• 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
sorry cant get around the founders...even after you screwed up and tried to use them..now you resort to other tactics.

Madison is

A Founder.

You lose.

You didn't even know the Constitution stated
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them"

link removed by mod for breaking Vegas...

Ur posts R A Joke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Madison is

A Founder.

You lose.

You didn't even know the Constitution stated
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them"


http://www.debatepolitics.com/penal...onic-and-trolling-idiot-2.html#post1064589650

U r A Joke.

thats right he is a founder, when you read the federalist papers it will open your eyes..until then they are closed for you.

to levy is to IMPOSE...........THE SOUTHERN STATES DID NOT IMPOSE A WAR ON THE U.S....SO AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG.

So they could call themselves Confederate Americans.

Who wanted nothing to do with the United States of America.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/222725-should-confederate-memorial-day-s-exist-19.html
 
Last edited:
...
to levy is to IMPOSE...........THE SOUTHERN STATES DID NOT IMPOSE A WAR ON THE U.S....SO AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG.
...

Hey genio, the rebels fired the first shots. They imposed WAR.

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.



Click to enlarge


The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
steamship-marion.jpg

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. --> An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.
 
Hey genio, the rebels fired the first shots. They imposed WAR.

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.



Click to enlarge


The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."
steamship-marion.jpg

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.
THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

"WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures will enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.

On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ;

whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea.

The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island."


They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. --> An ACT OF WAR.

Seizing government property of forts and arsenals all across the South is also an Act of War.

you stated the south wanted nothing to do with the united states, when you proceed to tell me they want to levy, impose war on the united states..:doh
 
If enough people were willing, I would join them.

The more targets the merrier. So much for you guys being patriotic though. Anti-Union is very much anti-American. And as such then please give your anti-American movement a go. It would be good to weed out those that hate America.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

Hell no. I'd support sending troops to prevent such a referendum from even taking place and dissolve the legislature if they try to enact it. Secession is treason. Texas belongs to the Union, the entire Union. I'm not a slavish worshiper of the right to self-determination.
 
Hell no. I'd support sending troops to prevent such a referendum from even taking place and dissolve the legislature if they try to enact it. Secession is treason. Texas belongs to the Union, the entire Union. I'm not a slavish worshiper of the right to self-determination.

No you are a slavish worshipper to the primacy of the integrity of the State over the self-determination and freedom of the people. it's a point of view and you're entitled to it.
 
No you are a slavish worshipper to the primacy of the integrity of the State over the self-determination and freedom of the people. it's a point of view and you're entitled to it.

Self-determination, like everything else, must be wedded to an admirable purpose. Preventing the splintering of the Union is more admirable and offers more utility than any argument I've ever heard for secession. I could care less if people within an artificially defined space decide they want to leave. If they want to go they can leave the country, but the country isn't going with them. The economic, military, and cultural contribution of the area of land known as Texas, of the people living within that area, and the property and resources therein, are of great value to the country and will be retained.

Fortunately this is an idle fear. Secessionism would be strangled in its cradle.
 
Self-determination, like everything else, must be wedded to an admirable purpose. Preventing the splintering of the Union is more admirable and offers more utility than any argument I've ever heard for secession. I could care less if people within an artificially defined space decide they want to leave. If they want to go they can leave the country, but the country isn't going with them. The economic, military, and cultural contribution of the area of land known as Texas, of the people living within that area, and the property and resources therein, are of great value to the country and will be retained.

Fortunately this is an idle fear. Secessionism would be strangled in its cradle.

A nice exposition of the theory that the people belong to the State, rather than the reverse.
 
A nice exposition of the theory that the people belong to the State, rather than the reverse.

Society and Civilization matter. I'm perfectly willing to constrain your liberties in furtherance of them. Liberty is hardly the only virtue.
 
Society and Civilization matter. I'm perfectly willing to constrain your liberties in furtherance of them. Liberty is hardly the only virtue.

Indeed, following your logic a military dictatorship and respression is much better than giving in to something like popular will.
 
Indeed, following your logic a military dictatorship and respression is much better than giving in to something like popular will.

It would depend on the circumstances. Certainly dictatorship is preferable to following the mob in some instances. If the military had been able and willing to move against Hitler after the Enabling Act was passed I'd say a period of military dictatorship would have been the preferable outcome. Only fanatics deal in absolutes.
 
Self-determination, like everything else, must be wedded to an admirable purpose. Preventing the splintering of the Union is more admirable and offers more utility than any argument I've ever heard for secession. I could care less if people within an artificially defined space decide they want to leave. If they want to go they can leave the country, but the country isn't going with them. The economic, military, and cultural contribution of the area of land known as Texas, of the people living within that area, and the property and resources therein, are of great value to the country and will be retained.

Fortunately this is an idle fear. Secessionism would be strangled in its cradle.

So you dont beleive in unalienable rights to liberty? Self governance?
 
The more targets the merrier. So much for you guys being patriotic though. Anti-Union is very much anti-American. And as such then please give your anti-American movement a go. It would be good to weed out those that hate America.

What guys are you talking about? I never claimed to be a patriot.
 
We have a system set up to change our Government and laws. We are a Republic.

It's worked pretty damn good for lo these many years.

If the people don't like their government, they have the power to alter or abolish it peaceably. The colonies did not have that power.

Now, if you don't believe that, then ok. Have your anarchy

No on is arguing for anarchy, only smaller political units with like minded people.
 
Libertarians are always beating the patriotic drum. But at least you are honest about your anti-American position.

So long as you understand Im anti-federal govt. I dont generally have a problem with citizens, local govts, or the culture. Libertarians support liberty. Govt is a tool to secure liberty. If its no longer doing so we have a duty to oppose it.
 
So long as you understand Im anti-federal govt. I dont generally have a problem with citizens, local govts, or the culture. Libertarians support liberty. Govt is a tool to secure liberty. If its no longer doing so we have a duty to oppose it.

The Federal Government is the method of our Union. The Constitution is the details of our Federal Government/our Union. Our Republican form of Government is a part of our American culture, it is our heritage. The Constitution was designed to protect our freedoms and our liberties. But you want to burn our Constitution. And that is a attack on our liberties and our freedoms. Without our Constitution there is no protections from the people who wish to take our liberties our unalienable rights away.

Say a State secedes. The State Government is the ONLY government for that State now. There goes the checks and balances. If that State decides that Sharia Law is the way to go (or any other liberty robing ideological rot) then there would be zero recourse for the citizens. There would be no Constitution that kept the State from obliterating our rights. The State being the end all could change their own Constitution into any form that they wanted. Nazism, Communism or any other ism is open season.

You seem to only point to the means to our demise.
 
So you dont beleive in unalienable rights to liberty? Self governance?

I don't believe in an inalienable right to anything. There are things that I believe are extremely valuable but there is always a scenario, always a circumstance, where I could see a particular right, a particular liberty, being capped. People can desire self-governance for a terrible purpose and I wouldn't endorse their struggle because it's rooted in 'liberty' anymore than I'd support the right of ISIS to establish an Islamic Emirate by popular referendum. Similarly even a benign desire for self-government can have a terrible result and can therefore be opposed.

I believe the United States is an essential strut of Western and Democratic civilization, that secession would be horrendous for the Union and by extension the world, and therefore I vehemently oppose secession and would see it crushed.

Furthermore I abhor the lingering petty regionalist sentiment that exists in the United States and I'm glad that increasing mobility, immigration, and the like are finally beginning to dilute it.
 
The Federal Government is the method of our Union. The Constitution is the details of our Federal Government/our Union. Our Republican form of Government is a part of our American culture, it is our heritage. The Constitution was designed to protect our freedoms and our liberties. But you want to burn our Constitution. And that is a attack on our liberties and our freedoms. Without our Constitution there is no protections from the people who wish to take our liberties our unalienable rights away.

Say a State secedes. The State Government is the ONLY government for that State now. There goes the checks and balances. If that State decides that Sharia Law is the way to go (or any other liberty robing ideological rot) then there would be zero recourse for the citizens. There would be no Constitution that kept the State from obliterating our rights. The State being the end all could change their own Constitution into any form that they wanted. Nazism, Communism or any other ism is open season.

You seem to only point to the means to our demise.

The federal govt ignores the constitution, and most of the country doesnt care. Which is why it has to be left behind.
 
I don't believe in an inalienable right to anything. There are things that I believe are extremely valuable but there is always a scenario, always a circumstance, where I could see a particular right, a particular liberty, being capped. People can desire self-governance for a terrible purpose and I wouldn't endorse their struggle because it's rooted in 'liberty' anymore than I'd support the right of ISIS to establish an Islamic Emirate by popular referendum. Similarly even a benign desire for self-government can have a terrible result and can therefore be opposed.

I believe the United States is an essential strut of Western and Democratic civilization, that secession would be horrendous for the Union and by extension the world, and therefore I vehemently oppose secession and would see it crushed.

Furthermore I abhor the lingering petty regionalist sentiment that exists in the United States and I'm glad that increasing mobility, immigration, and the like are finally beginning to dilute it.

Well there we go then. A fundamental difference that cant be bridged. Which is why some of us need to leave it behind.
 
Back
Top Bottom