• 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
Apparently you've never put a pen to all of the things that a country has to financially manage. Just upgrading the military to one that could provide adequate protection (against the next American President)...a ton of money The education system alone would bankrupt Texas. Then there is those things in place such as Medicaid and Medicare. I can continue to list all of the things necessary, but not worth the time or finger energy. You'll have to put on your thinking cap.

Not to mention the chaos from the loss of about a third of its territory and population in the immediate aftermath. Look at the third map.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/download/158998/1/3212626/the-end-of-texas.pdf
 
Yeah, funny how they got that idea after they sold all their slaves South. Oh the yankee loves to ride the moral high horse after he has been compensated.

What hypocrits.

Quantrill

The north held slaves as well. When the feds took southern property, they confiscated slaves as property of the US government.
 
Evidence of that fact that the states prior to creating the constitution were free, independent, and sovereign states?
So this means nothing to you?
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


They did not give up any power. They delegated powers to the union. As sovereign states, they alone determine what powers they choose to exercise for themselves and which they choose to delegate to an agent.
Did each one of them individually issue a Declaration of Independence from England? Did they each seek recognition from foreign powers? Or did they do these things as the United States of America?
 
Last edited:
The north held slaves as well. When the feds took southern property, they confiscated slaves as property of the US government.

And these slaves could not be freed under the emacipation proclamation. The 'great emancipator' held these in slavery.

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

Quantrill

False. See Douglass's quotes about Lincoln.

And by war's end, the Congress had passed laws mandating equal pay for Black soldiers, as well as those three little constitutional amendments.

For that matter, don't pretend the Confederacy represents the south. Most southerners were pro Union and not traitourous Confederates.
 
These are just two quotes to show that it was in the New Englanders thinking that they were losing power and control.
Delaware isn't part of New England. Are you from Texas or something that you don't know this?
 
Re: Texas secession??

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:

No kidding. And most Texans don't and never have wanted secession.

That includes during the Civil War, when traitorous Confederates had to resort to a hug campaign of violent intimidation, assassination, lynchings, and bombings, to silence Unionists and drive voer turnout down by a third.
 
So this means nothing to you?


Did each one of them individually issue a Declaration of Independence from England? Did they each seek recognition from foreign powers? Or did they do these things as the United States of America?

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that after winning their independence from Britain the former colonies did not become free, independent, and sovereign states?
 
Texas is actually near the bottom in almost every index in the country, highest poverty rates, highest dropout rates, highest infant mortality. The only thing low is the taxes, and the two are related.

The first thing that happens after independence is usually an economic slump caused by lack of confidence in the currency and lack of loans from elsewhere. No reason TX would be different. In fact the small govt mentality guarantees a tanked economy.
:lol: no, it doesn't.

Texas is pretty low on the list of poverty rates ( 46th)lots of work to do there.. but not bad on infant mortality rate (30th)... couldn't find a state by state ranking of HS drop out... but Texas is just a tad below national average ( at 75.5% graduation rate.. which ain't bad)

I don't see the utility is speculating a failure or a success... " no reason Texas would be any different" is a lazy approach and precludes the notion that Texas could, in fact, do it very different and have very different results from whatever group of secessionist countries you are comparing them to..
 
As a resident of Texas, I see no reason that Texan's would seek such an action. I am an American first and Texan a close second. With the current situation in Mexico, Texas would soon find itself virtually at war with Mexico. Not a declared war, but a war against the criminal cartels that virtually control Mexico and that would soon try to control Texas. I see no situation that our nation would allow a state to secede without a fight.

I also get pretty tired of a loud minority of secessionists giving a false impression of the state to everyone else. Even many of those who play with the idea of secession never really would when it came down to it. Secession is a view only strongly held within Texas by a small bunch of, frankly, loons that I wouldn't trust with sharp scissors, much less running a govt.
 
I also get pretty tired of a loud minority of secessionists giving a false impression of the state to everyone else. Even many of those who play with the idea of secession never really would when it came down to it. Secession is a view only strongly held within Texas by a small bunch of, frankly, loons that I wouldn't trust with sharp scissors, much less running a govt.

No, they exist all over the US. There's quite a lot in Missouri, actually.
 
False. See Douglass's quotes about Lincoln.

And by war's end, the Congress had passed laws mandating equal pay for Black soldiers, as well as those three little constitutional amendments.

For that matter, don't pretend the Confederacy represents the south. Most southerners were pro Union and not traitourous Confederates.

How about you show what it is you think Lincoln was.

Oh yeah, and they promised em 40 acres and a mule. Their still waiting for that. They will wait a lot longer.

The South wasn't traitors. How can you say that?

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100
Ó2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute
Ludwig von Mises Institute : The Austrian School Is Advancing Liberty
39
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF SECESSION IN
POLITICAL THEORY AND HISTORY



Please tell the reading audience what the difference(s) might be when comparing the peaceful secessions noted and any such attempt in the US

Hungary and Norway were both de facto nations, culturally, under the domination of de facto foreign govts with different cultures. Singapore is more complicated since Malaysia didn't exist prior to colonial control.

Texas really is no different from the rest of the US culturally, all bluster and silly claims to the contrary. In fact different parts of the state are quite different culturally from each other. The southern quarter has more in common with Mexico than east Texas, and the western panhandles also have more in common with New Mexico than with east Texas.
 
I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that after winning their independence from Britain the former colonies did not become free, independent, and sovereign states?
I'm not arguing anything - I'd just like to see you back up your claim that this was the case. They signed the Declaration of Independence as the "United States of America" and pledged everything they had to each other. What other documents did they sign, issue, or whatever that showed they were ever completely independent of the United States?
 
No, they exist all over the US. There's quite a lot in Missouri, actually.
Links for Missouri, please?


If it's anywhere it's gotta' be the Hillbillies ...
 
No, not lesser and probably greater. The North cared not for the negro.

You misunderstand. The South didn't secede to preserve slavery. The South seceded because the North refused to treat them as equals. The North was going to use the slave issue to destroy the Souths economy.

Quantrill

You need to quit pretending the Confederacy=the South. Most southerners were loyal Americans and never joined nor supported the treasonous insurgency.

Of course "the south" were not equals. Their population was far smaller. Far from insisting on being treated as equals, the slave owning elites wanted to maintain the same control over the nation they had had since colonial times.

And that last sentence is one of the sillier conspiracy theories I've heard. Even the most hopeful abolitionist didn't dare to want more than limiting the spread of slavery in 1860.

The slaveowning elites willingness to destroy a nation to hold onto power undid them in the end, not any imaginary conspiracy of 14 million northerners.
 
You need to quit pretending the Confederacy=the South. Most southerners were loyal Americans and never joined nor supported the treasonous insurgency.

Of course "the south" were not equals. Their population was far smaller. Far from insisting on being treated as equals, the slave owning elites wanted to maintain the same control over the nation they had had since colonial times.

And that last sentence is one of the sillier conspiracy theories I've heard. Even the most hopeful abolitionist didn't dare to want more than limiting the spread of slavery in 1860.

The slaveowning elites willingness to destroy a nation to hold onto power undid them in the end, not any imaginary conspiracy of 14 million northerners.

You don't know what your talking about.

The South should have been equal under the law of the land. Correct? Or are you saying they shouldn't have been?

Quantrill
 
I'm not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that after winning their independence from Britain the former colonies did not become free, independent, and sovereign states?

Are you John Remington Graham? Because if you are not, you are certainly arguing from the thesis he lays out in his books.. As one Texas-based historian described him, "John Remington Graham is little more than a neo-Confederate apologist" - who by the way hasn't even lived in the US for at least the past 15 years.
 
not sure I buy into the speculation that Texas would turn to a jihadist ****hole if it seceded.

it is possible that a very powerful economy could flourish from day 1.. and it's also possible that it could be a somalia-like ****storm of an economy... it's impossible to know which it would be.

Not jihadist. White supremacist. More than a few militias and secessionists are white supremacists. And the platform of the Texas Nationalist Movement specifically calls for execution or expulsion of any "Democrats, progressives, liberals, and RINOs." Which means the progressive city of Austin would be purged of most of its people too.

Losing its capital as well as a third of its territory and populaton couldn't help but lead to chaos and an economy in the dumpster. If you doubt that, just look at how prosperous Lebanon was before its civil war.
 
I'm not arguing anything - I'd just like to see you back up your claim that this was the case. They signed the Declaration of Independence as the "United States of America" and pledged everything they had to each other. What other documents did they sign, issue, or whatever that showed they were ever completely independent of the United States?

Treaty of Paris: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."
 
Are you John Remington Graham? Because if you are not, you are certainly arguing from the thesis he lays out in his books.. As one Texas-based historian described him, "John Remington Graham is little more than a neo-Confederate apologist" - who by the way hasn't even lived in the US for at least the past 15 years.
Nope. Never heard of the guy.
 
Not jihadist. White supremacist. More than a few militias and secessionists are white supremacists. And the platform of the Texas Nationalist Movement specifically calls for execution or expulsion of any "Democrats, progressives, liberals, and RINOs." Which means the progressive city of Austin would be purged of most of its people too.

Losing its capital as well as a third of its territory and populaton couldn't help but lead to chaos and an economy in the dumpster. If you doubt that, just look at how prosperous Lebanon was before its civil war.

yeah, so you said in your paper... still not buying it an an accurate depiction of what happened in Texas, or what will happen in Texas.
 
Back
Top Bottom