Texas secession?

haymarket said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're like a broken record. Try to disprove natural law/rights if you dare instead of just dealing with them being protected or not. Your weak sauce is not good enough.

rocket88 said:

Like I said, if it's not part of your "They're out to get the South!" worldview....

Click to expand...

Its an accurate conclusion. As I showed, Brown was allowed to roam free in the North while a murderer. But the North wasn't concerned with Brown as murderer because he murdered Southern white people. So, its a just concusion that they would rather the Southern State hang him, though it was a Federal institution he attacked, then they hang him. Because they supported him.

Quantrill

Centinel said:

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



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.

Click to expand...

But leaving was not a power. It did not have to be prohibited because it did not exist. Still does not exist.

Henrin said:

You're like a broken record. Try to disprove natural law/rights if you dare instead of just dealing with them being protected or not. Your weak sauce is not good enough.

Click to expand...

I do not have to disprove anything. Proving that something exists is the duty of those who assert that it does.

Centinel said:

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?

Click to expand...

One only has rights that the power of the people compel the government to recognize and protect.

haymarket said:

But leaving was not a power. It did not have to be prohibited because it did not exist. Still does not exist.

Click to expand...

It is an act that is not prohibited. Therefore, under the 10th, it is allowed.

haymarket said:

One only has rights that the power of the people compel the government to recognize and protect.

Click to expand...

So one only has the rights that the government recognizes and protects. And if the government doesn't recognize a right, then you don't have it.

I believe that's what I said your position was a few posts up, yet you called me dishonest.

haymarket said:

One only has rights that the power of the people compel the government to recognize and protect.

Click to expand...

Like I said, broken record.

I will ask you again, do understand that destruction exists? Don't play stupid claiming you don't know what I mean either like you did last time. I won't explain basic scientific fact of the realities of destruction and peace to you.

Centinel said:

So one only has the rights that the government recognizes and protects. And if the government doesn't recognize a right, then you don't have it.

I believe that's what I said your position was a few posts up, yet you called me dishonest.

Click to expand...

YOu are dishonestly leaving out the portion where I include the all important element of THE PEOPLE as the ones who demand and push for their rights.

Why would you do that?

Henrin said:

Like I said, broken record.

I will ask you again, do understand that destruction exists? Don't play stupid claiming you don't know what I mean either like you did last time. I won't explain basic scientific fact of the realities of destruction and peace to you.

Click to expand...

Destruction of what?

haymarket said:

Destruction of what?

Click to expand...

Your body for one.

JuanBatista said:

Try again. Texas was never independent to begin with, anymore than Chechnya is today independent of Russia.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, thread was moving to fast for me to read and keep up with everything.

What is your definition of Independent? They defeated the Mexican Army, set up their own government Independent of any other government and was recognised as a sovreign state by other countries, sounds like they were Independent to me. I am not positive, but it seem your claim that they were never Independent is based upon the fact that Mexico never recognised that Independence. If so, consider whether or not Spain recognised the Independence of Mexico immediately following their split, or England the US, or any other group that has revolted against a previous government and claimed independence, I doubt very much you will find very many, if any, countries that immediately recognised the Independence of those areas that revolted. Texas militarily defeated Mexico, thus establishing their claim to independence and that independence was recognised by the US and other countries.

As to claims that Texas had no control over claimed areas, that is true, but Mexico did not have control there either. Even after Texas joined the US, the US did not have actual control of those areas for a longtime and it was after 1900 before the actually got complete control. It took more than 100 years for the US to finalize control of Territories it gained and claimed from the Louisiana Purchase. The definition of lands comprising Texas is derived from the grant for American settlement into lands claimed by Spain. That grant was given by the King of Spain, prior to Mexico's Independence. After their Independence, Mexico claimed control of Texas, it was only after Mexico tried to expel American settlers and close off Texas to Americans that Texans made the claim for Independence. Instead of Mexico expelling the ango settlers, the settlers, calling themselves Texicans, expelled the Mexican officials, triggering the invasion by Generalisimo De Santa Anna (self proclaimed ruler of Mexico at the time). It was Texas' claim to those territories that was the basis for them to be claimed by the US after Texas joined them and incidents in the claimed areas that triggered the Mexican-American war that led not only the the US getting the territory claimed by Texas, but also Nevada, Utah, Arizona and the other half of New Mexico. It was only after that war that the US established the territorial borders for those states as we know them now (exept for an area in southern NM and Arizona that was not actually added until later, but it was a small area compared to the total). The US had no more actual 'control' of those areas than the Texans did previously.

Henrin said:

Your body for one.

Click to expand...

Is there some reason you bring this up from time to time and then merely abandon it powerless to actually explain anything?

haymarket said:

Is there some reason you bring this up from time to time and then merely abandon it powerless to actually explain anything?

Click to expand...

What needs to be understood exactly that a two year old can't figure out?

haymarket said:

YOu are dishonestly leaving out the portion where I include the all important element of THE PEOPLE as the ones who demand and push for their rights.

Why would you do that?

Click to expand...

So you only have the rights that the people can force the government to grant you. Same difference. In the end, you have the rights that the government say you have.

Henrin said:

What needs to be understood exactly that a two year old can't figure out?

Click to expand...

So lets see ..... a two year can figure it out but you cannot explain it yourself.

That is clear.

Centinel said:

So you only have the rights that the people can force the government to grant you. Same difference. In the end, you have the rights that the government say you have.

Click to expand...

You have the rights that the people force the government to recognize.

Here is a news bulletin for you: if the government of the nation says YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS - you don't have em. That is called reality. It trumps and kicks the ass of ideology every single time.

Quantrill said:

Its an accurate conclusion. As I showed, Brown was allowed to roam free in the North while a murderer. But the North wasn't concerned with Brown as murderer because he murdered Southern white people. So, its a just concusion that they would rather the Southern State hang him, though it was a Federal institution he attacked, then they hang him. Because they supported him.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Why do you think the Governor of Virginia wanted him tried in Virginia? He thought exactly the same way, that the Feds would let him go.

The Gov asked to try him in Virginia, so they did. But they didn't pass him off on Virginia, Virginia asked for him.

rocket88 said:

Why do you think the Governor of Virginia wanted him tried in Virginia? He thought exactly the same way, that the Feds would let him go.

The Gov asked to try him in Virginia, so they did. But they didn't pass him off on Virginia, Virginia asked for him.

Click to expand...

Again, since when did the Federal govt listen to a Southern state. They passed him off because his work met with their approval. Wise wasn't so wise concerning this.

And what was his charge. Treason against America? ummm? Should have been shouldn't it? I mean he attacked a Federal facility.

The point not to lose here is that the Fed. govt let Brown roam free knowing he was a murderer. Let him plot his next attack against Southernors. Brown should have already been hung by the govt. Yet they refused to. Instead the moneymen of the north supported him and were accessory to his crimes.

What happened to them by the way? Were they brougut to justice by the Fed. govt.? They knew who they were. Did they hang also? Did they rot in jail for their crimes agaisnt Virginia and the Fed. govt?

Golry, glory, ...hallelujah!

Quantrill

haymarket said:

You have the rights that the people force the government to recognize.

Here is a news bulletin for you: if the government of the nation says YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS - you don't have em. That is called reality. It trumps and kicks the ass of ideology every single time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your point in stating this obvious fact.

Certainly the government is powerful enough to do pretty much whatever it wants. Certainly the government CAN ignore the constitution. We all know that. Hell, the government COULD nuke New York City this afternoon.

But we're not talking about what the government CAN do. We're talking about what the government SHOULD do. It's my contention that the government SHOULD abide by the constitution, while you apparently regard the constitution as an optional set of guidelines.

The constitution places no restrictions on a state leaving the union, thus, per the 10th amendment, this act must be allowed. Now, as you say, the government CAN ignore what the constitution says, but that is a question of CAN, and ignores the question of SHOULD.

Quantrill said:

Again, since when did the Federal govt listen to a Southern state. They passed him off because his work met with their approval. Wise wasn't so wise concerning this.

And what was his charge. Treason against America? ummm? Should have been shouldn't it? I mean he attacked a Federal facility.

The point not to lose here is that the Fed. govt let Brown roam free knowing he was a murderer. Let him plot his next attack against Southernors. Brown should have already been hung by the govt. Yet they refused to. Instead the moneymen of the north supported him and were accessory to his crimes.

What happened to them by the way? Were they brougut to justice by the Fed. govt.? They knew who they were. Did they hang also? Did they rot in jail for their crimes agaisnt Virginia and the Fed. govt?

Golry, glory, ...hallelujah!

Quantrill

Click to expand...

The charge was murder, Treason against Virginia and one other I can't recall right now. Staes Rights, right? State go first crack.


as far as the conspirators, one went stark raving mad, and one fled to Canada. It's on the internet, you tell us. It's not hard, but I'm onmy phone now.

Quantrill said:

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

Click to expand...

Wrong.

The South had no justification to secede because their purpose for secession - to continue slavery - went against the human rights of the slaves.

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...

There is no "my" or "your" natural law. There is only the law of nature.

And in nature no species of animal enslaves another of its own species to perform labor.

Therefore, slavery is goes against natural law.

And so the South had no justification for seceding because their reason to secede - to continue slavery - went against the human rights as seen by natural law of the slaves they wished to maintain.

Centinel said:

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



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.

Click to expand...

"The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts...."

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As you can see the federal courts supercede the rights of the states. A state that wanted to secede would need a majority of the people from other states (2/3 of the states) to consent to it's seccession and they have never consented.

rocket88 said:

The charge was murder, Treason against Virginia and one other I can't recall right now. Staes Rights, right? State go first crack.


as far as the conspirators, one went stark raving mad, and one fled to Canada. It's on the internet, you tell us. It's not hard, but I'm onmy phone now.

Click to expand...

I understand, your a busy man. The information I give is not quoted but found in "Who was Who in the Civil War" by Stewart Sifakis, p. 618

One of the secret six was George Sterns. Mass. businessman and abolitionist. Chairmen of the Mass. Committee for Kansas. He fled to Canada after it became known who the 6 were. But then returned shortly after.

He testified before a Congressioal committee that it was among the greates events of this age. Harpers Ferry of course.

He supported Lincoln in the electin of 1861. Wonder why? And following Lincoln's election he became the treasurer of the emancipation league which attempted to make emancipation a war measure.

He later was given the responsibility of raising black regiments in Mass. and Tenn. for the war.

So, we see Gearge Stearns, accessory to murder and treason against both the state of Virginia and the Fed govt. was given positions of authority.

Quantrill