• 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
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

You look at the government and nothing else. Not exactly the world Hay.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unjustifiable, according to you. Not according to the Constitution. The seceding was done due to the norths view that the South should not be protected by that constitution.

My natural law says a state should be able to secede when ever it wants to. It shoud be allowed that freedom. Else it is just held in slavery by the Central govt. Thats what my higher law says. What does yours say?

Quantrill
 
Henrin said:
You look at the government and nothing else. Not exactly the world Hay.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was looking at the PEOPLE of the NATION who created the GOVERNMENT. That reality seems to have escaped you in your desire to simply attack me.
 
Quantrill said:
Unjustifiable, according to you. Not according to the Constitution. The seceding was done due to the norths view that the South should not be protected by that constitution.

My natural law says a state should be able to secede when ever it wants to. It shoud be allowed that freedom. Else it is just held in slavery by the Central govt. Thats what my higher law says. What does yours say?

Quantrill
Click to expand...

In what way was the South not protected by the Constitution?
 
MadLib said:
But didn't the evil North suppress the rebellion and execute Brown?
Click to expand...

The U.S.military stopped brown. Brown should have been executed by the Federal govt. Because it was a federal institutin he attacked. In stead they gave it to Virginia to prosecute. That way they were not the executors. The Southern states were. And John Brown becomes a martyr.

Glory, glory,...hallelujah.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
Actually, I was looking at the PEOPLE of the NATION who created the GOVERNMENT. That reality seems to have escaped you in your desire to simply attack me.
Click to expand...

Is that why the country was founded on natural law/natural rights?

Fail hay.
 
Quantrill said:
Unjustifiable, according to you. Not according to the Constitution. The seceding was done due to the norths view that the South should not be protected by that constitution.
Click to expand...
You mean "the norths view that the Southslavery should not be protected by that constitution", don't you?
You keep using "South" as a euphemism for slavery, why is that?

Quantrill said:
My natural law says a state should be able to secede when ever it wants to. It shoud be allowed that freedom. Else it is just held in slavery by the Central govt. Thats what my higher law says. What does yours say?
Click to expand...
Funny you should use the phrase "just held in slavery". Being held in slavery because you would have to free slaves?!?
 
Last edited:
To MoSurveyor

Im using South as South. Slavery as slavery. The South seceded due to the north's view that the South shouldn't be allowed protections under the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Quantrill said:
To MoSurveyor

Im using South as South. Slavery as slavery. The South seceded due to the north's view that the South shouldn't be allowed protections under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You mean, "The South seceded due to the north's view that the South shouldn't be allowed protections to keep slaves under the Constitution."

Just own it!
 
haymarket said:
There was no right to secede from the USA because the USA did not recognize that right.
Click to expand...

The constitution contains no restriction on any state leaving the union. Look once again at the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The states reserved to themselves the power to exist the union they themselves created.
 
samsmart said:
Yes. Because the innate human rights enshrined by natural law of those enslaved trump any social contract. Including the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You only have those rights that the government decides to let you have. Right haymarket?
 
Quantrill said:
The U.S.military stopped brown. Brown should have been executed by the Federal govt. Because it was a federal institutin he attacked. In stead they gave it to Virginia to prosecute. That way they were not the executors. The Southern states were. And John Brown becomes a martyr.

Glory, glory,...hallelujah.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

I guess if it doesn't fit in with your paranoid worldview.....

John Brown (abolitionist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brown and the others captured were held in the office of the armory. On October 18, 1859, Virginia Governor Henry A. Wise, Virginia Senator James M. Mason, and Representative Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrived in Harpers Ferry. Mason led the three-hour questioning session of Brown.
Although the attack had taken place on Federal property, Wise ordered that Brown and his men should be tried in Virginia in Charles Town, the nearby county seat capital of Jefferson County just seven miles west of Harpers Ferry (perhaps to avert Northern political pressure on the Federal government, or in the unlikely event of a presidential pardon).
Click to expand...

He was tried in Virginia because the Governor of Virginia wanted to make sure he didn't get away.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You mean, "The South seceded due to the north's view that the South shouldn't be allowed protections to keep slaves under the Constitution."

Just own it!
Click to expand...

No, the South seceeded because the North refused to acknowledge her rights as protected by the Constitution. Slavery was protected by the Constitution. The North refused to stop John Brown a murderer knowing he had plans to attack the South. The North refused to treat the South as equals under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the law of the land you have no recourse but secede. Leave.

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
I guess if it doesn't fit in with your paranoid worldview.....

John Brown (abolitionist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



He was tried in Virginia because the Governor of Virginia wanted to make sure he didn't get away.
Click to expand...

Please. Since when at this time did the Fed. govt. listen to a Southern States request. Like the Gov. of Virginia could stop the Fed. govt. from getting Brown. The Fed Govt could have gotten Brown anytime. The Fed. govt didn't care about Brown other then letting him further his crimes against the Southern states. Better to let the Southern State execute him then the Fed govt. they wash their hands and Brown is a martyr.

Glory, glory...hallelujah.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Please. Since when at this time did the Fed. govt. listen to a Southern States request. Like the Gov. of Virginia could stop the Fed. govt. from getting Brown. The Fed Govt could have gotten Brown anytime. The Fed. govt didn't care about Brown other then letting him further his crimes against the Southern states. Better to let the Southern State execute him then the Fed govt. they wash their hands and Brown is a martyr.

Glory, glory...hallelujah.

Quantrill
Click to expand...


Like I said, if it's not part of your "They're out to get the South!" worldview....
 
Centinel said:
The constitution contains no restriction on any state leaving the union. Look once again at the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The states reserved to themselves the power to exist the union they themselves created.
Click to expand...

There was no power to leave the nation once you joined up. It was not a power that was explicit or reserved. It did not exist.
 
Centinel said:
Wrong. You only have those rights that the government decides to let you have. Right haymarket?
Click to expand...

We have been through this before. I have stated my view before. You perverted and distorted it then and I corrected you. I stated them again in this discussion and you again pervert and distort them yet again.

Why do you persist in this dishonesty?
 
Henrin said:
Is that why the country was founded on natural law/natural rights?

Fail hay.
Click to expand...

Whatever beliefs some of the founders had - be they in natural law, the easter bunny, santa claus or blue faeries - that did not make them real. Belief in a convenient fiction does not empower that fiction with the stuff of reality. Mature people know that.
 
haymarket said:
Whatever beliefs some of the founders had - be they in natural law, the easter bunny, santa claus or blue faeries - that did not make them real. Belief in a convenient fiction does not empower that fiction with the stuff of reality. Mature people know that.
Click to expand...

Mature people know that rights have a basis beyond government. Something you are aware of as well, but don't want to admit or else your government worship would come into question.

Its also hilarious how you call the study of the world fiction. Science= fiction according to haymarket.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Mature people know that rights have a basis beyond government. Something you are aware of as well, but don't want to admit or else your government worship would come into question.

Its also hilarious how you call the study of the world fiction. Science= fiction according to haymarket.
Click to expand...

You can believe in any fiction you want to believe in. That is your right. I put my trust in the power of the people. But the reality is that if the people do not force their government to recognize and protect what they believe a right is - then you do not have it. That is just the way it is and no belief system can change that.

Insulting me does not provide your silly posts with anything that gives them intelligence or fact.
 
haymarket said:
There was no power to leave the nation once you joined up.
Click to expand...

And yet you are impotent to point to the language in the constitution that prohibits states from leaving...

It was not a power that was explicit or reserved. It did not exist.
Click to expand...

All powers not delegated to the union nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people. You can point to no delegation. You can point to no prohibition. Therefore the power was reserved.
 
haymarket said:
We have been through this before. I have stated my view before. You perverted and distorted it then and I corrected you. I stated them again in this discussion and you again pervert and distort them yet again.

Why do you persist in this dishonesty?
Click to expand...

Dishonesty?

Your view is that one only has the rights that the government allows him to have. Didn't you just say this a few posts above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom