• 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
Henrin said:
What efforts exactly has anyone taken to show writing of the founders that say secession is illegal in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You really haven't been following this thread have you?

That's been beaten to death, case law showing it again and again.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Slavery is an apt description of a taxpayer that has their weekly wages garnished for the express purpose of supporting the life of another citzen, simply because that other citizen has chosen not to support themself or their family by working.
Click to expand...

That's ignorant. Most people on welfare work, or are children.

That's doubly ignorant when you compare paying the lowest tax rates in two generations to slavery. And most actual welfare is corporate welfare.
 
JuanBatista said:
You really haven't been following this thread have you?

That's been beaten to death, case law showing it again and again.
Click to expand...

Sorry? Since when does case law say what the founders said on the topic?

Do you realize I'm looking for quotes? Apparently not.
 
Last edited:
JuanBatista said:
That's ignorant. Most people on welfare work, or are children.

That's doubly ignorant when you compare paying the lowest tax rates in two generations to slavery. And most actual welfare is corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

I love how you think any of that changes anything.
 
Centinel said:
...and queue the hand waving.

It's right there in black and white. Do you see anything in the constitution that places a restriction on any state leaving the union?

Nope, didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Apparently you didn't bother to read most of the thread.

Or the rest of the Constitution...

Here's a hint: Have you read the parts where it talks about admission of states, the only relevant parts to the question?

Didn't think so...most Libertarians conveniently ignore them. And secessionists breath fire if you mention them.
 
Quantrill said:
Oh, the good guys are those who destroyed the Constitution? Rule by another, higher law? Are traitors? Oh yeah, I recognize em all right.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

The good guys sure as hell aren't ones who buy and sell people to force them to work for nothing and rape their daughters.

They sure aren't the traitors who forced the loyal majority of southerners into secession at the point of a gun or death threats.

And the constitution sure as hell is not holy writ. It's a fallible document.
 
JuanBatista said:
Apparently you didn't bother to read most of the thread.

Or the rest of the Constitution...

Here's a hint: Have you read the parts where it talks about admission of states, the only relevant parts to the question?

Didn't think so...most Libertarians conveniently ignore them. And secessionists breath fire if you mention them.
Click to expand...

What?

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm so scared of that. :roll:
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The Alamo was a battle, it is who won the rematch (the war) that changed Texas history forever.
Click to expand...

The so called rematch mattered little. What ultimately counted was the US invasion nine years later taking over the state for the US as a slave state, which was the intent of the insurgents all along.

The only thing important about the Alamo is how it was used to justify race war and ethnic cleansing.

It's a potent propaganda symbol. Just like Little Big Horn, it's used to glorify incompetent commanders and pretend the invaders were "defenders" in a racialized last stand.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
What?



Yeah, I'm so scared of that.
Click to expand...

Just like I thought, yet another Libertarian defending secession completely ignorant of the part of the const that actually bars secession:


"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..."

That's pretty absolute. Congress can bar secession at will. States have no power to say no.

That, and the supremacy clause, both bar secession.
 
I'm sure that this thread has gone off the rails since I read it last, but there was something I wanted to point out that I'm not sure has been brought up.

Everyone has been talking as if the entire state of Texas wishes to secede. But there may be groups of people within Texas that don't want to secede.

Such as what happened to Virginia when it's state legislature seceded, but the counties west of the Appalachian Mountains were pro-Union, and so seceded from Virginia to form West Virginia.

So what we're supposing here is that the entirety of what is now Texas would be able to secede somehow. But there may be contiguous counties that would prefer to stay within the U.S.

And if they broke off from Texas to form their own state, that would greatly diminish the Lone Star Republic.

I don't know much about the demographics of Texas to contemplate which areas would be carved out of it though.
 
JuanBatista said:
Just like I thought, yet another Libertarian defending secession completely ignorant of the part of the const that actually bars secession:


"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States..."
Click to expand...

That is your defense? That? Tell me where is your evidence that follows? Please give me a founder that agreed with what you just said.

And the last bit about the supremacy clause is just all out stupid.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is your defense? That? Tell me where is your evidence that follows? Please give me a founder that agreed with what you just said.
Click to expand...

He just gave you 39 of them who signed that statement.
 
Quantrill said:
Nice speech. Doesn't add anything to whats been said.

Proves you have nothing to call the South traitor over. And that it was the North that was traitor.

So, lets sing, Glory, glory...hallelujah!

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Ah, so the existing government was the traitor because it didn't accept having its bases destroyed by a few states who still wanted to have cheap African labor.
 
Quantrill said:
But you reject the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. damnyankee traitors.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, the Dred Scott ruling was correct, as slaves were considered property and not people. The objection to the decision is on moral grounds.
 
JuanBatista said:
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.
Click to expand...

Texas was never invaded; they were voluntarily annexed. The Lone Star Republic existed until the U.S. incorporated them.
 
MadLib said:
Ah, so the existing government was the traitor because it didn't accept having its bases destroyed by a few states who still wanted to have cheap African labor.
Click to expand...

The North was the traitor because they refused to abide by the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
MadLib said:
Constitutionally, the Dred Scott ruling was correct, as slaves were considered property and not people. The objection to the decision is on moral grounds.
Click to expand...

Moral grounds don't make a patriot or traitor.

Quantrill
 
MadLib said:
Texas was never invaded; they were voluntarily annexed. The Lone Star Republic existed until the U.S. incorporated them.
Click to expand...

Well, actually the first time they tried to separate from Mexico, the Mexicans living there asked for help. Anglos from Kentucky came to try to help them, but they failed. Anglo settlers later succeeded, but that was really just an excuse to become part of the United States.
 
Henrin said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

He gave you the language of the US Constitution. It was signed by 39 of our Founding Fathers.

I am rather surprised you did not know that.
 
haymarket said:
He gave you the language of the US Constitution. It was signed by 39 of our Founding Fathers.

I am rather surprised you did not know that.
Click to expand...


:yawn: And here I was thinking you had something to say.
 
Quantrill said:
The North was the traitor because they refused to abide by the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
You can repeat that myth all you want but it ain't gonna change the facts.
 
Moot said:
You can repeat that myth all you want but it ain't gonna change the facts.
Click to expand...

How is it a myth? The North flouted the Constitution.

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