• 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:
It IS unconstitutional, technically. That's why this is such a touchy subject, because it really does fall outside the general scope of Constitutional laws. Being a country born of revolution, we're are in a bit of an awkward spot; we acknowledge the right of revolution, considering we exercised it at one point. Most people would agree that when a government becomes despotic or is too far removed from the people's will, they have a right to dismantle it and rebuild to their liking. However, the right of revolution cannot be exercised like the right of free speech; this right carries very large responsibilities and high costs, thusly, it is limited. So, ironically, the Constitution holds two contradictory ideas; the right of revolution against government and also the protection of the government from uprising. So that's why there are so many strict limits and requirements for revolution to be legitimate.

In the sense you are talking about, the right of any state to pack up and leave whenever it feels like it, you are dead wrong. In the sense that thrilla is referring to it, I disagree about some specifics, but he is generally right, if I'm reading his posts correctly.
Click to expand...

Before 1861 it was not unconstitutional. Its a touchy subject because the US is a big hypocrit when it comes to its own states leaving. And the US or Northern States in the time of the War between the States, made war unconstitutionally with the Southern States.

You can say technically all you want, but that is just bull. It was not unconstitutional which is why you cannot provide anything to prove it was.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
and their goal was to continue the practice of slavery.
Click to expand...

Their goal was to seek peace and prosperity outside the Union. Their goal makes no difference to the legality of secession. Secession was not unconstitutional.

Quantrill
 
RadicalModerate said:
Being a country born of revolution, we're are in a bit of an awkward spot; we acknowledge the right of revolution, considering we exercised it at one point.
Click to expand...

Every country on Planet Earth is born of revolution or conquest and consolidation. The Rule of the Gun determines borders.
 
Quantrill said:
Before 1861 it was not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Then ffs, either put up or you-know-what up. Use whatever time frame works best for your delusional argument. Christ almighty...

Its a touchy subject because the US is a big hypocrit when it comes to its own states leaving. And the US or Northern States in the time of the War between the States, made war unconstitutionally with the Southern States.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted a debate on the Constitutionality of secession. I didn't realize you just wanted to B & M about things not being exactly to your liking.,

You can say technically all you want, but that is just bull. It was not unconstitutional which is why you cannot provide anything to prove it was.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't read what I post. Good luck in future debates.
 
Centinel said:
It did then yes. However, I wonder whether with our current round the clock video news cycle the people of the 49 remaining states would support such an occupation. I wonder whether they would have the stomach for the violence that would necessary to subjugate their fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan and Texas would be completely different in terms of morale I think because Texas is part of the homeland.
 
Quantrill said:
How was the Constitution being broken by secession in 1861?

Quantrill
Click to expand...

well you asked

Article 1 Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Click to expand...

The CSA violated the underlined.
 
rocket88 said:
That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.

If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.

If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
Click to expand...

Actually that happened during the Civil War, and with the exception of West Virginia, those secessionist movements were crushed by the CSA army.
 
megaprogman said:
Afghanistan and Texas would be completely different in terms of morale I think because Texas is part of the homeland.
Click to expand...

True. Do you think that fact would make people more tolerant of a US occupation of Texas, or would they be more disgusted than they are with the occupation of Afghanistan? Personally, I'd be repulsed by the idea of US troops occupying Texas, and I would oppose very vehemently sending the youth of my Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be involved in such an invasion.
 
Matt Foley said:
Actually that happened during the Civil War, and with the exception of West Virginia, those secessionist movements were crushed by the CSA army.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did happen. I just want to know what the justification is. If states can secede from the Union, then counties can secede from states and form their own states.

Heck, let's just have a bunch of independent city-states. Then Cubs fans can go to war with Cardinals fans, which is what they always wanted to do anyway.
 
Centinel said:
True. Do you think that fact would make people more tolerant of a US occupation of Texas, or would they be more disgusted than they are with the occupation of Afghanistan? Personally, I'd be repulsed by the idea of US troops occupying Texas, and I would oppose very vehemently sending the youth of my Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be involved in such an invasion.
Click to expand...

With Texas there is some personal stake here because people identify themselves nationally. So, in essence, to lose a piece of Texas would be to lose a piece of themselves and their identity. This is a HUGE motivator.

Afghanistan is some country in the middle east we were nervous about. In terms of motivation, it doesn't really compare.

The difference between you and 99.999% of the population is that people think of the US as a whole and not by state. So you may not share the same perspective, but its a cultural thing. But culturally, in people's minds, sovereignty is national, not by state, so they would not consider it an invasion, but a defense of the homeland. Right or wrong from whatever philosophy, this is how people would behave.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Prove it.

You're just proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

That's been his only response to anything leveled at him. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull.

That's bull. You're bull. He's bull, she's bull.

Just another one in the debate site who doesn't want to actually debate.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Then ffs, either put up or you-know-what up. Use whatever time frame works best for your delusional argument. Christ almighty...



Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. I thought you wanted a debate on the Constitutionality of secession. I didn't realize you just wanted to B & M about things not being exactly to your liking.,



Obviously, you don't read what I post. Good luck in future debates.
Click to expand...

Oh I read what you posted. And you provide nothing to show that secession was illegal prior to 1861. I have given you a quote from John Quincy Adams. And a quote from the Virginia ratification document to the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
Prove it.

You're just proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

The armies of Texas were citizen armies. Houston defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto. This is where we gained our independece. Not with the help of the U.S. government.

Quantrill
 
RadicalModerate said:
That's been his only response to anything leveled at him. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull.

That's bull. You're bull. He's bull, she's bull.

Just another one in the debate site who doesn't want to actually debate.
Click to expand...

Oh, because you can't provide proof of secession being unconstitutional, then I don't want to debate? Because I don't believe your statements without proof, then I don't want to debate?


Quantrill
 
Thrilla said:
it's supposed to say exactly what it says... it's a very short and concise sentence, shouldn't be to hard to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Sounds like bs to me.

Quantrill
 
Interesting thoughts bouncing back and forth-

When it comes to voluntary joining so there is an equal voluntary leaving...

I voluntarily joined the army, I wonder what the result would have been if suddenly I decided shoot fire, I don't like people trying to kill me, I'm going home! :confused:

I'm from Oklahoma so Texas is a love/hate for me but somehow I don't see them voting to leave the Union. If they do choose to leave the Union then they are not MY fellow Americans so I don't have a problem with killing enough of them to turn the balance in the vote back to Union. ;)

But I'll wager a shiny Texas nickle most who would vote to leave the Union wouldn't risk their lives to enforce that decision. Talk is cheap, typing even cheaper.

All buff and bluster combined with a West Texas swagger aside, most Texans are like the rest of the USofA, not very willing to give up life for 'liberty' and leaving the Union isn't liberty, it's idiocy.

Tell ya what, I'd vote to let Texas go and see how long it remains 'free' as long as the USofA keeps the oil refining centers and the US Army/Air Force can keep major training areas to run amuck on.

Maybe we can get all the 'patriotic' mouths to move to Texas while we are at it. We can tell 'em it's a remake of John Wayne's movie, 'The Alamo' and we have the perfect deathtrap...ahhh stage for them!

Oh a thought on reconstruction, that had nothing to do with the Right, yes or no, to leave the Union but rather the anger the victors had and took out on the rebels for all the deaths suffered to keep this one nation indivisible. Not the first time a crummy peace followed a war, nor the last.
 
Quantrill said:
Oh I read what you posted. And you provide nothing to show that secession was illegal prior to 1861. I have given you a quote from John Quincy Adams. And a quote from the Virginia ratification document to the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this. You want the impossible. You want a direct quote saying "Secession the US is completely illegal in all cases." That's the only thing you'll ever take, because you know that line isn't found anywhere and you feel cocky that your position is therefore completely right. But as I've already explained to you, just because something specific isn't mentioned in a founding document doesn't mean that it is automatically one way or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom