• 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
Howdy,

Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?

:peace

I have always said that I am a Texan first, and an American second. Texas has done far more for me than my country ever has or will. I remember back in the Army I used to talk with other Texans about this same issue. The general opinion of the majority of us was that if Texas seceded, we'd all rip the American flag off our shoulders and head back to the fatherland.

Without trying to sound like an extremist, I'd actually like to see this happen. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the Independent Republic of Texas.
 
I have always said that I am a Texan first, and an American second. Texas has done far more for me than my country ever has or will. I remember back in the Army I used to talk with other Texans about this same issue. The general opinion of the majority of us was that if Texas seceded, we'd all rip the American flag off our shoulders and head back to the fatherland.

Without trying to sound like an extremist, I'd actually like to see this happen. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the Independent Republic of Texas.

I would love it, too! Guys, seriously, get a petition going and I'll sign the top of it. Call me John Mother****ing Hancock. I'll send it to my local Congressman. Nothing would make me happier as well.
 
rocket88 said:
Not as much as not making the money to pay on it. ... Our trading partners know the United States, they know we're good for the money. An independent Texas not so much.

I generally try to use the term "ignorant" since so many people are... well... ignorant of its definition, but I must make an exception here. This statement does much to show your ignorance of basic economic principles.

The numbers of consumers globally who take the time to determine the point-of-origin of the products they purchase is so miniscule it almost doesn't exist. This means that qualitative aspects such as construction, material, and price are infinitely more important to most consumers than the "Made in..." tag. So immediately it makes no difference whatsoever whether a product comes from a Texas, subsidiary of the United States or from a Texas, subsidiary of the planet Earth.

Furthermore, you will find that a great many individuals, companies, and nations around the globe are/becoming wary of U.S. Dollars. Based on the current state of affairs within Texas, I would surmise that an independent Texas would either allow private coinage or use "real" money (and demand the same in exchange). This would have the exact opposite effect you believe would occur.
 
I generally try to use the term "ignorant" since so many people are... well... ignorant of its definition, but I must make an exception here. This statement does much to show your ignorance of basic economic principles.

The numbers of consumers globally who take the time to determine the point-of-origin of the products they purchase is so miniscule it almost doesn't exist. This means that qualitative aspects such as construction, material, and price are infinitely more important to most consumers than the "Made in..." tag. So immediately it makes no difference whatsoever whether a product comes from a Texas, subsidiary of the United States or from a Texas, subsidiary of the planet Earth.

Furthermore, you will find that a great many individuals, companies, and nations around the globe are/becoming wary of U.S. Dollars. Based on the current state of affairs within Texas, I would surmise that an independent Texas would either allow private coinage or use "real" money (and demand the same in exchange). This would have the exact opposite effect you believe would occur.

Pardon my harsh language, but the idea of a currency called "the Texan" gets my d*** hard.

- "How much is that TV?"
- "199 Texans"
 
It was one of the reasons, though. I don't necessarily blame them for wanting to divorce themselves from a government that may one day wish to remove their livelihood. Slavery was a big part of how the economic system of the South worked.



I have never once heard anyone say that Northerners went into the war hoping to destroy the South's economy. With the exception of Sherman's march, but that was a war measure during the war. Nobody wanted to destroy slavery because it was Southern that I have heard or read. There was definitely abolitionist sentiment in Union armies, but that was based on the idea that slavery was wrong. They weren't necessarily believers that blacks were equal either (so don't start with that), but definitely thought it was wrong to own other people.

Do you have a source for this claim that the North entered the war to destroy the South?

I didn't really say the North entered the war to destroy the South. I suggested that the North was against slavery due to it fueling the Souths economy and were against it for that reason. On the surface, the reason the North went to war was to bring the Southern States back into the Union. But since you have brought it up, I am of the opinion that the North had already made its mind up that they were going to go to war against the South and destroy it. Why? Because of the extreme differences in culture and way of life and interests.

Such differences go all the way back to the Constitution we have been discussing. Not just due to the slavery issue either. Due to culture and different ways of life. With the westward expansion still in the process, you had many states that would be carved out of it. To allow the Southernor his way of life in those territtories let them distance themeselves both geogrpahically and culturally and politically from the North. And the new states would outnumber the North. And the North feared their interests would no longer be represented. The North feared the loss of money and power. The South didn't need the North. We had miles and miles of coast for trade. we had the Mississipi River. Which is why the 'tarriff' issue was so volatile. It affected the South not the North. The North gave it only to hinder the South.

I don't have all the references at hand at the moment but I will find them and show them.

Slavery was but an issue at the time. The North hated slavery because for one it didn't care for the negroe. Two, because it helped the Southern economy. Proof of this can be seen for one, in the New York riots following Lincolns emancipation proclamation. New York yankees new they were not going to go down and get killed for the black man. So they rioted and hung about 75 blacks to prove it. And, the Emancipation proclamation didn't free anyone. It was only for those slaves that were in Southern held territory. The ones still slaves in Yankee territory, remained slaves. It was a war measure given in hopes to encourage the negroes to revolt and kill their white slave masters families. Because the men were gone to war.

Quantrill
 
Explain, if you can.

Quantrill

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]
Which would appear to suggest that slavery was fairly central as far as southerners where concerned, even if the motivations of many in the North where not as noble as they are cracked up to be.
 
Which would appear to suggest that slavery was fairly central as far as southerners where concerned, even if the motivations of many in the North where not as noble as they are cracked up to be.

The supreriority of the anglo-saxon over the negroe was held by both North and South. Including Lincoln.

Quantrill
 
The supreriority of the anglo-saxon over the negroe was held by both North and South. Including Lincoln.

Quantrill

Men long dead should be judged by their latter years, not the ignorance of their more youthful days.
 
Romney to skip Texas GOP convention - Houston Chronicle

Texas Republicans lament far-away hotel assignment for national convention | Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas and National Politics and Elections News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

Home > News > Politics > Politics Headlines
Texas Republicans lament far-away hotel assignment for national convention
17 50 A Text Size
By CHRISTY HOPPE Austin Bureau choppe@dallasnews.com
Published: 20 May 2012 11:27 PM

AUSTIN — GOP stalwarts in Texas have three major problems with their arrangements at the Republican National Convention in Florida: location, location, location.
Relegated to “the boonies” at a remote golf resort, state leaders face a logistical headache 25 miles from the Tampa convention hall. Worse, they said, it sends a message to the largest Republican state in the nation that, like convenience store wine for a birthday gift, it doesn’t count for much.
“If I weren’t state chairman, if I were a delegate, I probably wouldn’t go,” state GOP leader Steve Munisteri said of the late-August presidential nominating event.
It is a steep fall from grace. For years, having a Bush as either vice president or president meant the Lone Star State was pampered with prime hotels and choice seating.
Munisteri said the state’s political donors, volunteers and activists are being taken for granted. Others suspect Rick Perry’s failed presidential bid — and attacks on eventual nominee Mitt Romney — are bringing punishment upon the Texas GOP.
Convention lodging is more than a matter of inconvenience or prestige. The parties must figure out how to transport hundreds of delegates for four days of events, when cities are bulging with traffic and visitors. They have to arrange for meals and events, and distance often equals higher costs.
And like proximity to the corner office, four-star hotels near the hall and close-in floor seating are more than perks. They’re signs of which states carry heft, importance and political clout.
At least the situation is something that the state’s Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on. For years, Texas Democrats — with no hope of delivering the state for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or Barack Obama — have found themselves on the outskirts of conventions.
It’s been only recently that they’ve done better than airport hotels. This year they’ll actually be closer to their convention site in Charlotte, N.C. — 15 miles away — than the Republicans will be from theirs in Tampa. Both delegations are still in different counties from the convention halls.
“They’re used to the red carpet,” Dallas County Democratic Party Chairwoman Darlene Ewing said of the Republican delegates. “Well, come join us in the cheap seats, guys.”
Pecking order
The top spots at national conventions always have gone to the nominee’s home state. Also high on the list are the important swing states; lavishing attention is part of getting the party stalwarts active and motivated. Important states also get star treatment, and then, up in the rafters and out in the ’burbs, it’s usually the can’t-win-there-but-thank-you-for-coming states.
James Davis, a spokesman for Republican convention planners, discounted such calculations and said the hotel assignments were allotted based on the size of the delegation, price ranges, room availability and special needs.
“Texas is one of the larger delegations. And this was the first convention that we did not have to split a delegation into two hotels,” Davis said. “That’s important because a lot of delegations meet together and travel to the convention together.”
He said the Saddlebrook Resort, where the Texans will be, “is a great place. Our staff has had meetings there.”
Davis declined to address whether Texas was being slapped for considering a winner-take-all primary to boost Rick Santorum’s candidacy or because of the strained Perry-Romney relationship.
“We made the assignments based on not splitting the delegations and trying to meet their requirements,” he repeated.
Eric Opiela, who is charged with coordinating arrangements for the Texas delegation, said the site is a hardship. He likened the situation to attending a Dallas convention but “having our hotel Red Oak. That’s essentially what they’ve done to us.”
The only other delegation out that way is Louisiana’s.
“I don’t know what crime they committed to be out there with us,” Opiela said.
Because Saddlebrook is a golf resort, some of the hotel rooms are a half-mile from the resort’s meeting rooms, where breakfasts and other gatherings take place. That hike in August for some older delegates will be difficult, he said.
Opiela said one normally reliable corporate sponsor has declined to support the delegation this year, which he attributes to the inconvenience of the location. “What sponsor wants to be 30 miles away?” he said.
“I’m sure it’s a fabulous place from the pictures I’ve seen. But I’d be just as happy staying at the Holiday Inn if it were closer,” he said.
 
We should let Texas go peacefully.



These things aren't necessary. :) All can be provided privately.

We'll see how that works out in L.A. then Texas can give it a shot. If you think that social programs can be just stopped, especially education...you'll see chaos. Restructured, yes. Stopped, no. That's opinion you hold on this matter (ed. medicare and aid) has been propaganda delivered to you by people who don't know what the **** they are talking about. Social services...have been created by "All factions" in government, whether they be conservative or liberal and have brought our country to its knees. If you believe a conservative ANYTHING in any political machine or government office who would automatically change our way of life over night...or through one or two terms in office. Then you are an extremely naive person, indeed.

I don't believe any party or faction in government today has any allegiance to the American people. If you don't know that by now...keep on dreaming and token on whatever is distorting your understanding of what's going on in our government.

I'm no spring chicken and I supported the "Republican Party" for about 2/3rds of my voting life. Now...I don't support any party.
 
I'd love to see your evidence that the states gave up their sovereignty by entering into an compact with each other. States enter into treaties and compacts all the time. They do not automatically give up their sovereignty by doing so.

You are not honest when you frame this as states entering into a compact with each other. You are forgetting a very important other entity to which they joined with and agreed to the terms of the Constitution in doing so. And in doing so they gave up some of their own powers, their own authority and their own sovereignity.

It was either that or lose the USA.

They made the wise choice.
 
The states delegated various specific powers to the federal government. In no way does this action repeal or limit sovereignty. Furthermore, any power which has been delegated may be un-delegated in the future.

del·e·gate
verb \-ˌgāt\
: to entrust to another

Sure - it means exactly the opposite of what you state it does. You give up power to somebody else - you give up authority to somebody else. But they gained in gaining a nation with a sustainable government.
 
That's not Texas' debt to pay.

It sure is. They are Americans and as such they owe it as much as any other American. Divide it up according to the number of citizens they have and you have the figure that Texas owes the USA.
 
No, I don't think I'm using it wrong at all. You are placing more authority than they deserve on them so you don't need to debate. While they surely have authority you can't very well trump authority of the founders with them. What the founders said the clauses mean is still the factor that will decide if the courts got it right and everything here points them NOT getting it right.

You can THINK anything you want to think.

You can BELIEVE anything you want to believe.

Neither of those things changes the fact that you are grossly misusing APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and I gave you the reference to prove it to you.

It is clear that you lack formal debate training. It is clear that you lack an actual understanding of logical fallacies. It is clear that you are ignorant of the actual use of Appeal To Authority and fail to understand that one can use it and it is deemed proper and a perfect tactic in debate.

You may want to go back and review the article I provided to help educate and illuminate you.
 
Too bad for your argument that they gave up much of that sovereignty to join the larger unit of the USA.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The states gave up "some" sovereignty but not all. Sovereignty is divisible and in order to form a union or a compact, the states divided their sovereignty with the newly created US government. Both have equal sovereignty and by this I mean the federal government has sovereignty to deal with external threats and the states have sovereignty to deal with internal threats.
 
Do you have a source for this claim that the North entered the war to destroy the South?

Here is one of the sources that support my opinion.

From "Miracle at Philadelphia" , Catherine Drinker Bowen, P.176-177

"The Convention had early agreed that in the original states every forty thousand inhabitants were entitled to one representative in the lower house. But with the new rage for Western emigration this suddenly became dangerous....Soon there might be as many Western states as Eastern....Massachusetts came out against admitting the West on equal terms. Elbridge Gerry's republican principles frequently clashed with his interests as a New England merchant; he expressed himsef as convinced the over-mountain states would before long be more thickly populated than the Nordthern. They would abuse their power, 'drain our wealth into the Western country.' To guard against it, Gerry wished to see the Constitution limit the admission of new states ' in such a manner that they should never be able to outnumber the Atlantic states.'

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Would you please now explain how you think that quote proves that the North entered the war to destroy the South?
 
Do you have a source for this claim that the North entered the war to destroy the South?

Here is another source. A quote from Samuel White of Delaware from a speech delievered to the Senate on Nov. 2, 1803 concerning the Louisiana Purchase. Anals of America, Encyclopedia Britanica, p.175

" Louisiana must and will become settled if we hold it, and with the very population that would otherwise occuppy part of our present territory. Thus our citizens will be removed to the immense distance of 2,000 or 3,000 miles from the capital of the Union...their affections will become alilenated; they will gradually begin to view us as strangers; they will form other commercial connections; and our interests will become distinct.

"These, with other causes that human wisdom may not now forsee, will in time effect a separation, and I fear our bounds will be fixed nearer to our houses than the waters of the Mississippi. "

So, as you can see, from the very begining the New England States were concerned over losing power and wealth and control over the new government. And it is for these very reasons that I believe the power in the North had made the determination that it simply must conquer the South in order to protect this power and interests. Slavery was an issue that was there and could be used against the South later.

Quantrill
 
You are not honest when you frame this as states entering into a compact with each other. You are forgetting a very important other entity to which they joined with and agreed to the terms of the Constitution in doing so. And in doing so they gave up some of their own powers, their own authority and their own sovereignity.

It was either that or lose the USA.

They made the wise choice.
So you don't actually have any evidence that the states gave up their sovereignty.

As TNAR has already pointed out, the states were and are sovereign political societies. They entered into a voluntary compact, creating the federal government as their agent to exercise certain specific delegated powers. That compact has no specific term, and under international law, when countries enter into a treaty with no specific term it is understood that they may exit the treaty when they wish.
 
Re: Texas secession??

Howdy,

Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?

:peace
Hey,

How about instead we assume that times get tough, the US dollar crashes (or something of that magnitude). Would anyone mind if we simply cut Texas loose?

Later dudes! :laughat::cowboy:

We've got people to worry about who actually care about these United States!! :usflag2:
 
Last edited:
I think you hit the nail on the head. The states gave up "some" sovereignty but not all. Sovereignty is divisible and in order to form a union or a compact, the states divided their sovereignty with the newly created US government. Both have equal sovereignty and by this I mean the federal government has sovereignty to deal with external threats and the states have sovereignty to deal with internal threats.
When a country enters into a treaty, does it give up sovereignty, or merely delegate some responsibility to the created agent. Does Denmark lose sovereignty when it joins NATO?

It's more correct, I think, to say that the federal government has been delegated the responsibility to deal with external threats, not that it has sovereignty. Agents don't have sovereignty over principals. It is the principals who create and have total control over their agent.
 
When a country enters into a treaty, does it give up sovereignty, or merely delegate some responsibility to the created agent. Does Denmark lose sovereignty when it joins NATO?
Yes. Nations trade some of their sovereignty all the time. For instance, the EU countries are all soveriegn nations but they traded their soveriegnty to mint their own coin to join the EU compact. They all use the euro now but they are still sovereign nations.

It's more correct, I think, to say that the federal government has been delegated the responsibility to deal with external threats, not that it has sovereignty. Agents don't have sovereignty over principals. It is the principals who create and have total control over their agent.
Giving the federal government sovereignty to deal with external threats was one of the main reasons for forming a union because the states knew they couldn't do it on their own. The states give up some of their soveriegnty everytime they accept funding from the federal government because the funding always comes with terms that take away some of the states sovereignty.

Another example of the divisibility of sovereignty might be where the people who lived in Kentucky wanted to secceed from Virginia to form a new state. The people of Virginia agreed and Kentucky got state sovereignty. Now we have two sovereign states where once there was one and it didn't dimish the full soveriegnty of Virginia at all.

Ours is a very unique form of government where we have a sovereign federal government that is separate from the sovereign states that form the union. Even the EU doesn't have a sovereign central political government. The US is the only government that I can think of that is like this.
 
Last edited:
The supreriority of the anglo-saxon over the negroe was held by both North and South. Including Lincoln.

To a lesser extent certainly, but that still doesnt negate the fact that the South seceeded and fought a war, by their own admission, to preserve slavery.
 
So you don't actually have any evidence that the states gave up their sovereignty.

As a long time teacher and molder of young minds, I found it an excellent strategy to allow people to research and find the answer themselves and they retained that information much much longer than when spoon fed it. I would urge you to do this -

take the powers each state had in the first few years of the USA under the Articles of Confederation. Then take the powers of the states as adopted in the US Constitution. Compare the two. The differences should be stark and obvious.

Then flip the coin. Look at the powers of the national government under the Articles and then compare them to those that emerged in the national government after the Constitution was adopted.

Then ask yourself a very simple question: what changed between those early days of the USA and the current powers that states have?

I believe the answer will be staring you right in the face.

This will help

http://www.barefootsworld.net/aoc1777.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-confederation/

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/governmentandpolitics/f/articles_of_confederation_fails.htm

http://owenshistory.info/Powerpoints/07_Government/Government/Articles_of_Confederation.pdf

Are you taking the position that what you call international law is superior in authority to the US Constitution?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom