• 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
RadicalModerate said:
Ha! The slaves weren't oppressed, it was the white people who owned slaves! They were the ones being oppressed!

Revisionism, anyone?
Click to expand...

No one said there were no slaves. The question you asked concerned secession. Pay attention and quit trying to change the subject. Where in the Constitution prior to 1861 did it say secession was illegal?

Quantrill
 
Goshin said:
And the crickets say.... chirp.... chirp.... chirp....

...as nobody wants to take that one on apparently....
Click to expand...

I'd like to take it... but I can't come up with a moral justification .. I don't fall on the side that disallows succession.
 
Thrilla said:
seems to me that there was no shortage of oppression occurring.
yes, slaves were oppressed... but that doesn't preclude the union from oppressing the south.. it just means that the union's oppression was more palatable than the
slave owners oppression.
Click to expand...

Oppression is granting other human beings their rights, I guess.
 
RadicalModerate said:
A small group of people in relation to a large national population have no right to forcibly excuse themselves from their rightful place in the levels of government. They have a right to leave the nation and take all their stuff with them and renounce the US and all that but they do not have a right to remake their section of the nation however they see fit.
Click to expand...
they have no right to self determination within their geographical political block?
 
Canell said:
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
Click to expand...
the USA could just sell it off to Mexico.... or we could trade it for the Baja peninsula and extend California.
 
Thrilla said:
they have no right to self determination within their geographical political block?
Click to expand...

Of course, but within the limits set by the federal government. If CO decides to buck the power structure and legalize marijuana, the Federal government could use their authority to put the state back in line. And that's just one little difference in drug policy. You're talking about a whole section of the US completely refusing to comply with the Federal government.
 
Thrilla said:
I'd like to take it... but I can't come up with a moral justification .. I don't fall on the side that disallows succession.
Click to expand...

What he said. I have can offer no moral justification from preventing anyone from seceding.
 
rocket88 said:
Was that an ethnic or religious group?
Click to expand...

That is who was being oppressed. Does have to be an ethnic or religious group? No. Doesn't even have to be any oppression. Just the desire to self-rule. Why don't you answer the question I asked about the Constitution prior to 1861? Why? Because there isn't anything in the Constitution that makes secession illegal prior to 1861.

Quantrill
 
Centinel said:
What he said. I have can offer no moral justification from preventing anyone from seceding.
Click to expand...

There's no moral justification, just a realist one. National security and stability ahead of liberty and self-determination. I don't even think the realist justification is strong looking at similar examples in other parts of the world.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Of course, but within the limits set by the federal government. If CO decides to buck the power structure and legalize marijuana, the Federal government could use their authority to put the state back in line. And that's just one little difference in drug policy. You're talking about a whole section of the US completely refusing to comply with the Federal government.
Click to expand...

if self determination relies on the permission of an external political block's authority.. it's not self determination.
 
Quantrill said:
That is who was being oppressed. Does have to be an ethnic or religious group? No. Doesn't even have to be any oppression. Just the desire to self-rule. Why don't you answer the question I asked about the Constitution prior to 1861? Why? Because there isn't anything in the Constitution that makes secession illegal prior to 1861.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Q, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for states to secede, no matter what time frame you try to legitimize it in. Why don't you show us where it IS legal?
 
rocket88 said:
Germany is techincally a "Federation of States" many of which were independent up until the Prussians forced a unification. We should allow them to split up into a whole bunch of warring factions? Cause that sounds like a great recipe for peace to have a major nation plum in the middle of Europe.

Fine, secede. We'll be sending in troops to occupy Federal property, and the Interstate Highways we built. We'll also be confiscating your currency, as it's United States currency. Enjoy converting everybody's life savings into pesos.
Click to expand...

Germany has nothing to do with the Texas or the US.

Who is we? Do you speak for the government? Go ahead and confiscate the currency as you put it; but the more likely scenario is to exchange it for something like gold. Yes, that would probably be sufficient for the people of Texas. Can't occupy Texas roads if Texas secedes unless you want a war. I really doubt the people of the US would stand for that. The whole country would go up in flames, with the exception of maybe Kalifornia, and some other "suck the life out of their own economy, we need federal aid because we are too dumb to manage our own budget" states.

But Texas seceding from the union seems like an interesting prospect. I think the Washington elite and their lackeys would find out that states rights really are important to most people, with the noted exceptions above.

Republic of Texas - David Crockett

"Ya'll can go to hell, I'm goin' to Texas!"
Davey Crockett
Click to expand...

David Crockett was one of those VERY RARE true statesmans of history. He was elected as a representative from Tennessee to the US Congress. Crockett spent his entire career fighting and defending real individual liberty and the abuses of the US Congress violating the Constitution. In a fury of anger, David Crockett rose on the Congress floor, in 1835, when Congress again was violating the Constitution, and cried out:

"Ya'll can go to hell, I'm goin' to Texas!"

In March of 1836 along with 187 other men, David Crockett, managed to hold off the Mexican army at the Alamo, in the Republic of Texas, for eleven days killing over two thousand enemy troops. When they were finally overrun, not a single volunteer was left alive to tell the tale.

David Crockett, dedicated his career to justice, truth, and liberty, and in the end gave his life up for freedom for the Texian people. He did NOT lay down his life for the Federal Government of the United States. He did not die for the STATE OF TEXAS. He died for the Republic of Texas.
Click to expand...

Davey Crockett continues to be an inspiration to Texans for the reasons you just read. Many would emulate his actions to preserve their way of life if necessary.
 
Thrilla said:
if self determination relies on the permission of an external political block's authority.. it's not self determination.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. There is no situation in which any of your rights can't be curtailed or removed completely. Your free speech in curtailed, your right to vote can be removed and your right to life can be taken away. What makes you think there would be no limited of self-determination?
 
RadicalModerate said:
Q, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for states to secede, no matter what time frame you try to legitimize it in. Why don't you show us where it IS legal?
Click to expand...

First of all you admit that nothing in the Constitution made secession illegal prior to 1861. Is that correct? Then I will answer your question.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
That is who was being oppressed. Does have to be an ethnic or religious group? No. Doesn't even have to be any oppression. Just the desire to self-rule. Why don't you answer the question I asked about the Constitution prior to 1861? Why? Because there isn't anything in the Constitution that makes secession illegal prior to 1861.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Exactly. Any state can leave at any time for any reason. That's what you want, but everyone knows that'd be a total disaster.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Q, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for states to secede, no matter what time frame you try to legitimize it in. Why don't you show us where it IS legal?
Click to expand...

no,this is incorrect.... by utilizing the constitutional principle of consent of the many states, with successful ratification in the legislature, a succession can be successfully pulled off.
 
Goshin said:
Let me pose a hypothetical question...

IF a large majority of Texans (or whatever state, really) decided they didn't want to be part of the USA anymore....

... what is your moral justification for making them stay? And could this justification also be used to prevent someone as an individual from leaving the US and renouncing their citizenship, but taking their assets with them?


I'll be interested in the answers to this...
Click to expand...


National Security and sovereignty. If we can't keep our nation together, we can't expect to project any power worldwide.

Let's flip it around: 2008, war between Georgia and Russia. This results in the creation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. American Conservatives bemoan the "Russian aggression," (even though Georgia started it) and went on about "territorial integrity of Georgia." A majority of Abkhaz did not want to be in Georgia. Why don't they have the right to leave?
 
Connery said:
US Supreme Court Justice Scalia answered this question with a resounding NO when asked by a screen writer.



Here is his letter.

Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg
Click to expand...

Secession is not determined by the "rule of law", the Supreme Court, the Congress, the president, or whatever the hell Texas thinks it wants. Secession is determined by the Rule of Gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom