• 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!

Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

jallman said:
What, if anything, did that add to the conversation except to prove that your perceptions are hysterical, warped, mega-super-jumbo-hyperpartisan, and uncalled for?
Click to expand...
Didnlt you know?
Its perfectly OK for those on the left to hold irrational, unsupportable, bigoted opinions - just ask them!
 
YamiB. said:
Are you talking about the original Civil War?
Click to expand...
I am speaking about things in general.
The US Civil War would be an example.
 
Shakespeare said, "Treason doth never prosper; for if it prosper, then none dare call it treason."

Pragmatically, if you seceed and succeed, then you established your "right" to do so. The Founders and the 13 colonies had no legal right to "seceed" from England that would have been recognized under English law. They did it anyway, and now we celebrate their successful secession on Independence Day. :mrgreen:

Patriot or traitor, depends on your POV.

Vader said:
Mentally retarded people are not responsible for their actions. As such, they should not even be imprisioned... let alone executed.
Click to expand...

What do you do with retarded people who are proven dangerous then? Use harsh language? Lock them up in a mental institution perhaps... not much better than prison, but a better chance to be released or escape, and to perhaps kill again.

There are degrees of retardation and different types of intellectual disability --- some don't know right from wrong, but most do. It's not all black and white, and its not quite that simple.

G.
 
Goshin said:
Shakespeare said, "Treason doth never prosper; for if it prosper, then none dare call it treason."

Pragmatically, if you seceed and succeed, then you established your "right" to do so. The Founders and the 13 colonies had no legal right to "seceed" from England that would have been recognized under English law. They did it anyway, and now we celebrate their successful secession on Independence Day. :mrgreen:

Patriot or traitor, depends on your POV.
Click to expand...
The colonies did not secede from England, because they were never sovereign members of the British Empire, they were simply possessions.
When the states joined the Union, part of the agreement was that they would stay together no matter what, the Union was not a club they could un-join. That's why Lincoln was determined to save the Union, the secession of southern states was a test of the concept.
A state cannot secede, just like you can't leave the Mafia.
 
WillRockwell said:
The colonies did not secede from England, because they were never sovereign members of the British Empire, they were simply possessions.
When the states joined the Union, part of the agreement was that they would stay together no matter what, the Union was not a club they could un-join. That's why Lincoln was determined to save the Union, the secession of southern states was a test of the concept.
A state cannot secede, just like you can't leave the Mafia.
Click to expand...

When the Nation of Texas joined the Union one condition was for our right to secede. We are the only Nation that joined the Union.
 
WillRockwell said:
When the states joined the Union, part of the agreement was that they would stay together no matter what,
Click to expand...
Where does the Constitution say that?
 
Goobieman said:
I am speaking about things in general.
The US Civil War would be an example.
Click to expand...

Okay, I was just checking if the preservation of chattel slavery is something you consider worthy of fighting for. Your answer would imply yes.
 
YamiB. said:
Okay, I was just checking if the preservation of chattel slavery is something you consider worthy of fighting for. Your answer would imply yes.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more to the civil war than slavery.
 
Goobieman said:
There's a lot more to the civil war than slavery.
Click to expand...

And slavery as the reason the South seceded and started a war seems to be brushed aside to easily. The statements of the confederates themselves show that it was a driving force behind their actions.
 
Goobieman said:
That some things are worth fighting for, even if you might lose, and that doing so might make a real mess?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, Secession is a settled issue, it was settled over 140 years ago. Rick Perry is a not sounding very intelegent here.
 
YamiB. said:
Okay, I was just checking if the preservation of chattel slavery is something you consider worthy of fighting for. Your answer would imply yes.
Click to expand...

The Civil War wasn't about "slavery" at all. It was about Northern aggression toward the South over the South not progressing fast enough to suit the whims of the North.

The Civil War was about state's rights. Slavery was secondary.
 
celticlord said:
The only thing the Civil War "settled" was that Lincoln was willing to shred the Constitution and abandon his oath of office under the presumed virtue of "saving the Union."

Given that the Radical Republicans under Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner compelled the former Confederate States to be "readmitted" to the Union, they established that secession was indeed possible and plausible, and even permissible.
Click to expand...

Please, explain to me how he "shredded" the constitution. Where does it states or even imply that a state had the right to leave the Union? Why would the founders make it so easy for the Union to self Destruct? I have read the constitution over and over, and I can't find any "self destructive" cluase or even one that implies it's okay to destroy the nation. So please, point it out to me. Thanks Bunches.
 
YamiB. said:
And slavery as the reason the South seceded...
Click to expand...
No... the issue was the southern states being able to exercise the rights they had under the US Constitition. Secession followed a matter of principle.

Part of all that was slavery, but the -principle- behind it was the rights of states.
 
YamiB. said:
And slavery as the reason the South seceded and started a war seems to be brushed aside to easily. The statements of the confederates themselves show that it was a driving force behind their actions.
Click to expand...

That is not why the South seceded and started a war. The north fired the first shots and refused to abdicate control of a southern owned territory.
 
celticlord said:
The only thing the Civil War "settled" was that Lincoln was willing to shred the Constitution and abandon his oath of office under the presumed virtue of "saving the Union."

Given that the Radical Republicans under Thad Stevens and Charles Sumner compelled the former Confederate States to be "readmitted" to the Union, they established that secession was indeed possible and plausible, and even permissible.
Click to expand...

I would argue they wanted to be "readmitted" not to prove it was possible or plausable to leave and come back, but becuase the destroyed south needed the northern industries to survive. 25 percent of farm animals had been killed, homes, machine shops, the few mills they had, banks, the confederate currency and the Federal blocaked made what was left of the south worse than a third world country. I would say their willingness to be reamitted had more to do with defeat and survival than to prove that they were right. To argue overwise is just a little absurd and stretching.
 
Last edited:
carolinaguy said:
Please, explain to me how he "shredded" the constitution. Where does it states or even imply that a state had the right to leave the Union?
I have read the constitution over and over, and I can't find any "self destructive" cluase or even one that implies it's okay to destroy the nation.
Click to expand...
Secession is not prohibuited by the Constitution.
According to the 10th amendment, States retain all rights not prohibited by the Constitution.
Thus, they retained the right to secession.

Why would the founders make it so easy for the Union to self Destruct?
Click to expand...
The right of a sovereign state to determine what is in its best interest?
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
The Civil War wasn't about "slavery" at all. It was about Northern aggression toward the South over the South not progressing fast enough to suit the whims of the North.

The Civil War was about state's rights. Slavery was secondary.
Click to expand...

If the south seceded due to state's rights why did they complain in their decelerations of secession about the Northern states going against the fugitive slave law? If it wasn't about slavery why did the same secession documents talk about the issue of slavery so much? If it wasn't about slavery why did Alexander Stephens say that the cornerstone of the Confederacy rested on the subjugation of the black race?

I don't see how the North can be considered the aggressors when the South were the ones that seceded and then attacked the North.

Goobieman said:
No... the issue was the southern states being able to exercise the rights they had under the US Constitition. Secession followed a matter of principle.

Part of all that was slavery, but the -principle- behind it was the rights of states.
Click to expand...

The South did not care about state's rights. They cared about preserving slavery and remaining the dominating force in the government of country.
 
Last edited:
carolinaguy said:
I would argue that wanted to be "readmitted" not to prove it was possible or plausable, but becuase the destroyed south needed the northern industries to survive.
Click to expand...
If secession is not legally possible, why was it necessary -- indeed, how was it possible -- to 're-admit' the Confederate states?
 
YamiB. said:
If the south seceded due to state's rights why did they complain in their decelerations of secession about the Northern states going against the fugitive slave law?
Click to expand...
Because it violated the right of the people of the southern states to have their property retuned to them.
 
YamiB. said:
If the south seceded due to state's rights why did they complain in their decelerations of secession about the Northern states going against the fugitive slave law? If it wasn't about slavery why did the same secession documents talk about the issue of slavery so much? If it wasn't about slavery why did Alexander Stephens say that the cornerstone of the Confederacy rested on the subjugation of the black race?

I don't see how the North can be considered the aggressors when the South were the ones that seceded and then attacked the North.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Union forces blockaded Confederate ports months before the confederacy seceded. The North had long had a habit of attempting to subjugate the South through economic and policy schisms that were further widened by the slavery issue. However, slavery was not the central issue of the war. Anyone who has studied the war beyond 8th grade is aware of this.
 
Goobieman said:
Because it violated the right of the people of the southern states to have their property retuned to them.
Click to expand...

So apparently state's rights doesn't refer to states having control over the laws in their borders over the federal government. I guess that what it really meant is that the South gets to have their states control any other states.
 
Goobieman said:
Secession is not prohibuited by the Constitution.
According to the 10th amendment, States retain all rights not prohibited by the Constitution.
Thus, they retained the right to secession.


The right of a sovereign state to determine what is in its best interest?
Click to expand...

Somehow, I doubt that what the 10th Amendment had in mind. You would have to prove that with something other than your opioion. To me that means as long as state laws doesn't try to supersecede federal law (which the constitution states it clearly doesn't) States can run their own affairs; I don't think destroying the Union has anything to do with the 10th Amendment.

Again, I ask, where does the Constitution say or even imply that a State can dissolve the Union becuase it feels slighted by the federal goverment in some way? My understanding is the proscribed solution to dealing with a federal goverment that is not working is to vote them out. But please, Show me where it is clearly stated or clearly implied where the framers of the constitution said secession is okay. Thanks.
 
YamiB. said:
So apparently state's rights doesn't refer to states having control over the laws in their borders over the federal government.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you understand the issue. Allow me to create a parallel:

If a state passes a law that allows it to deny extradition of criminal to another state, the state who has been denied extratidition has had its rights violated. If the federal government refuses force the state that refused to extradite that criminal, then the state that ha sbeen denied extradition has had its rights violated.

The issue regarding the FSU is similar.
 
jallman said:
Anyone who has studied the war beyond 8th grade is aware of this.
Click to expand...

So true.

Until 8th grade, we were told it was about slavery.

Until 12th grade, we were told it was about state's rights.

In college, we found out it was about sectarianism and economics.

I wonder if part of getting a phd in american history involves being let in on the secret that it was really about lincoln being gay.
 
carolinaguy said:
Somehow, I doubt that what the 10th Amendment had in mind.
Click to expand...
You can doubt it all you want -- but until you show where secession is an act prohibited by the Constitution, your doubts are withoug merit -- and so,you would have to prove that with something other than your opioion.

There is NO doubt what the 10th amendment says, just as there is NO doubt that the Constitution contans NO language that prohibits secession.

To me that means as long as state laws doesn't try to supersecede federal law (which the constitution states it clearly doesn't) States can run their own affairs; I don't think destroying the Union has anything to do with the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...
You would have to prove that with something other than your opioion.

Again, I ask, where does the Constitution say or even imply that a State can dissolve the Union
Click to expand...
This has been explained to you -- the act is not prohibited by the Constitution, and therefore is a right retained under the 10th amendment.

Note also that 'secession' and 'dissolution' are seperate things -- there is nothing in the Constititon that prevents the states from passing an amendment that declares the Constititon null and void, thereby dissolving the untion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom