• 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
Where in the constitution does it give any state the right to form a new compact with other states to form a new central government that could wage war on the other states still in the union? No where that I can see. But what I can see were a handful of radicals commiting treason by trying to bust up the union and throwing a tantrum because they couldn't get their own way.

Do you understand anything about legal contracts? Anything at all? The Southern states signed a legal contract with 36 other states and in those days a man's honor was as good as word. The contract did not give one state the right to break the agreement with all the other states without their consent or a majority vote. The South's renegging on it's contract with the other states showed that the South had no honor and couldn't be trusted to keep it's word.

Those handful of radicals would have gotten nowhere without the support of just about the entire population. The war dragged on because there were irreconcilable differences. No contract will ever withstand one side believing its way of life is being threatened. While I don't much care about the secession itself, and wouldn't mind at all if Texas ever did, in my view the South had no honor because they used slaves. That applies as much to the 1700s too, long before secession.
 
The constitution cannot be flexible else it wouldn't be a constitution. It can be ammeded however.

Quantrill

Your statement here is contortion. The Constitution is flexible via your admission by amendment.
 
Secession was legal as has been explained. Once a state secedes it no longer answers to the former union period. And, the seceding states did not secede to wage war. They seceded to seek peace and prosperity out of the union where they were treated as unequals. The North then waged war to bring them back.

The radicals were in the North, and in the white house.

No, the Southern States ratified the constitution delegating certain powers over to the Central govt. Delegated, in that they were not surrendered. They could be taken back.

The North renigged as it flouted the constitution and looked to a higher law to attack the souths slavery which was protected by the constitution.

Quantrill
 
Your statement here is contortion. The Constitution is flexible via your admission by amendment.

Not hardly. The Constitution is not flexible. As it exists it is to be adhered to. It can be ammeded. That doesn't make it flexible. Once an ammendment is made, it must be adhered to.

Quantrill
 
Not hardly. The Constitution is not flexible. As it exists it is to be adhered to. It can be ammeded. That doesn't make it flexible. Once an ammendment is made, it must be adhered to.

Quantrill

The fact that it can be amended means that it is flexible.
 
Secession was legal as has been explained. Once a state secedes it no longer answers to the former union period. And, the seceding states did not secede to wage war. They seceded to seek peace and prosperity out of the union where they were treated as unequals. The North then waged war to bring them back.

The radicals were in the North, and in the white house.

No, the Southern States ratified the constitution delegating certain powers over to the Central govt. Delegated, in that they were not surrendered. They could be taken back.

The North renigged as it flouted the constitution and looked to a higher law to attack the souths slavery which was protected by the constitution.

Quantrill

Rights don't exist unless they're "recognized" by someone else. Apparently, you haven't grasped that basic concept about rights yet, Quantrill.

recognize, recognise [ˈrɛkəgˌnaɪz]

3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to give formal acknowledgment of the status or legality of (a government, an accredited representative, etc.)

5. To accept officially the national status of as a new government.


In International Law, the term recognition refers to the formal acknowledgment by one state that another state exists as a separate and independent government. Recognition is not a mere technicality. A state has no status among nations until it is recognized by other states, in spite of the fact that it might possess all other attributes of a state, including a definable territory and population, a recognizable government, and a certain amount of continuity or stability.

The decision to recognize a new national government is a political act that is in the discretion of the officials who are responsible for foreign policy. In the United States, the president makes the decision to recognize a country and can do so by making a formal announcement or by having another official, such as the Secretary of State, make the announcement for him. Recognition can also be informal, such as by opening negotiations with a new state or exchanging diplomats with it.

A nation is not truly sovereign and independent unless other nations recognize its sovereignty. Formal recognition operates to assure a new state that it will be permitted to hold its place and rank as an independent political body among the nations.

Recognition takes effect from the time it is given as if the state had always existed, and a new government can carry forward international projects initiated by the old government it replaces.

Many difficulties come into play when a government is not recognized. For example, an unrecognized government is not entitled to participate in diplomatic negotiations or to have its laws applied in lawsuits or in jurisdictions.

The term recognition is also used in relation to armed conflicts. If a state of belligerency is recognized, then the law of war applies with all of its protections for prisoners of war and noncombatants. Recognition of a state of belligerency ordinarily comes from an uninvolved state that declares itself neutral. A neutral country is able to recognize a state of belligerency and carry on trade and diplomatic relations with both sides of the conflict.

recognition legal definition of recognition. recognition synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

The US never "recognized" the Southern states right to form a separate country.


Here's a pop quiz question for you. Who was the first country to officially "recognize" the US as an independent sovereign nation?
 
Last edited:
Rights don't exist unless they're "recognized" by someone else. Apparently, you haven't grasped that basic concept about rights yet, Quantrill.

recognize, recognise [ˈrɛkəgˌnaɪz]

3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) to give formal acknowledgment of the status or legality of (a government, an accredited representative, etc.)

5. To accept officially the national status of as a new government.




The US never "recognized" the Southern states right to form a separate country.


Here's a pop quiz question for you. Who was the first country to officially "recognize" the US as an independent sovereign nation?

The right of secession was known and accepted at the time of the making of the 1787 Constitution. It was even stated in several of the States ratification documents. Just because the Federal govt. doesn't want it, like it, recognize it, is immaterial. It just means the Fed. govt. is willing to go to war to stop it.

I give. Who?

Quantrill
 
The right of secession was known and accepted at the time of the making of the 1787 Constitution. It was even stated in several of the States ratification documents. Just because the Federal govt. doesn't want it, like it, recognize it, is immaterial. It just means the Fed. govt. is willing to go to war to stop it.

I give. Who?

Quantrill

If the government of your nation DOES NOT recognize a supposed right you claim - then YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.
 
Secession was legal as has been explained. Once a state secedes it no longer answers to the former union period. And, the seceding states did not secede to wage war. They seceded to seek peace and prosperity out of the union where they were treated as unequals. The North then waged war to bring them back.

The radicals were in the North, and in the white house.

No, the Southern States ratified the constitution delegating certain powers over to the Central govt. Delegated, in that they were not surrendered. They could be taken back.

The North renigged as it flouted the constitution and looked to a higher law to attack the souths slavery which was protected by the constitution.

Quantrill

1) You are forgetting the illegal acquisition of property belonging to the federal government.

2) The Southern states did not secede to engage in peace and prosperity out of the Union. Rather, they sought to engage in the inhumane exploitation of the slave population. Which is inherently violent.
 
If the government of your nation DOES NOT recognize a supposed right you claim - then YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Its a state right. Not a Federal right. The Federal govt. has no say, legally. They must resort to war.

Quantrill
 
Its a state right. Not a Federal right. The Federal govt. has no say, legally. They must resort to war.

Quantrill

Actually they do have a say - in this case the FINAL SAY - and they did and they proved to the states that such a claimed right did not exist.

Hard and cold reality trumps ideology or belief every single time.
 
1) You are forgetting the illegal acquisition of property belonging to the federal government.

2) The Southern states did not secede to engage in peace and prosperity out of the Union. Rather, they sought to engage in the inhumane exploitation of the slave population. Which is inherently violent.

Actually there were attempts to consider payment for any Federal property that would be lost. But once the North chose war, no reason to pursue that.

Yes, the Southern states did secede to pursue peace outside the union because their was none within the Union. When your not protected by the laws of your land, there is no peace.

And that is just the lower Southern states. Thu upper Southern States that seceeded did so only because Lincoln wanted them to send so many men to go to war against the lower Southern States.

Quantrill
 
Actually they do have a say - in this case the FINAL SAY - and they did and they proved to the states that such a claimed right did not exist.

Hard and cold reality trumps ideology or belief every single time.

As I said, they can go to war over it. That doesn't mean the South was traitor to the union. It means war was the only way the Noth could settle the secission issue.

Yes, we are a gloriouis union by bayonet only. Great memorial day thought. Glory, glory, hallelujah.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
As I said, they can go to war over it. That doesn't mean the South was traitor to the union. It means war was the only way the Noth could settle the secission issue.

Yes, we are a gloriouis union by bayonet only. Great memorial day thought. Glory, glory, hallelujah.

Quantrill

Quantrill

Reality trumps belief. If the government that rules the nation you live in DOES NOT RECOGNIZE a right you claim then you simply do not have that right. There was no right to secede from the USA because the USA did not recognize that right.

The south attempted to destroy the USA. That is the act of a traitor pure and simple in its most stark terms.
 
Reality trumps belief. If the government that rules the nation you live in DOES NOT RECOGNIZE a right you claim then you simply do not have that right. There was no right to secede from the USA because the USA did not recognize that right.

The south attempted to destroy the USA. That is the act of a traitor pure and simple in its most stark terms.

Your totally dismissing the framing of the Cosntitution which we have already discussed. You resort to just a general statement that if the government says so, then its so. But our Government is responsible to the Constitution and ammedments. Not just because they say so.

Quantrill
 
Actually there were attempts to consider payment for any Federal property that would be lost. But once the North chose war, no reason to pursue that.

Yes, the Southern states did secede to pursue peace outside the union because their was none within the Union. When your not protected by the laws of your land, there is no peace.

And that is just the lower Southern states. Thu upper Southern States that seceeded did so only because Lincoln wanted them to send so many men to go to war against the lower Southern States.

Quantrill

And you totally ignore the inherent violence of the institution of slavery that the Southern states seceded in order to maintain their economic system.
 
And you totally ignore the inherent violence of the institution of slavery that the Southern states seceded in order to maintain their economic system.

No, I recognize the institution of slavery. I know it existed in the North and South and was slowly done away with in the North because it was no longer profitable. And then they, cough..cough, freed?, no no, sold their slaves to the South.

And I also recognize that slavery was protected by the Constitution.

So how do I ignore slavery? The 'violence' of slavery ? Does that somehow make you above the Constitution? Of course it does? Higher law, right?

Quantrill
 
No, I recognize the institution of slavery. I know it existed in the North and South and was slowly done away with in the North because it was no longer profitable. And then they, cough..cough, freed?, no no, sold their slaves to the South.

And I also recognize that slavery was protected by the Constitution.

So how do I ignore slavery? The 'violence' of slavery ? Does that somehow make you above the Constitution? Of course it does? Higher law, right?

Quantrill

Yes. Because the innate human rights enshrined by natural law of those enslaved trump any social contract. Including the Constitution.
 
Secession was legal as has been explained. Once a state secedes it no longer answers to the former union period. And, the seceding states did not secede to wage war. They seceded to seek peace and prosperity out of the union where they were treated as unequals. The North then waged war to bring them back.
The war started because of unprovoked Confederate attacks on Union facilities. That is an act of war.

The radicals were in the North, and in the white house.

No, the Southern States ratified the constitution delegating certain powers over to the Central govt. Delegated, in that they were not surrendered. They could be taken back.
Because the South was a confederate government, not a federal government. In a federal system the central government has more power.

The North renigged as it flouted the constitution and looked to a higher law to attack the souths slavery which was protected by the constitution.

The South left because Republicans in Congress would have ratified to make slavery illegal.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Because the innate human rights enshrined by natural law of those enslaved trump any social contract. Including the Constitution.

Fine. You resort to a higher law. The Southernor resorts to the Constitution. Makes you traitor to the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Fine. You resort to a higher law. The Southernor resorts to the Constitution. Makes you traitor to the Constitution.

Quantrill

By abandoning the Constitution to set up their own country, the Southerner is the traitor. The Northerner simply goes by his interpretation of the Constitution.
 
Fine. You resort to a higher law. The Southernor resorts to the Constitution. Makes you traitor to the Constitution.

Quantrill

Except that the Constitution was an inherently illegal social contract because it violated the human rights of slaves until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments changed it to officially disallow slavery.

I can't be a traitor to a social contract that is inherently illegal.
 
Except that the Constitution was an inherently illegal social contract because it violated the human rights of slaves until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments changed it to officially disallow slavery.

I can't be a traitor to a social contract that is inherently illegal.

The allowance of slavery was illegal due to the fact that the Constitution existed to protect the rights of people.
 
The allowance of slavery was illegal due to the fact that the Constitution existed to protect the rights of people.

Well, the allowance of slavery was illegal because it violated the human rights of the slaves, which is protected under natural law, which trumps constitutional law.
 
Back
Top Bottom