: Understanding during the first two years which side had the superior leadership).

And really, not knowing how Longsteet humiliated Custer at Appomattox is fairly arcane information, but not knowing who Sherman was demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the Civil War (and even of the 1939 film Gone With the Wind :lol: ).
 
Quantrill: I pose another question, if I may

Is slavery itself an institution that should have been kept or would you have it done away with? If you are pro-slavery, how do you justify it?

Slavery was an institution existant its time. No one man could keep or do away with it. It would take great efforts from many to use or end it. It would certainly exist only for a period of time. Only when it was profitable or necessarry.

The only position I can take on slavery is that which the country took when it wrote its constitution. For those are the laws we as Americans must live and die by. And if we disagree with them then we go through the political process to change them. We do not treat half of the country as evil and attack it.

I do not seek to have slaves. No one in 1860 was required in the South to have slaves. But it was legal and protected. Or, protected by the Constitution. Not protected by those who ignored the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
I pretty much already have an opinion formulated: The Union was good but not all good, it had the moral superiority over the CSA, but perhaps could have made better efforts to end slavery. I would study it for entertainment value; I already study history, especially Napoleonic wars.

And that is fine. Continue in your study. That is all I ask.

Quantrill
 
They may not wish to. They may secede; they don't have to secede.
Apparently some claim they do want secede, such as Texas. So why doesn't Texas Gov. Perry propose getting a majority vote of the people in his state to get the ball rolling for secession? Why even bring the topic up if he and his cohorts had no intention of seceding?

I suspect that the civil war southern states never tried to get a majority vote of the population in their states before their legislatures acted on their own accord to secede. Which is probably another reason why the southern states seccession was unconstitutional. Because the constitution preamble says, We the people of the United States, it doesn't say we the "Politicians of the Southern United States."
 
Apparently some claim they do want secede, such as Texas. So why doesn't Texas Gov. Perry propose getting a majority vote of the people in his state to get the ball rolling for secession? Why even bring the topic up if he and his cohorts had no intention of seceding?

Who knows? I imagine that he doesn't think the people of Texas wish to secede right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom