• 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
You make it sound so simple. I wonder why that point was lost on the US Supreme Court when they decided the issue?

It is always rather curious how the LewRockwell.com crowd sees things so crystal clear but yet the Supreme Court managed a far different conclusion.

Chief Justice Chase in the White decision



Yeah.... I know..... if only Lewrockwell.com had been around. Then they would have been schooled differently. :roll:;)

The point was lost because the North preferred war to settle the secession issue.

Quantrill
 
I reject what you and others say based on history. Higher law, is history. Constitution is history. Slavery is history.



Quantrill

The White Decision is history. It was based on history. It was based on the Constitution. Deal with it. or not. It really does not matter what you think about it.
 
The point was lost because the North preferred war to settle the secession issue.

Quantrill

The war was long settled before the White decision. The South got its ass handed to them on a platter and they paid a very high price for their treason and attempt to destroy the USA.

Sadly, too many innocents died in extracting that price.
 
Last edited:
The White Decision is history. It was based on history. It was based on the Constitution. Deal with it. or not. It really does not matter what you think about it.

No, it was not based on the Constitution and only an ignorant fool would say it was. The words "to form a more perfect Union." has no power behind them and no amount of saying they do will change that. They have no power behind them period.

And like I said three times now the AOC was not standing and would not fall under any clause in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
No, it was not based on the Constitution and only an ignorant fool would say it was. The words "to form a more perfect Union." has no power behind them and no amount of saying they do will change that. They have no power behind them period.

And like I said three times now the AOC was not standing and would not fall under any clause in the constitution.

How could it possibly be constitutional? There is no prohibition against any state leaving, therefore they may, per the 10th amendment.
 
No, it was not based on the Constitution and only an ignorant fool would say it was. The words "to form a more perfect Union." has no power behind them and no amount of saying they do will change that. They have no power behind them period.

And like I said three times now the AOC was not standing and would not fall under any clause in the constitution.

Lets see here. I can take the word of some libertarian internet poster....... or I can take the word of the United States Supreme Court.

Thinking.

Thinking.

Thinking.


It was close...... but ...... after careful consideration........ I just have to go with the United States Supreme Court.
 
God, are people who believe that Texas can secede from the Union eating massive numbers of bowls of Moron Flakes for breakfast everyday?

You don't know the half of it.

Imagine the kind of person who thinks Dukes of Hazzard is something to base your ideology on, and then dumb it down to the tenth power.
 
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

Apparently you don't know the history of the butcher you took your name from.

Apparently you don't know about Andersonville, where prisoners were executed by Commandatn Wirz at random, for which he was executed as a war criminal.

You keep on going on about the constitution while showing your ignorance of things as basic as amendments.

Fact is the CSA didnt give a damn about law, just about power.

The CSA had thousands of political prisoners.

They carried out mass executions of dissidents.

The CSA censored the news and executed those who wrote or passed out banned writings.

And finally, the CSA was no democracy. It banned political parties. usually only one candidate ran, just like the old Soviet Union.

It was pure tyranny run by an elite.
 
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

You call yourself someone with ears, or who can read?

You must have failed every history class since the sixth grade to never have heard of the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, or any of the many crises where the slave owning elites were terrified that the const would be amended once they no longer had an equal number of slave and free states.
 
The White Decision is history. It was based on history. It was based on the Constitution. Deal with it. or not. It really does not matter what you think about it.

Texas vs White was in 1869. Four years after the War. It played no role in 1860. It was not based on the Constitution. It was based on the victory in war.

Quantrill
 
Lets see here. I can take the word of some libertarian internet poster....... or I can take the word of the United States Supreme Court.

Thinking.

Thinking.

Thinking.


It was close...... but ...... after careful consideration........ I just have to go with the United States Supreme Court.


Sigh..

Show me evidence the words "to form a more perfect Union." is words with power behind them.

Show me that the AOC is standing.

You can do neither.
 
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.

Quantrill

Literally ever last sentence out of your mouth is a lie.

John Brown was stopped by the US military.
He was hanged.
His plot was uncovered in literally hours,and stopped within a few days.
And Brown's six abolitionists who funded him didn't know he planned an uprising. He told them in advance funding had to be given "no questions asked." That's why the six were never charged.

Even if they had known, so what? No one should mourn the death of slave owners any more than that of mass murderers and serial rapists, both of which many slave owners were.

If Brown's plot had gone farther and he'd launched a slave uprising, we'd remember him like Toussaint Loverture and Denmark Vesey and Vicente Guererro.
And I'll bet you don't know a single one of those.
 
The war was long settled before the White decision. The South got its ass handed to them on a platter and they paid a very high price for their treason and attempt to destroy the USA.

Sadly, too many innocents died in extracting that price.

Exactly, the war was already over. The Texas vs. White decision was a product of war. Not Constitutin.

Neither you or anyone else has showed the South to be traitor. Instead it is the North who relies on another law than the Constitution, who are found to be traitor.

Quantrill
 
Lets see here. I can take the word of some libertarian internet poster....... or I can take the word of the United States Supreme Court.

Thinking.

Thinking.

Thinking.


It was close...... but ...... after careful consideration........ I just have to go with the United States Supreme Court.

But you reject the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. damnyankee traitors.

Quantrill
 
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."

I actually agree with you only with regards to one place:
Hawaii

There the majority of Native Hawaiians want independence, and unlike Texas they were an actual independent nation prior to US invasion.

Most Texans don't want secession and never have, and that included during the Civil War.
 
Apparently you don't know the history of the butcher you took your name from.

Apparently you don't know about Andersonville, where prisoners were executed by Commandatn Wirz at random, for which he was executed as a war criminal.

You keep on going on about the constitution while showing your ignorance of things as basic as amendments.

Fact is the CSA didnt give a damn about law, just about power.

The CSA had thousands of political prisoners.

They carried out mass executions of dissidents.

The CSA censored the news and executed those who wrote or passed out banned writings.

And finally, the CSA was no democracy. It banned political parties. usually only one candidate ran, just like the old Soviet Union.

It was pure tyranny run by an elite.

Oh, you again. Lots of talk but no support to back it up. Your like a wind up toy. Once the jaw stops jacking there is nothing.

Do you have any proff of your allegations?

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
You call yourself someone with ears, or who can read?

You must have failed every history class since the sixth grade to never have heard of the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, or any of the many crises where the slave owning elites were terrified that the const would be amended once they no longer had an equal number of slave and free states.

Yes Ive heard of them. So? The Supreme Court just settled the issue with the Dred Scott decision. If there was to be an ammedment to the constitution it would take years to accomplish. The South had no intersest in seceding to preserve slavery. The South seceded because the North wouldn't abide by the Constitution and treat the South as equals allowing them protection under the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
How does it feel. How does it feel.

Just like the North wanted the South to free its slaves with no compensation.

How does it feel.

Quantrill

So you go from posing as a mass murderer of civilians to posing as a slave owner?

Seemingly you are no longer hiding your naked racism.

So are you moping away now that the illegal and immoral theft of HUMAN BEINGS was not bought off?

Not only should slave owners have not been compensated, they should have faced trial followed by prison, life at hard labor without parole. Eye for an eye...

Just be thankful they are not gangraped the way they did to slaves...
 
Apparently you're too dumb to know who lost at the Alamo...

Yeah, we lost all right. But look at the hurt we put on Santa Anna's army. You don't scare us.

Quantrill
 
But I thought slavery had nothing to do with secession. At least keep your story straight.

By the way, human beings aren't property. If you don't like that, go put on your sheets and burn a cross.

I'm sure that's how he spends his spare time. He's not even bothering to hide it anymore.

Just so everyone's clear, such racism is typical of a large segment, if not the majority, of both Texas secessionists and neo Confederates.
 
That was the point. It didn't matter to the North that they were going to have their way and the south was not. Even though the South's was protected by the Constitution. They would go to war to prove it.

Quantrill

Most of the south was anti slavery and pro union. Deal with it.

40% Black.
Mexicans.
Indians.

But of course your racism can't admit they were human.

Poor whites made up the anti slavery areas. About half of all southern whites were anti slavery.
Oh that's right, you only consider slaveowners to be southerners.
 
Texas vs White was in 1869. Four years after the War. It played no role in 1860. It was not based on the Constitution. It was based on the victory in war.

Quantrill

The war was won four years before. Any suggestion that it caused the decision four years later is purely wild speculation created by you. I provided you with the decisions as written by Chief Justice Chase. It said not a word about victory being the deciding factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom