• 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
JuanBatista said:
Nope, every one of them that volunteered to take up arms vs the lawful govt was a traitor. Many CSA soldiers were draftees, and the CSA army had a desertion rate more than double the US Army.

But the officers and officials of the CSA should have been executed as traitors. The US was far too soft on them, only executing a single CSA officer for war crimes.
Click to expand...

Yep, every Southernor was an American Patriot. It wasn't us who was treating the Constitution as a document from hell.

No CSA officer was guilty of war crimes.

Quantrill
 
JuanBatista said:
Oh yeah, you didn't lose the war. You weren't even alive yet.

And every one of my statements was backed by fact. Yours are delusion. I do this for a living as a history professor, demolish neo Confederate delusions.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any facts yet.

Sure you do. Glad you told me. I suggest finding another job. Or maybe not. Proabably the ones who listen to you don't do their own research.

Quantrill
 
JuanBatista said:
Because the constitution could be amended. Did you never take a govt class in your life? Did you sleep thru every history class that ever talked about why the slave owners always wanted an equal number of slave and free states? To block any const amendments.

And again, the slave owning elite is not the south.

For that matter, not even those elites would anything to do with someone named Quantrill. The man was a butcher who mass murdered civilians, a bandit posing as a soldier.
Click to expand...

The South didn't have any concerns over ammending the Constitution. Because the North would not have the votes.

So, you didn't answer the question. And you call yourself a teacher? Pay attention please. If slavery was protected by the Constitution, then why should the South secede to preserve slavery?

Quantrill
 
JuanBatista said:
Most Texans don't want any such "help." We'd kick the tails of the secessionists if they ever made a serious effort.
Click to expand...

Sure, we seen that picture before. Remember the Alamo.

Quantrill
 
Wiggen said:
Every history written by every reputable historian ever to write about the Civil War.

Hint: When you get your history from websites with the Confederate Flag at the top, it's likely not to be too accurate.
Click to expand...

Ok, well give the reference of the reputible source.

Quantrill
 
Moot said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Centinel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Quantrill said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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/Contract_Clause#cite_note-0
Click to expand...

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:
Moot said:
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?
Click to expand...

Revisionist history
 
Moot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Quantrill said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
falcata said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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."
 
Centinel said:
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."
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could speak to some of the practical issues that you yourself have introduced into the discussion.

For the purposes of discussion, let us say that there would be a mechanism to permit a state to leave the union an be on their own. And let us assume that Texas would be that state.

What happens to the federal land and buildings and workers in Texas?

What happens to the share of the national debt that Texans owe?

What happens to Texans and Social Security and Medicare?

What happens to Texas and border issues - not just with Mexico but with the USA as well?

What happens to citizens of Texas who still want to be part of the USA?

What happens to citizens of the other 49 states who now want to move to Texas and their Social Security and Medicare and share of the debt?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Perhaps you could speak to some of the practical issues that you yourself have introduced into the discussion.

For the purposes of discussion, let us say that there would be a mechanism to permit a state to leave the union an be on their own. And let us assume that Texas would be that state.

What happens to the federal land and buildings and workers in Texas?
Click to expand...

Workers lose their jobs or get picked up by the new government.
Federal land gets returned to the state.
Federal buildings go with it.
Or the land could be bought back.


What happens to the share of the national debt that Texans owe?
Click to expand...

It doesn't get paid by Texans or they make it part of their constitution to respect the debt.

What happens to Texans and Social Security and Medicare?
Click to expand...

They don't get it.

What happens to Texas and border issues - not just with Mexico but with the USA as well?
Click to expand...

They handle it or fail.

What happens to citizens of Texas who still want to be part of the USA?
Click to expand...

They move or stay.

What happens to citizens of the other 49 states who now want to move to Texas and their Social Security and Medicare and share of the debt?
Click to expand...

They can move in or not move in.
 
Henrin said:
Workers lose their jobs or get picked up by the new government.
Federal land gets returned to the state.
Federal buildings go with it.
Or the land could be bought back.




It doesn't get paid by Texans or they make it part of their constitution to respect the debt.



They don't get it.



They handle it or fail.



They move or stay.



They can move in or not move in.
Click to expand...

So you get all the Federal buildings and land, and none of the debt. Brilliant! We should all just secede, then the debt disappears! I'm sure the Chinese will understand.

How about the Nuclear weapons? Do we just created a new nuclear power right next to us? Is Texas still part of NATO? Which treaty obligations entered into by the United States as a whole apply to Texas?

If you were born in Texas and now live in another state, is your citizenship revoked? Does that mean that they can't ever run for President again?
 
rocket88 said:
So you get all the Federal buildings and land, and none of the debt. Brilliant! We should all just secede, then the debt disappears! I'm sure the Chinese will understand.

How about the Nuclear weapons? Do we just created a new nuclear power right next to us? Is Texas still part of NATO? Which treaty obligations entered into by the United States as a whole apply to Texas?

If you were born in Texas and now live in another state, is your citizenship revoked? Does that mean that they can't ever run for President again?
Click to expand...

We should all have the freedom to seced. As to the debt and Chinese, should have thought about that before they make it so that a state wants to secede.

How about em? No, Texas would not be a part of Nato at point of secession. No treaty obligations would apply because we would no longer be part of US.

Get a passport. Get a green card.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would John Brown be a problem? Since the South didn't secede to preserve slavery, John Brown freeing the slaves should be fine. After all, there's no need to preserve slavery...

By the way, until he started committing crimes, it would have been wrong to imprison him, don't you think?

Though slavery was protected by the Constitution, the North constantly tried to undermine the Souths right to slavery. A right protected by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You still have yet to show where the "right to own other human beings" is enshrined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say that slavery could never be made illegal.

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."
Click to expand...

Jefferson Davis? :lamo The man whose memoirs said that slavery had nothing to do with the Confederacy. Even though Stephens declared it the "Cornerstone" upon which the nation was built. If you're looking for revisionist history, look no further. Didn't even take long.

[/QUOTE]
 
rocket88 said:
So you get all the Federal buildings and land, and none of the debt. Brilliant! We should all just secede, then the debt disappears! I'm sure the Chinese will understand.
Click to expand...

If a state is leaving the union they have no obligation to respect the debt of the country they are leaving. China can suck it.

If a country is leaving and their federal land on their property and it either be bought or given to the state. I made no mistake.

How about the Nuclear weapons? Do we just created a new nuclear power right next to us? Is Texas still part of NATO? Which treaty obligations entered into by the United States as a whole apply to Texas?
Click to expand...

Texas is not part of NATO if they leave the union unless they decide to then join Nato as their own country. No treaty obligations would apply to Texas made by the United States if they left the union.

Nuclear weapons would most likely be returned to the federal government.

If you were born in Texas and now live in another state, is your citizenship revoked? Does that mean that they can't ever run for President again?
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. They are citizens of the United States and if they live in another state they naturally would not lose it.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Perhaps you could speak to some of the practical issues that you yourself have introduced into the discussion.

For the purposes of discussion, let us say that there would be a mechanism to permit a state to leave the union an be on their own. And let us assume that Texas would be that state.

What happens to the federal land and buildings and workers in Texas?
Click to expand...

A couple of options: They could remain federal property indefinitely. Or they could remain federal property for a specific period of time, after which they would revert to being owned by texas. They could immediately be made texas property (not a very friendly option, in my opinion). Or they could be purchased. Leaving them as property of the US might be a good option, as they would then provide a good source of tax revenue for texas.

What happens to the share of the national debt that Texans owe?
Click to expand...
If I were them, I would do something like this. Since they are appx. 7% of the US population, they owe about 7% of the national debt. They should take on roughly 7% of this debt, relieving the US gov't of paying this amount. Essentially, 7% of the debt would transfer as an obligation to Texas.

What happens to Texans and Social Security and Medicare?
Click to expand...

Those Texans who renounced their US citizenship and become citizens of Texas would no longer be entitled to these benefits. Those who chose to remain US citizens and reside in Texas as visitors would still be entitled to their benefits.

What happens to Texas and border issues - not just with Mexico but with the USA as well?
Click to expand...

The border between Mexico, US, and Texas would be an international border, like the current border between the US and Canada and the US and Mexico.

What happens to citizens of Texas who still want to be part of the USA?
Click to expand...

They could remain in Texas as visiting US citizens, or they could emigrate to the US.

What happens to citizens of the other 49 states who now want to move to Texas and their Social Security and Medicare and share of the debt?
Click to expand...

I suppose it would be the same as a US citizen moving to any other foreign nation. They could either live in that foreign nation as a visitor, remaining a citizen of the US, or they could become a citizen of that foreign nation and renounce their US citizenship. After that, the would not longer be entitled to the benefits of being a US citizen, such as social security and medicare.
 
Henrin said:
Workers lose their jobs or get picked up by the new government.
Federal land gets returned to the state.
Federal buildings go with it.
Or the land could be bought back.




It doesn't get paid by Texans or they make it part of their constitution to respect the debt.



They don't get it.



They handle it or fail.



They move or stay.



They can move in or not move in.
Click to expand...

You are advocating outright theft from the American people.
 
Quantrill said:
We should all have the freedom to seced. As to the debt and Chinese, should have thought about that before they make it so that a state wants to secede.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but you can't undo that doodle.
 
rocket88 said:
Why would John Brown be a problem? Since the South didn't secede to preserve slavery, John Brown freeing the slaves should be fine. After all, there's no need to preserve slavery...

By the way, until he started committing crimes, it would have been wrong to imprison him, don't you think?



You still have yet to show where the "right to own other human beings" is enshrined in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say that slavery could never be made illegal.



Jefferson Davis? :lamo The man whose memoirs said that slavery had nothing to do with the Confederacy. Even though Stephens declared it the "Cornerstone" upon which the nation was built. If you're looking for revisionist history, look no further. Didn't even take long.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

John Brown was a problem because he was supported by Northern money men who were in turn supported by the US govt. He is a classic example of the North refusing to allow the South the right to their slavery as protected by the Constitution. If slavery is threatned, then those threatning it are the lawbreakers. The North, and John Brown, and his secret six. So, no need to secede to protect slavery. There is a need to secede to protect yourself from the violaters of the Constitution who don't treat you as one protected under the Constitution.

John Brown was already a murderer. Should have been hanged already. Allowed to roam the north and get support for his Harpers ferry raid instead. No big deal, it is just the Southernors that are being attacked.

Its called 'source material'. Just because you don't like Jeff Davis doesn't mean he isn't correct in his statements. And who would know more about why the South sececded than Jeff Davis? Let me guess, the yankees. Oh yeah. The yankee always thinks he knows why the Southernor does anything. Just ask em.

Quantrill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom