• 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
Those talking about the Independence of Texas, aka the return of it to an Indepedent Republic should also reveiw the definition of Texas and the compromise of 1850.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...xas.svg/220px-Wpdms_republic_of_texas.svg.png

You can see that the Republic of Texas was much larger than the current day State, any move of Independence would also have to include considerations for all the territories of the previous Republic.
 
Anyone considering the Independence of Texas should also understand what the Republic of Texas was and the territories it covered.

texas.jpg
 
DVSentinel said:
Anyone considering the Independence of Texas should also understand what the Republic of Texas was and the territories it covered.

View attachment 67128378
Click to expand...
Yeah - Texas is that little yellow space on the east end.
The US and Mexico figured out the rest by treaty.
What Texas and Mexico decide to do about the green (?) area that's part of the State of Texas now would be up to them to work out.
 
DVSentinel said:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

These words are just as true today as they were in 1776. The political gulf between Austin and Washington has been growing for decades now.

Washington D.C (aka The Federal Government of the US) has interferred with the States self governance by;:

Stopping Texas from pursuing reforms of the welfare system into a work fare system

Failing to provided adequate and functional border controls

Forcing the State to comply with the racest and sexist policies of the collection of laws know collectively as Affirmative Action

Disallowing Texas to redistrict itself based upon it's own desires and has forced the unpopular redistricting based upon the racest policies of Minority Representation

Directing the State to fund, through it's budgetary processes, items which the State has chosen not to fund

Causing finacial harm and hardships through the actions of the EPA

Taking jobs out of the State based upon the States belief in Right to Work

Funding corporations and supporting market segments in other States that directly compete against existing Companies in Texas that do not receive Federal Tax funding, including segments of the market such as the production of alternative energy, which Texas is the largest creater of

etc, etc

It is very clear that the Federal Government is progressing towards a Political intity that is oppressive to the beliefs and desires of the Poeples of Texas. As there is no treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United States of America surrendering the sovreignty of the Republic of Texas, and that Texas, after accepting the Joint Resolution of Congress of the United States retained it's debt and continued to do business as the Republic of Texas for a time after joining with the United States, then the Republic of Texas has not been truely desolved and that Texas status is that of a Independent but joined sovreign Republic in it's own right and therefore has the inherent right to remove itself from said joining with the United States as it's citizens see fit.
Click to expand...

I love it! If you go - and hopefully it's soon - you have to promise to take Arizona and Oklahoma with you. I'd say Louisiana too, but I kind of like New Orleans.
 
DVSentinel said:
Anyone considering the Independence of Texas should also understand what the Republic of Texas was and the territories it covered.

View attachment 67128378
Click to expand...

I don't care what is said in any declaration of secession, ain't no way Texas get to tak any of Kansas, ,oklahoma, Colorado or New Mexico.


I don't care if the Yankees took youah niggahs or not.
 
haymarket said:
Call it being an American patriot who does not want to see his beloved nation deteriorate before his eyes like a leper losing parts of themselves.
Click to expand...
Not a good analogy. A leper's body parts are his own, thus he can feel a sense of loss when they leave him.

On the other hand, you don't own other people, so should feel no sense of loss when they choose to exercise their right of self government. I get the impression that your bitter lashing out at those who wish to govern themselves is akin to the plantation owner lashing out against "his" people that wished to be free.

You don't own the people of Texas.

Think about what government is and what government does. It is simply a set of agreed upon rules the purpose of which is to ensure an orderly society. Personally, as a Pennsylvanian, I don't really care how the people of Texas manage their affairs. If they want to be part of the federation, fine. If not, fine. It really makes no difference to me, as long as we can all coexist peacefully.

On the other hand, history has shown that there are many people afflicted with the lust for power over others, the pathology that yearns for empire. These sorts of people are a dire threat to the American way of life, and their desire to turn entire cities and states into prison camps must be resisted at every turn, before every aspect of our lives is mandated, managed, and directed from an imperial Capitol a thousand miles away.
 
Wiggen said:
You know you don't actually have to put your murdering namesake's name on every post. The author of each post is identified immediately to the left.
Click to expand...

Habit.

Murdering? I thought you called it total war? Oh I get it. Its total war when the yankee does it. Its murder when the Southernor does it.

How does it feel?

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
It wasn't about slavery, yet every post is about "them damn Yankees taking away ouah niggahs."

Interesting how they didn't feel the need to secede over that.
Click to expand...

Interesting how the yankee brings up niggahs but never the Constitution, that they were flouting. Ummm

Glory glory....Hallelujah.

Oh, and for your information, damnyankee is one word.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Interesting how the yankee brings up niggahs but never the Constitution, that they were flouting. Ummm

Glory glory....Hallelujah.

Oh, and for your information, damnyankee is one word.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

"Even before my fathers father, they called us all Rebels
as they burned down our corn fields and left our cities leveled
I can still feel the eyes of those blue bellied devils.."
Tom Petty, Rebels from album Southern Accents
 
Quantrill said:
Interesting how the yankee brings up niggahs but never the Constitution, that they were flouting. Ummm
Click to expand...

Which part of the Constitution was that? I've been looking for "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to own other people." I'll keep looking though.

Go burn a cross in your sheets.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't care what is said in any declaration of secession, ain't no way Texas get to tak any of Kansas, ,oklahoma, Colorado or New Mexico.


I don't care if the Yankees took youah niggahs or not.
Click to expand...

As if the US would have any choice in the matter, better check your economic facts, Texas can crash the US economy in a few days, The US Government cannot crash the Texas Economy (Lord knows they have been trying hard enough to for the last four years). Texas controls too much of the National oil refining capacity not to mention a very large chunk of electrical power generation. If Texas chooses to leave, the US does not have an economic choice but to accept Texas' terms, within reason, and make immediate treaties to prevent economic destruction.

Texas has the highest capacity for oil refining in the US, California and Louisiana combined to not equal Texas, and they are the next two highest on the list. With refineries operating already at 95% to 98%, the rest of the US has no reserve capability to offset the loss of Texas, result, immediate, severe shortage in the US.

Total energy production, Texas number 1, 11,915 Trillion BTUs, next is Wyoming at 10,337 Trillion BTUs and number 3 is La. at 7,302 Trillion BTUs, number 4 is West Verginia at 3,727 BTUs,http://205.254.135.7/state/state-energy-rankings.cfm?keyid=89&orderid=1, just look at the chart, no way the US survives without Texas or at least willing sales from Texas.

Texas is also number 2 for total agriculture and number one in some areas such as beef production, other than tobacco, it produces all agricultural products. While the loss of Texas in this area would have lesser affect than energy, the US cannot starve out Texas. Not to mention what the loss of fuels and fuel costs would do the rest of the US' agricultural system.

Simply put, the US needs Texas, but Texas does not need the US. And, as someone else suggested, if we take Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana with us, then the rest of the US would come begging us for scraps.
 
from Centinel

Not a good analogy. A leper's body parts are his own, thus he can feel a sense of loss when they leave him.
Click to expand...

That is funny. ;):mrgreen: You score points for wit. But in all seriousness Texas is part of the USA. I, and I expect other Americans, do not want to see America fall apart into little pieces of foreign soil because the separatist whim takes hold temporarily.

On the other hand, you don't own other people, so should feel no sense of loss when they choose to exercise their right of self government.
Click to expand...

If they do not like it here, I support their right to go somewhere else of their own free choice. They can participate in self government there.

I get the impression that your bitter lashing out at those who wish to govern themselves is akin to the plantation owner lashing out against "his" people that wished to be free.

You don't own the people of Texas.
Click to expand...

Now you overreached and failed. You should have stopped with the leper bit. Plantation owners kept people in chains and bondage and prevented them from leaving. No such thing is happening today. There is no Berlin Wall. There are no chains. The people of Texas are not in slavery or bondage and nobody is ordering them to make bricks without straw.

Try again.

I would point out to you that the individual people of Texas do not own Texas either and thus have no right to dispose of it as the temporary whim may hit a number of them.
 
DVSentinel said:
As if the US would have any choice in the matter, better check your economic facts, Texas can crash the US economy in a few days, The US Government cannot crash the Texas Economy (Lord knows they have been trying hard enough to for the last four years). Texas controls too much of the National oil refining capacity not to mention a very large chunk of electrical power generation. If Texas chooses to leave, the US does not have an economic choice but to accept Texas' terms, within reason, and make immediate treaties to prevent economic destruction.

Texas has the highest capacity for oil refining in the US, California and Louisiana combined to not equal Texas, and they are the next two highest on the list. With refineries operating already at 95% to 98%, the rest of the US has no reserve capability to offset the loss of Texas, result, immediate, severe shortage in the US.

Total energy production, Texas number 1, 11,915 Trillion BTUs, next is Wyoming at 10,337 Trillion BTUs and number 3 is La. at 7,302 Trillion BTUs, number 4 is West Verginia at 3,727 BTUs,http://205.254.135.7/state/state-energy-rankings.cfm?keyid=89&orderid=1, just look at the chart, no way the US survives without Texas or at least willing sales from Texas.

Texas is also number 2 for total agriculture and number one in some areas such as beef production, other than tobacco, it produces all agricultural products. While the loss of Texas in this area would have lesser affect than energy, the US cannot starve out Texas. Not to mention what the loss of fuels and fuel costs would do the rest of the US' agricultural system.

Simply put, the US needs Texas, but Texas does not need the US. And, as someone else suggested, if we take Arizona, Oklahoma and Louisiana with us, then the rest of the US would come begging us for scraps.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true TeaBagger ... uh, Tea Partier. It's our way or we're going home!!! *stomps foot*

:lamo
 
Somerville said:
I do wonder why some folks continue to call themselves Americans when they obviously hate the nation.
Click to expand...

Oh were Americans. Just not yankees. Southernors.

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
Which part of the Constitution was that? I've been looking for "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to own other people." I'll keep looking though.

Go burn a cross in your sheets.
Click to expand...

Aritcle 4 section 2. And, the Supreme Court decison concerning Dred Scott.

Quantrill
 
MoSurveyor said:
Spoken like a true TeaBagger ... uh, Tea Partier. It's our way or we're going home!!! *stomps foot*

:lamo
Click to expand...

Correction, we are home. Indicating your the one that needs to leave.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Aritcle 4 section 2. And, the Supreme Court decison concerning Dred Scott.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Neither of which guaranteed the right to own slaves forever. It was completely possible for Congress to pass a law that made it illegal, thus the South seceded because they were afraid that would happen. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to own another human being written in it, neither of these things that you point to did not guarantee a perpetual right to own another person.

Dred Scott was a slave who, years later, sued for his freedom because his owner took him into free territory at one point. The argument was that he became perpetually free, despite his later return to a slave state. Had he sued for his freedom while in free territory, it's possible that he would have had a point. Ironically, for your love of this ruling, the ruling was anti-states rights as it effectively invalidated a state's right to make slavery illegal in it's territory. It did NOT, however, say that slavery could never be made illegal, it upheld the legality at the time.
 
rocket88 said:
Neither of which guaranteed the right to own slaves forever. It was completely possible for Congress to pass a law that made it illegal, thus the South seceded because they were afraid that would happen. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to own another human being written in it, neither of these things that you point to did not guarantee a perpetual right to own another person.

Dred Scott was a slave who, years later, sued for his freedom because his owner took him into free territory at one point. The argument was that he became perpetually free, despite his later return to a slave state. Had he sued for his freedom while in free territory, it's possible that he would have had a point. Ironically, for your love of this ruling, the ruling was anti-states rights as it effectively invalidated a state's right to make slavery illegal in it's territory. It did NOT, however, say that slavery could never be made illegal, it upheld the legality at the time.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed forever is immaterial. Guarnateed in 1861 is. The South seceded because the North reufused to acknowledge slavery's protection under the constitution and allowed people such as Brown to attack and create chaos in the South. The South was not given the protection under the Constituton.

If the North wanted to change the constitution, then they could go through the process. But they were not going through the process. They simply declared the South should not have slaves and encouraged such atrocities as Brown produced.

Ariticle 4 section 2 requied the fugitive slave to be returned to his master. Thereby protecting the right of the slave owners.

The Supreme court determined that the Southern Slave owner could take his property anywhere in the US he wanted. Making void all those stupid compromises that were intended to hurt the Southernor.

Slavery was protected. By the Constitution. Upheld by the Supreme Court. Making the Southernor not the traitor. Making the damnyankee the traitor in flouting the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
from Centinel



Call it being an American patriot who does not want to see his beloved nation deteriorate before his eyes like a leper losing parts of themselves.
Click to expand...

So an American patriot punishes people when they practice their freedoms? Hmm..

Leaving the country when you have money:

We are going to tax your ass and you can never come back!

Leaving the country when you are a state:

You have to pay out of your nose and give me everything!

You are such a patriot. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
Guaranteed forever is immaterial. Guarnateed in 1861 is. The South seceded because the North reufused to acknowledge slavery's protection under the constitution and allowed people such as Brown to attack and create chaos in the South. The South was not given the protection under the Constituton.

If the North wanted to change the constitution, then they could go through the process. But they were not going through the process. They simply declared the South should not have slaves and encouraged such atrocities as Brown produced.

Ariticle 4 section 2 requied the fugitive slave to be returned to his master. Thereby protecting the right of the slave owners.

The Supreme court determined that the Southern Slave owner could take his property anywhere in the US he wanted. Making void all those stupid compromises that were intended to hurt the Southernor.

Slavery was protected. By the Constitution. Upheld by the Supreme Court. Making the Southernor not the traitor. Making the damnyankee the traitor in flouting the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

I know you keep saying the same thing again and again hoping that will make it true, but the "right" to own other people is not Constitutionally guaranteed. It doesn't change that the South seceded to protect a labor system that was based on the enslavement of an entire race of people. In fact, in every post you say that slavery was protected and the North wouldn't let that persist just proves that was the reason.

I'm proud to live in a country that banned this evil practice. If you're not, then get out. Nobody is holding you and the rest of the KKK back.
 
rocket88 said:
I know you keep saying the same thing again and again hoping that will make it true, but the "right" to own other people is not Constitutionally guaranteed. It doesn't change that the South seceded to protect a labor system that was based on the enslavement of an entire race of people. In fact, in every post you say that slavery was protected and the North wouldn't let that persist just proves that was the reason.

I'm proud to live in a country that banned this evil practice. If you're not, then get out. Nobody is holding you and the rest of the KKK back.
Click to expand...

They didn't leave the union because of slavery, but a series of state rights violations that included ending slavery.
 
Henrin said:
So an American patriot punishes people when they practice their freedoms? Hmm..

Leaving the country when you have money:

We are going to tax your ass and you can never come back!

Leaving the country when you are a state:

You have to pay out of your nose and give me everything!

You are such a patriot. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'd say that not wanting to see one's country dissolve into petty warring factions is patriotic.
 
rocket88 said:
I'd say that not wanting to see one's country dissolve into petty warring factions is patriotic.
Click to expand...

If you want people to be happy you take steps to make them happy. You don't abuse them and make them want to leave and then punish them when they think of doing it to make them think otherwise about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom