• 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
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

NO. What I am doing is stating what should be painfully obvious: if the government of the nation in which you reside DOES NOT recognize what you believe is a right, then you DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.

That is simple reality. No ideology can change that. No belief system can change that. No interpretation of history can change that. No statement of an individual who shares your belief can change that.

It is what it is.
 
I posted somewhere to someone about proving John Brown was moving freely in the North as a murderer and planning his raid on the South.

The book I refer to is 'John Brown, Abolitionist', by David S. Reynolds. I would recommend the book though it is somewhat pro-Brown and what I would call anti-southern, but gives a fair treatement of him.

Brown murdered 5 men and boys in May of 1856 at Pottawatomie Creek Kansas. " It is oftened maintained that the Transendentalists would not have supported John Brown had they suspected his role in the Pottawatomie murders. The evidence suggests, however, that they knew of it and yet embraced him anyway. A detailed report of the crime, and of Brown's involvement in it, had been on public record since 1856, when the Committee to Investigate the Troubles in Kansas described it on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in vivid testimony that was subsequently published. " p.221-222

Brown would meet with many people in the north after these murders and after it was known. Most especially significant is the Mass. Legstate legislature to get support. He didn't get the support, but he was allowed to speak. "Introduced by Sanborn as a patriot with the blood of the Puritans and the Revolutionary generatin in his veins, Brown made an impressive showing....(saying nothing, of course, about Free State crimes, least of all Pottawatomie)." p.212-213

It would be beneficial to read pages 138-238 to get the fuller picture of Brown and his Secret Six money men of the North and the Norths allowing him the freedom to roam and prepare for his attack upon the South.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
NO. What I am doing is stating what should be painfully obvious: if the government of the nation in which you reside DOES NOT recognize what you believe is a right, then you DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.

That is simple reality. No ideology can change that. No belief system can change that. No interpretation of history can change that. No statement of an individual who shares your belief can change that.

It is what it is.

No, that's not necessarily true. Because people have human rights under natural law. And any government that does not abide by those human rights is inherently illegal.

The question then becomes whether or not the right of secession is a human right under natural law.

And the answer it that secession is when the government violates human rights and the political process refuses to address those violations.

In this case, the Southern states did not have the right to secede because they seceded in order to perpetuate human rights abuses. Therefore, their secession in order to continue the institution of slavery violates natural law, and therefore illegal.
 
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.

The South didn't abondon the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Yes you can. The Constitution is that which the Union is based on. You become traitor when you go against the Constitution. You can have all the higher law you want, lofty ideals, but it still makes you traitor to the Constitution.

And the Constitution was not illegal.

Quantrill
 
I posted somewhere to someone about proving John Brown was moving freely in the North as a murderer and planning his raid on the South.

The book I refer to is 'John Brown, Abolitionist', by David S. Reynolds. I would recommend the book though it is somewhat pro-Brown and what I would call anti-southern, but gives a fair treatement of him.

Brown murdered 5 men and boys in May of 1856 at Pottawatomie Creek Kansas. " It is oftened maintained that the Transendentalists would not have supported John Brown had they suspected his role in the Pottawatomie murders. The evidence suggests, however, that they knew of it and yet embraced him anyway. A detailed report of the crime, and of Brown's involvement in it, had been on public record since 1856, when the Committee to Investigate the Troubles in Kansas described it on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in vivid testimony that was subsequently published. " p.221-222

Brown would meet with many people in the north after these murders and after it was known. Most especially significant is the Mass. Legstate legislature to get support. He didn't get the support, but he was allowed to speak. "Introduced by Sanborn as a patriot with the blood of the Puritans and the Revolutionary generatin in his veins, Brown made an impressive showing....(saying nothing, of course, about Free State crimes, least of all Pottawatomie)." p.212-213

It would be beneficial to read pages 138-238 to get the fuller picture of Brown and his Secret Six money men of the North and the Norths allowing him the freedom to roam and prepare for his attack upon the South.

Quantrill

The evil done by a violent abolitionist has no effect nor justifies the evil done by the institution of slavery.
 
Yeah, they did. They made their own Constitution and waged unprovoked aggressive war against the Union.

The South seceded from the Union removing them from the Constitution they were under. The Constitution that the North refused to abide by. There was no alternative left at that point.

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.

Who determines this 'higher law'? Who determines what is inherently illegal?

Quantrill
 
Yes you can. The Constitution is that which the Union is based on. You become traitor when you go against the Constitution. You can have all the higher law you want, lofty ideals, but it still makes you traitor to the Constitution.

And the Constitution was not illegal.

Quantrill

It was illegal because it violated the human rights of slaves. That makes it illegitimate according to natural law until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed to disallow the institution of slavery. And natural law trumps constitutional law. Which was understood by our very Founding Fathers, as the violation of their human rights under natural law was their justification for their rebellion against the British Empire.
 
The evil done by a violent abolitionist has no effect nor justifies the evil done by the institution of slavery.

The point made here is that this was known by the north. Was allowed to take place. The north was not allowing the South protection under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the laws of the land, you have no choice but leave.

Quantrill
 
Who determines this 'higher law'? Who determines what is inherently illegal?

Quantrill

Natural law does, as codified by a rational understanding of the nature of the universe and the world.

Natural law demands that people be free and not enslaved to others, especially on the premise of race. Therefore, the Constitution, as originally written, violated natural law and is inherently illegitimate on those grounds.
 
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.

I'm with you on the natural law argument but the social contract idea does NOT describe the Constitution and a Constitution is not made illegal by violating natural law.
 
It was illegal because it violated the human rights of slaves. That makes it illegitimate according to natural law until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed to disallow the institution of slavery. And natural law trumps constitutional law. Which was understood by our very Founding Fathers, as the violation of their human rights under natural law was their justification for their rebellion against the British Empire.

No, it wasnt' illegal. You just don't like it.

Who determines this natural, or higher, law?

Quantrill
 
Natural law does, as codified by a rational understanding of the nature of the universe and the world.

Natural law demands that people be free and not enslaved to others, especially on the premise of race. Therefore, the Constitution, as originally written, violated natural law and is inherently illegitimate on those grounds.

Im asking who determines it? You? Should everyone ask you what the 'higher law' says?

Quantrill
 
The point made here is that this was known by the north. Was allowed to take place. The north was not allowing the South protection under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the laws of the land, you have no choice but leave.

Quantrill

Except the protection that the South wanted was to continue and even expand the territory of the institution of racial slavery.

The South wanted protection to continue to violate the human rights of other people. Which is inherently immoral. So the protection they wanted was illegitimate, and therefore their secession was unjustifiable.
 
No, that's not necessarily true. Because people have human rights under natural law. And any government that does not abide by those human rights is inherently illegal.

The question then becomes whether or not the right of secession is a human right under natural law.

And the answer it that secession is when the government violates human rights and the political process refuses to address those violations.

In this case, the Southern states did not have the right to secede because they seceded in order to perpetuate human rights abuses. Therefore, their secession in order to continue the institution of slavery violates natural law, and therefore illegal.

Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.
 
Except the protection that the South wanted was to continue and even expand the territory of the institution of racial slavery.

The South wanted protection to continue to violate the human rights of other people. Which is inherently immoral. So the protection they wanted was illegitimate, and therefore their secession was unjustifiable.

The South didn't have to want anything. It was already protected under the Constitution. The South wanted the North to uphold the Constitution. Which they didn't do. Because they come under a 'higher law'. As you agree.

Quantrill
 
Im asking who determines it? You? Should everyone ask you what the 'higher law' says?

Quantrill

I told you before - natural law is codified by a rational understanding of the world. It has been codified in a number of documents, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These human rights are inherent and become understood as our greater understanding of nature via science is revealed to us. Of this natural law is that no man should be enslaved by another without just recompense, or from cruel and unusual treatment by others. These are rights inherent to humanity and cannot be given up even if people chose to waive them. And any act of a government or its constitution that attempts to is inherently illegal under natural law.
 
The South didn't have to want anything. It was already protected under the Constitution. The South wanted the North to uphold the Constitution. Which they didn't do. Because they come under a 'higher law'. As you agree.

Quantrill

Right. But the South was unjustifiable in its secession because it seceded in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery which violates human rights and natural law.
 
Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.

Well, you're wrong, because I don't think that just because a majority of one group wishes to violate the rights and liberties of another group does not justify those violations of their human rights and civil liberties.
 
Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.


Its called looking at the world around them. Something you refuse to do so you can back up your own belief system that the government can dictate whatever they want.
 
Its called looking at the world around them. Something you refuse to do so you can back up your own belief system that the government can dictate whatever they want.

What belief system do I have that I am trying to back up by refusing to look at the world around me? My view of where rights come from comes exactly and specifically from looking at the world around me - both in the present and from a study of political science and history.

Rights come from the power of people insisting that government recognize and protect what they see as a right. That is the lesson of history.

I have no idea where you get the perverted frankenstein monster versions of what you think my beliefs are but you are really off base on this one. I DO NOT believe the government can do whatever it wants. Just the opposite.
 
Last edited:
The point made here is that this was known by the north. Was allowed to take place. The north was not allowing the South protection under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the laws of the land, you have no choice but leave.

Quantrill

But didn't the evil North suppress the rebellion and execute Brown?
 
I told you before - natural law is codified by a rational understanding of the world. It has been codified in a number of documents, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These human rights are inherent and become understood as our greater understanding of nature via science is revealed to us. Of this natural law is that no man should be enslaved by another without just recompense, or from cruel and unusual treatment by others. These are rights inherent to humanity and cannot be given up even if people chose to waive them. And any act of a government or its constitution that attempts to is inherently illegal under natural law.

And this is what the South was facing. A refusal by the North of the Constitution and resorting to this 'natural or higher law'.

Thus the South had no recourse but secede because it was not protected by the laws of the land.

Quantrill
 
Back
Top Bottom