• 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
You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.

The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.

So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.

Quantrill

I see your point. The constitution, ultimately, was enacted by the several states through their ratification of it.
 
That would remain to be seen. However, Texas is the 15th largest economy in the world, so I would assume that it could afford a capable military.
And pay for it how? You can't grow naval vessels overnight, where would they get them even if they had the money?

It sounds reasonable that they would have to buy out any existing federal installations.
Or we could just blow them as we go, which is a better option.

If I had to guess, I don't think they would have an oil buck. More likely a fiat currency like every other country in the world.

Are you asking who would loan money to Texas? I imagine anyone who is in the market for government bonds.
Like anyone would loan Libya money on a government bond? Those things take time.

No you've lost me.
I've seen you assuming two options (though I admit to not having read the entire thread): let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.
 
Last edited:
Since I've seen nothing else (though I admit to not having read the entire thread) I've seen you assuming two options: let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.

Okay, now I see what you are saying. I agree. If it wished to, the US government could certainly make life difficult for a new independent Texas. I would hope it would not go down that road. I'd rather separate as friends than to make a mortal enemy. Having Texas turn out to be another Canada would be the best outcome I could imagine. I guess it all depends on how vindictive the US government would be. (And history has shown that it can be pretty darn vindictive.)
 
If Texas goes its own way. The resulting shift in electoral votes and congressional districts will make this into a much more liberal country politically. I wonder what the implications of that would be.
 
You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.

The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.

So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.

Quantrill

But it is the opinion of one man. That is undeniable fact.

His opinion does not have the force of law. As such, it accounts for no more legal standing than any other persons views or opinions does.

YOu want to pretend that the Constitution says something that it does not say. That is dishonest.
 
If Texas goes its own way. The resulting shift in electoral votes and congressional districts will make this into a much more liberal country politically. I wonder what the implications of that would be.

And that is what I was getting at with my very first post in this thread.


post #3 from me in this thread


While it may be appealing on a political level to let Texas go and take their automatic Republican Electoral votes with them, as a patriotic American, I must vote NO. There is no right to secede.

And as attractive as that may be for political reasons, we cannot allow secession...... even if it is a politically backwards place like Texas. ;)
 
As a native Californian, I must say that I would welcome the confirmation that the time I did visit Texas that I really was in a foreign country.
 
As a native Californian, I must say that I would welcome the confirmation that the time I did visit Texas that I really was in a foreign country.

I drove through that upper section once and passed through Amarillo, past the Cadillac ranch and past some giant cross right down the road. It was May and it was well over 100 degrees. I questioned if I was still on the planet.
 
Okay, now I see what you are saying. I agree. If it wished to, the US government could certainly make life difficult for a new independent Texas. I would hope it would not go down that road. I'd rather separate as friends than to make a mortal enemy. Having Texas turn out to be another Canada would be the best outcome I could imagine. I guess it all depends on how vindictive the US government would be. (And history has shown that it can be pretty darn vindictive.)
I'm sure Texas would like to have it's cake and eat it, too, but I doubt the rest of the US would look at secession as the act of a "friend".
 
I'm sure Texas would like to have it's cake and eat it, too, but I doubt the rest of the US would look at secession as the act of a "friend".

I don't see the big deal with Texas, or any states, choosing to leave the federation. But then again, I agree with phattonez that any people ought to be able to leave their current political unit and form their own commonwealth.
 
I don't see the big deal with Texas, or any states, choosing to leave the federation. But then again, I agree with phattonez that any people ought to be able to leave their current political unit and form their own commonwealth.

The Kingdom of Talossa

:kitty:
 
It was said that no one had considered secession before. The Hartford convention proves otherwise.

Quantrill

Nobody said it wasn't considered. Just that it didn't happen. Which is true.
 
All of the Ariticles are done away with because a unanamous vote to change them was required. Which couldn't be gotten because N. Carolina and Rhode Island wouldn't show up. Thus no change could be made. Soloution? Chunk em out the window and make another. And so they did.

Quantrill


Article VI says that engagements made under the Articles still count. I would call the engagement into a "perpetual union" a rather important engagement. Now generally, I'd agree that the Articles were thrown out, but the Constitution specifically states that engagements made under the Articles still apply unless otherwise stated. So, your contention is either that the Constitution DID state otherwise, or that this engagement doesn't count.

So I'll throw the Constitutional argument back to the pro-secessionists. Where is the language in the Constitution that negates the "perpetual union" put in place by "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

If the Constitution ever negated that part of the Articles, that would be different. I don't see that it did, therefore the "perpetual union" applied in 1860, as it does today.
 
Howdy,

Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?

:peace

Let's consider Texas without the protection of the United States.

Mexican Drug Gangs invade from the south and takes control San Antonio, Huston...

That other country to the North, you know, the United States, invades from the north and takes control of the all the oil wells.

Texas, thank you for W., the worst president in modern history.
 
Some would think that peaceful secession and splitting up countries hasn't been done before. It's not as hard as people think it is.
 
Article VI says that engagements made under the Articles still count. I would call the engagement into a "perpetual union" a rather important engagement. Now generally, I'd agree that the Articles were thrown out, but the Constitution specifically states that engagements made under the Articles still apply unless otherwise stated. So, your contention is either that the Constitution DID state otherwise, or that this engagement doesn't count.

So I'll throw the Constitutional argument back to the pro-secessionists. Where is the language in the Constitution that negates the "perpetual union" put in place by "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?"

If the Constitution ever negated that part of the Articles, that would be different. I don't see that it did, therefore the "perpetual union" applied in 1860, as it does today.

Are you suggesting that the Articles of Confederation still apply, since they were an engagement made prior to the constitution?
 
Some would think that peaceful secession and splitting up countries hasn't been done before. It's not as hard as people think it is.

It is if the new state is warred upon by the jilted state. Hell has no fury like a government scorned, apparently.

The lust to rule others has always been part of man's baser nature.
 
Last edited:
Some would think that peaceful secession and splitting up countries hasn't been done before. It's not as hard as people think it is.

Of course, when your neighbor is the united states and they want control of the oil wells they subsidized... and you have no standing army to stop the invasion from Mexico....

You're f--cked.
 
I resent that statement.

You wouldn't make such a generalized, broad-brush name-calling insult against a RACE... oh no, that wouldn't be PC.... but you feel free to make it against all inhabitants of a region.

Hypocrisy.

Yes, but that's because you have no choice over race. Being a redneck southerner constantly whining about the Federal government however is a matter of choice. Still can't get over Sherman and Grant, apparently.

But I digress from the subject matter. By all means Texas should secede - and please take all of the other un-American whining states with you. I've already offered to help you all pack. I think its a great idea. All of you little independent Republics down there - kind of like a new version of central America!
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that the Articles of Confederation still apply, since they were an engagement made prior to the constitution?

Except where changed by the Constitution, specific engagements apply. For example, debts to and alliance with France still applied. I say that perpetual union is one such engagement that was not negated in the Constitution.
 
But it is the opinion of one man. That is undeniable fact.

His opinion does not have the force of law. As such, it accounts for no more legal standing than any other persons views or opinions does.

YOu want to pretend that the Constitution says something that it does not say. That is dishonest.

That is what the constitution says. That is fact. 'We the people' mean we the people of the States.

What are you saying 'We the people' refers to? Support it?

Quantrill
 
I don't see the big deal with Texas, or any states, choosing to leave the federation. But then again, I agree with phattonez that any people ought to be able to leave their current political unit and form their own commonwealth.

Its called 'money'. The same reason they wouldn't let the Southern states secede.

Quantrill
 
Except where changed by the Constitution, specific engagements apply. For example, debts to and alliance with France still applied. I say that perpetual union is one such engagement that was not negated in the Constitution.

If that were the case, would Article II still be in force?

"Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
 
Its called 'money'. The same reason they wouldn't let the Southern states secede.

Quantrill

Which is also part of why the secession failed. Jeff Davis was unable to muster the resources and troops to win. Money is also why they seceded, specifically that tariffs that they felt unfairly hit them hardest.
 
Back
Top Bottom