• 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!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
I ABSOLUTELY support the Secession of Texas from the "Union". Its time for a DIVORCE! If you want to know what our nation has become, just go onto NPR. They will erase your posts, spit on you, call you a traitor for not loving Obama and liberalism, and SCREAM that NO ONE is allowed to leave! That's enough for me. I don't want to be ANY PART of a nation like that. God Bless, Texas! Nation of the Free!

Besides, were going to start disobeying and ignoring American law anyway. And that goes ditto for most of the other Southern States.

Have fun.

Good luck in prison, if you don't go down in flames gonzo-style first.
 
The CSA was not attempting to abolish the form of government of the United States either.

This isn't a difficult concept, you know.

No it isnt. What do you think independence is? Abolishment of the previous govt.
 
The minority neo-confederate secessionists like to pretend that the Civil War was not legally decisive.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


No State Government can remove US citizenship from a US citizen. Secession would violate the US Constitution. Texas's Constitution affirms that the US Constitution is the law of the land, that their powers are not above it. It is impossible for a State to secede under the Constitution. End of story.
 
No it isnt. What do you think independence is? Abolishment of the previous govt.

There was no attempt by the CSA alter or abolish the existing government of the United States.

What part of that isn't getting through?
 
There was no attempt by the CSA alter or abolish the existing government of the United States.

What part of that isn't getting through?

The entire war thing never entered the picture?

The Constitution is the law of the land. The South tried to deny that fact. In doing so they were trying to abolish the Constitutional power invested in the ratification of it. In other words the South tried to abolish the US government/UNION. Secession is the opposite of UNION.
 
The entire war thing never entered the picture?

The Constitution is the law of the land. The South tried to deny that fact. In doing so they were trying to abolish the Constitutional power invested in the ratification of it. In other words the South tried to abolish the US government/UNION.


People have been making comparisons to the American Revolution.

It is not. That is the point. Secession is not the same as Revolution.


The American Revolution … Not the American Secession


Secession is the opposite of UNION.
Agreed.
 
There was no attempt by the CSA alter or abolish the existing government of the United States.

What part of that isn't getting through?

Secession was a pretty big alteration. Which abolished the US govt in those states.

What part of that isnt getting through?
 
The minority neo-confederate secessionists like to pretend that the Civil War was not legally decisive.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


No State Government can remove US citizenship from a US citizen. Secession would violate the US Constitution. Texas's Constitution affirms that the US Constitution is the law of the land, that their powers are not above it. It is impossible for a State to secede under the Constitution. End of story.

Liberty is an unalieanable right. End of story.
 
Secession was a pretty big alteration. Which abolished the US govt in those states.

What part of that isnt getting through?
They didn't abolish the US Government. :2brickwal

<note the US Government still functioned during the war and -- if you hadn't noticed, is still here>

The states never actually seceded -- they were States in Rebellion.


They lost. End of story.
 
They didn't abolish the US Government. :2brickwal

<note the US Government still functioned during the war and -- if you hadn't noticed, is still here>

The states never actually seceded -- they were States in Rebellion.


They lost. End of story.

Britain is still here today, too.
 
Britain is still here today, too.

Whoooosh.

Did you bother to look at this? :The American Revolution … Not the American Secession


Here -- I'll give you a snip, as I'm pressed for time and this explains it better than I could ATM,

"The two situations were not comparable in critical ways.

The colonies of Great Britain in North America were not equal partners within the British empire or contracting agents agreeing to a contract. Their legal existence came from above (the empire); they did not form it as a founding party or join it as an independent state.

Indeed, if you know anything about the coming of the Revolution, you should know that during the period 1763 to 1775 American colonists insisted that they enjoyed the rights of Englishmen while the empire said otherwise. But one looks in vain to assertions that Virginia was equal to England, for example, or that New York was equal to Scotland.

The links were drawn on the individual level: that is the language of the Declaration of Independence, which was not called the Declaration of Secession. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” refers to people as individuals, not to colonies aspiring to be states. The social contract was between individuals who established a government, not between member states. By definition, the colonists did not establish the empire, although they were a part of it.

Defenders of secession try to deny that secession was an act of treason (after all, if secession’s a legitimate constitutional right, then exercising that right can’t be an act of treason). Where secession was, indeed, an act of treason depends on whether on sees secession as constitutional. In contrast, the revolutionaries grounded their argument on a right to revolution, a natural right (not a constitutional right) and accepted the possible consequences."

More at link.
 
Last edited:
Im saying those 35% have a right to self governance. And the other 65% can stay with the union if they like. Liberty is an individual right.

Consider that 35% of texas is 3x as many people as the entire 13 colonies.

i will ask another way, are you saying the 35% can take Texas out of the union, over the 65% .....or split the state and remove themselves?
 
Whoooosh.

Did you bother to look at this? :The American Revolution … Not the American Secession


Here -- I'll give you a snip, as I'm pressed for time and this explains it better than I could ATM,

"The two situations were not comparable in critical ways.

The colonies of Great Britain in North America were not equal partners within the British empire or contracting agents agreeing to a contract. Their legal existence came from above (the empire); they did not form it as a founding party or join it as an independent state.

Indeed, if you know anything about the coming of the Revolution, you should know that during the period 1763 to 1775 American colonists insisted that they enjoyed the rights of Englishmen while the empire said otherwise. But one looks in vain to assertions that Virginia was equal to England, for example, or that New York was equal to Scotland.

The links were drawn on the individual level: that is the language of the Declaration of Independence, which was not called the Declaration of Secession. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” refers to people as individuals, not to colonies aspiring to be states. The social contract was between individuals who established a government, not between member states. By definition, the colonists did not establish the empire, although they were a part of it.

Defenders of secession try to deny that secession was an act of treason (after all, if secession’s a legitimate constitutional right, then exercising that right can’t be an act of treason). Where secession was, indeed, an act of treason depends on whether on sees secession as constitutional. In contrast, the revolutionaries grounded their argument on a right to revolution, a natural right (not a constitutional right) and accepted the possible consequences."

More at link.

how is secession illegal, since you can only quote the court, which is part of the federal government the southern states are leaving.

WHILE the founding fathers state the federal government has no power to stop a state from leaving the union....convention note may 31st 1787

WHILE it was taught before the civil war, that secession was up to a states to decide....."view of the constitution" 1829
 
I think the U.S. would benefit from separating into several different countries. For the most part, different parts of the country are pretty homogenous in the way they think, and shouldn't be controlled by people from other regions of the country. Why should the abortion views of the southeast affect the west coast, and vice versa? Why should be tax policy of California affect Texas?

It would make sense to me to turn the west coast, Midwest, northeast, southeast into separate countries.
 
So what on Earth are those that are against Texas being able to secede proposing?

That if they try to leave that the military forces them to stay?

If that is so, that is lunacy, imo. To kill people to stop them from leaving your country - that is Soviet Union stuff.

Just check out the Ukraine (as the Ukrainian government is refusing to let the Donetsk region leave even though an overwhelming majority of them want to go) and look what a mess that is. Stopping Texas from leaving using force could make that war look like a picnic.
 
Back
Top Bottom