• 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
They didn't leave the union because of slavery, but a series of state rights violations that included ending slavery.

The Dred Scott decision was a slap in the face of states rights. It basically threw out a state's right to say that they wouldn't allow slavery. No Southern apologist or states rights advocate wants to talk about it.

It wasn't about slavery is the lie that started with Jefferson Davis, because he didn't want to look like the bad guy, and it continues with people who don't want to seem like a racist when they defend the Confederacy. But, it was, according to th VP of the CSA, the "cornerstone."
 
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.

Slavery was contitutionally protected. Article 4 sec.2. Nothing you say will change it.

The Southe seceded because the North did not acknowledge the South as equals under the Constitution.

That the North didn't like it, is immaterial. It was protected. The South was not the traitor. The North was. Until they of course could rewrite the Constitution.

I don't need to get out. You do. I just need to reside in the South and you need to leave. There's a thought. Yankee go home.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Glory, glory, halleleujah.

Quantrill
 
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.

Of course not, we should allow people to own other people if it makes them happy.
 
Slavery was contitutionally protected. Article 4 sec.2. Nothing you say will change it.

The Southe seceded because the North did not acknowledge the South as equals under the Constitution.

That the North didn't like it, is immaterial. It was protected. The South was not the traitor. The North was. Until they of course could rewrite the Constitution.

I don't need to get out. You do. I just need to reside in the South and you need to leave. There's a thought. Yankee go home.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Glory, glory, halleleujah.

Quantrill

I live in a country that ended the barbaric practice of keeping other people as property. I'm proud of that.

If you're not, you leave.

Keep convincing yourself that your lie about "slavery being Constitutionally protected" is the truth, and keep going around saying that it wasn't about slavery. Strangely, every argument you make is that "The Noath wouldn't let me own niggahs anymoah." But it wasn't about slavery.
 
Last edited:
The Dred Scott decision was a slap in the face of states rights. It basically threw out a state's right to say that they wouldn't allow slavery. No Southern apologist or states rights advocate wants to talk about it.

It wasn't about slavery is the lie that started with Jefferson Davis, because he didn't want to look like the bad guy, and it continues with people who don't want to seem like a racist when they defend the Confederacy. But, it was, according to th VP of the CSA, the "cornerstone."

Slavery was protected by the Constitution. If a state wanted to declare that it did not want slavery in its state, by the popular vote, then it could. But slavery was still protected in that those states that had it were to be allowed to have it. And a slave ower was to be allowed to go anywhere he wanted with his property.

Article 4 sec. 2. Dred Scott decision by the Supreme court. It was about being treated as unequals according to the constitution.

Quantrill
 
I live in a country that ended the barbaric practice of keeping other people as property. I'm proud of that.

If you're not, you leave.

Because your so good. Because you come under a greater law than the Constitution, right? You and your damnyankees's don't need to abide by the Constitution. Right? Until you rewrite it. Right?

Im in the South. I don't need to leave. You do. Glory, glory,....halleleujah!

Quantrill
 
Slavery was protected by the Constitution. If a state wanted to declare that it did not want slavery in its state, by the popular vote, then it could.

Really? Are you aware of what the Dred Scott decision said?
 
Because your so good. Because you come under a greater law than the Constitution, right? You and your damnyankees's don't need to abide by the Constitution. Right? Until you rewrite it. Right?

Well, I am better at speaking the English language. There's a difference between "you're" and "your."

There is a greater law than the Constitution. God's law. Which states that it's wrong to own other people as property.

kkk.jpg
 
Really? Are you aware of what the Dred Scott decision said?

Yes I am. Do you disagree with it? Do you think the North should abide by the Supreme Court decision and the Constitution? Umm?

Quantrill
 
The Dred Scott decision was a slap in the face of states rights. It basically threw out a state's right to say that they wouldn't allow slavery. No Southern apologist or states rights advocate wants to talk about it.

Which was a violation. Great job following along.

It wasn't about slavery is the lie that started with Jefferson Davis, because he didn't want to look like the bad guy, and it continues with people who don't want to seem like a racist when they defend the Confederacy. But, it was, according to th VP of the CSA, the "cornerstone."

It was the last violation and the most blatant. It was on their minds at the time and what they were still enraged about the most. Shocking they focused on it.
 
Well, I am better at speaking the English language. There's a difference between "you're" and "your."

There is a greater law than the Constitution. God's law. Which states that it's wrong to own other people as property.

View attachment 67128406

OK. So you and the other damnyankee's don't need to obey the Constitution. You come under a higher law. And who determines that higher law?

In other words, you admit the South was not traitor to the Constitution. The damnyankee was because he comes under a higher law.

Your and you're is a common mistake of mine.

Quantrill
 
Your brave defense of people's right to secede to protect slavery.

Nope

1. I'm defending the right for states to leave the union on demand.
2. I'm defending states rights as they are put out by the constitution that can only be put aside with an amendment.
3. I agree with ending slavery but I disagree with how it was done.
 
Oh, that picture determines what the higher law says. I don't see that proving anything. Who tells you what the 'higher law' says?

Quantrill

I posted a picture of the man. It determines who says what the higher law is.
 
I posted a picture of the man. It determines who says what the higher law is.

And what did 'it' say? What makes it above the Constitution? And who determines what 'it'says?

That's something aint it. The damnyankee sees himself above the constitution, until he changes it.

Glory, glory....hallelujah!

Quantrill
 
And what did 'it' say? What makes it above the Constitution? And who determines what 'it'says?

That's something aint it. The damnyankee sees himself above the constitution, until he changes it.

Glory, glory....hallelujah!

Quantrill

So Jesus isn't above the Constitution? Good to know. I guess I should be worshipping Jefferson Davis instead.
 
Correction, we are home. Indicating your the one that needs to leave.
Must not be me because I couldn't stand the smell of cattle and refineries. Each one is bad enough, together I'd just puke.


There you go, you can sell chemical weapons in your off time. LOL!
 
Last edited:
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 [...]
:lamo :lamo :lamo


That's priceless coming from a Libertarian.


It would be priceless coming from a 'common' conservative.
 
Last edited:
:lamo :lamo :lamo


That's priceless coming from a Libertarian.


It would be priceless coming from a 'common' conservative.

Because libertarians abuse people all the time. :lamo
 
So Jesus isn't above the Constitution? Good to know. I guess I should be worshipping Jefferson Davis instead.

And this is what the South was dealing with. A Northern attitude that saw itself above the Constitution. That saw itself as above the South. That would not allow the South the protections it should have under the Constitution. Becasue the North was above the Constitution.

Yet its the South that are the 'traitors'. Its the South that are called 'rebels'. Its the South that are the evil bad people. Because they refused to live under a Union where they were not treated as equal and where the Constitution was not respected and they could expect no fair treatment.

Quantrill
 
Back
Top Bottom