• 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
Lokiate said:
They never stopped being a part of the US.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean anything and I was looking for something with a bit more thought behind it.
 
Henrin said:
1. Leaving the union was NOT illegal.

2. Lincoln was to respect that the fort was not his and the actions by the south were not illegal.

3. He was to therefore leave the fort when ordered to do so.

4. It is a fact that Lincoln needed to make the south look like the aggressor and there is no better way to do it than what he did.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The land that Fort Sumter was on was ceded to the US government in 1836 by the South Carolina legislature....

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.
Click to expand...

Fort Sumter belonged to the Federal Government.
 
rocket88 said:
The Dred Scott decision is not part of the Constitution. If it protected slavery with that decision, then it invalidated secession in Texas v. White. That court decision is just as valid, and just as much "part of the Constitution." You can't have it both ways. You can't cherry pick the SC decisions you like and disregard the others.

I assume you mean this snippet of the Constitution:



Does that say that black people are property? Does it say that slavery shall never be made illegal?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court makes its decisions basesd on the Constitution. Slavery was protected due to their decisions.

Yes, it was just a Constitutional 'snippet'. Article 4 section 2.

Slavery was protected under the Constitution.

So, why should the South secede to preserve slavery if slavery was protected.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
No, the South were the aggressors: first by refusing to ratify the Constitution unless it included a protection for slavery but with the understanding that slavery would end in 20 years, second continuing slavery long after it was to end and expanding it to the new states, third by using slavery to undermine the wages of the labor in the North creating an unfair economic advantage, fourth by trying to break up the union with succession and fifth by attacking Fort Sumter.
Click to expand...

That you don't like the Constitution is understandable.

The ending of slavery your talking about was the end of bringing anymore slaves over. The slaves that were here continued to be slaves. And that was protected under the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Moot said:
Wrong. The land that Fort Sumter was on was ceded to the US government in 1836 by the South Carolina legislature....



Fort Sumter belonged to the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Read the second paragraph. " Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal, issued under the authority of the State...shall and may be served and executed upon the same...."

South Carlolina said leave. That was to be executed. It wasn't.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Read the second paragraph. " Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal, issued under the authority of the State...shall and may be served and executed upon the same...."

South Carlolina said leave. That was to be executed. It wasn't.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
LOL It says nothing of the kind. The part you quoted simply gives S. Carolina the authority to "service of process" (serve summons) for civil and criminal cases issued by the state courts or officers thereof. That means the state has the right to go on federal land to supeona witnesses or criminals that might be residing or hiding there. I don't how you derived at that nonsense about "leaving" when S. Carolina desperately wanted the federal government to build Fort Sumter there for it's own protection and the economic boost it would get from a military installation nearby.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Service of process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
The Supreme Court makes its decisions basesd on the Constitution. Slavery was protected due to their decisions.

Yes, it was just a Constitutional 'snippet'. Article 4 section 2.

Slavery was protected under the Constitution.

So, why should the South secede to preserve slavery if slavery was protected.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Slavery was only protected for 20 years after the signing of the constitution and after that it was to be banned....

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

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.
Click to expand...

That was the agreement that the South broke when it not only continued slavery after 1808 but increased it.
 
Henrin said:
So basically it was act of war to take back what you own. D:

Ok?
Click to expand...

Ft. Sumter was the property of the United States government. We've been over this before. "We want it" is not a valid property claim. How does this escape libertarians who are usually all about property rights?
 
Moot said:
Slavery was only protected for 20 years after the signing of the constitution and after that it was to be banned....



That was the agreement that the South broke when it not only continued slavery after 1808 but increased it.
Click to expand...

No, it was agreed that the foreign slave trade wouldn't be touched for 20 years, and the foreign slave trade was banned. The domestic slave trade and slavery were both completely legal.
 
Quantrill said:
Read the second paragraph. " Provided, that all processes, civil and criminal, issued under the authority of the State...shall and may be served and executed upon the same...."

South Carlolina said leave. That was to be executed. It wasn't.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

By this logic, all Cuba has to do is tell the US to leave Guantanamo Bay. We know it's far more complicated.

By what legal process were they confiscating the property? Was that even legal?
 
Quantrill said:
The Supreme Court makes its decisions basesd on the Constitution. Slavery was protected due to their decisions.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court also decided in Texas v. White that the secession of the South in 1860-1 was unconstitutional. They made that decision based on their decision. You're picking where you like the SC and where you dislike the SC.

In Dred Scott, what they decided was property rights. You had the right to take your "property" (in this case another human being) wherever you choose. Interestingly, from a states rights point of view, they invalidated any state making slavery illegal.

Yes, it was just a Constitutional 'snippet'. Article 4 section 2.

Slavery was protected under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It doesn't protect the institution of slavery from being banned. It merely protected, again, "property" rights. (FYI, in any case I will always put the word property in quotes when referring to a human being.). It also protected you if your indentured servant flew the coop.

It did not say that abolition of slavery wasn't a possibility.

So, why should the South secede to preserve slavery if slavery was protected.
Click to expand...

If I had a time machine, I'd go back and find out. I'd take a copy of Jeff Davis' memoirs and I'd ask Stephens if the war wasn't about slavery, why was that the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy? Alas, I cannot do that.

Preserving their labor system, which was based on slave labor, was a big part of why the Southern states seceded. It's a perfectly understandable action. Just not legal.
 
Lokiate said:
It was just regular people doing stupid regular people things. There's a lot of weirdness in Lexington, and I presume it's due to Missouri being a bastard state that can't decide if it's union, or confederate.
Click to expand...
We know we're "Union", I have no idea what others think of us nor do I particularly care. Like any population there will be some who long for "the good old days", which are, of course, mythical.


Ed:
Well, I suppose there are a few down south (what we often call "Hillbillies") who would probably go for it. Ever hear of the "State" of Ozarkia? It's been proposed, too. It would be more correct to group Hillbillies with the Libertarians, though.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
It specifies that the former colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states does it not?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the meaning of "states" in that usage is "13 separate entities", no. If that's the only thing you have on which to hang your hat then I'd say you're on shaky ground. Would a concession by the King of England override the pledge made by the states to each other on 4 July, 1776?
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
It specifies that the former colonies were free, sovereign, and independent states does it not?
Click to expand...

You could read it like that, sure. I'm sure that it made it easier for the British to swallow if they did it like that -- they couldn't quite bring themselves to recognize the United States.

At any rate, the Treaty of Paris, and what may or may not have been more palatable to King George does not carry the same force as the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union at that point.
 
MoSurveyor said:
We know we're "Union", I have no idea what others think of us nor do I particularly care. Like any population there will be some who long for "the good old days", which are, of course, mythical.


Ed:
Well, I suppose there are a few down south (what we often call "Hillbillies") who would probably go for it. Ever hear of the "State" of Ozarkia? It's been proposed, too. It would be more correct to group Hillbillies with the Libertarians, though.
Click to expand...
Point being that secessionists aren't just some Texas thing, as was suggested by some other guy. Other point is, most of us don't much care for the secessionists here, either.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm not sure the meaning of "states" in that usage is "13 separate entities", no. If that's the only thing you have on which to hang your hat then I'd say you're on shaky ground. Would a concession by the King of England override the pledge made by the states to each other on 4 July, 1776?
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
You could read it like that, sure. I'm sure that it made it easier for the British to swallow if they did it like that -- they couldn't quite bring themselves to recognize the United States.

At any rate, the Treaty of Paris, and what may or may not have been more palatable to King George does not carry the same force as the Constitution, or the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union at that point.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
 
Centinel said:
Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
Click to expand...

They willing entered into the Articles of Confederation, though sometimes made statements to that effect. I can't help but look at what they consented to, even in the Articles that abridged their sovereignty significantly. They didn't control their own military forces, didn't make their own money, and didn't handle their own foreign affairs. Are there any cases where they sent an ambassador to a neighboring state? Because an exchange of ambassadors and establishment of consulates is something that 2 independent states do when they recognize each other, so that would be a good clue as to their intentions.

Define who thinks or considers on behalf of them. I'm sure that much like things are today, you could have found plenty of people on both sides of the issue.
 
Moot said:
LOL It says nothing of the kind. The part you quoted simply gives S. Carolina the authority to "service of process" (serve summons) for civil and criminal cases issued by the state courts or officers thereof. That means the state has the right to go on federal land to supeona witnesses or criminals that might be residing or hiding there. I don't how you derived at that nonsense about "leaving" when S. Carolina desperately wanted the federal government to build Fort Sumter there for it's own protection and the economic boost it would get from a military installation nearby.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Service of process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.

Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.

Quantrill
 
Centinel said:
Interesting. So you guys think that after the revolution the former colonies didn't consider themselves to be free, sovereign, and independent states?
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
They willing entered into the Articles of Confederation, though sometimes made statements to that effect. I can't help but look at what they consented to, even in the Articles that abridged their sovereignty significantly. They didn't control their own military forces, didn't make their own money, and didn't handle their own foreign affairs. Are there any cases where they sent an ambassador to a neighboring state? Because an exchange of ambassadors and establishment of consulates is something that 2 independent states do when they recognize each other, so that would be a good clue as to their intentions.

Define who thinks or considers on behalf of them. I'm sure that much like things are today, you could have found plenty of people on both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...


Then there is the ever so insignificant matter that those "free, independent and sovereign states" found that the Articles of Confederation weren't working too well, so some guys of little consequence got together and created another agreement, some document called the Constitution of the United States.
 
Moot said:
Slavery was only protected for 20 years after the signing of the constitution and after that it was to be banned....



That was the agreement that the South broke when it not only continued slavery after 1808 but increased it.
Click to expand...

"importation" Big word. Slavery was legal and protectected by the Constitution. You just could no longer import slaves.

Quantrill
 
Moot said:
LOL It says nothing of the kind. The part you quoted simply gives S. Carolina the authority to "service of process" (serve summons) for civil and criminal cases issued by the state courts or officers thereof. That means the state has the right to go on federal land to supeona witnesses or criminals that might be residing or hiding there. I don't how you derived at that nonsense about "leaving" when S. Carolina desperately wanted the federal government to build Fort Sumter there for it's own protection and the economic boost it would get from a military installation nearby.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Service of process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Quantrill said:
The Fed Govt was illegally occupying Ft. Sumter. "provided" It means you have to go.

Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use.

Quantrill
Click to expand...


I like this bit from the neo-Confederate "Oh yeah, a lot of protection it was. It wasn't even in use." Using the same logic, the United States doesn't need all of the nukes sitting at air bases and aboard submarines around the world - they're "not in use"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom