• 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
Centinel said:
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."
Click to expand...


Sure, each state maintains sovereignty with in its borders, but they are still in a Union with the other states.
 
rocket88 said:
Nobody said it wasn't considered. Just that it didn't happen. Which is true.
Click to expand...

I responded to your post #270 where you said,

"because nobody tried to secede before"
"It wasn't an issue before that"

Quantrill
 
rocket88 said:
Sure, each state maintains sovereignty with in its borders, but they are still in a Union with the other states.
Click to expand...
Cool. Someone earlier had indicated that the states were never sovereign. I'm glad we've established that they were and continue to be sovereign, free, and independent.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The constitution of 1787 replaces the Articles of Confederation. The declaration of perpetual union is not an engagement. Its a declaration. The union is not perpetual because the union under the Articles was destroyed. It was now a different union.

Qunatrill
 
Quantrill said:
First of all, the right to seced is not based on oppression. If a state wants to seced, it had the right period.

The Southern states were being oppressed. They consisted of the Southern white people.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Now I know where the poster is coming from - a complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it was the constant movement of the North in treating the Southern States as unequals. It was the Norths constant refusal to acknowledge the Souths rights under the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
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
Click to expand...

I believe WE THE PEOPLE means WE THE PEOPLE..... the citizens.............. the humans beings .......... the Americans.
 
Quantrill said:
The constitution of 1787 replaces the Articles of Confederation. The declaration of perpetual union is not an engagement. Its a declaration. The union is not perpetual because the union under the Articles was destroyed. It was now a different union.

Qunatrill
Click to expand...

Earlier in the thread, a comment was made that referenced a SCOTUS case, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) (There's another Texas v. White decision from 1975, not relevant to this topic)

The majority decision as written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase had the following:
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
(...)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States
Click to expand...
my emphasis

Now - you were saying? Of course, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned at any sitting of the SCOTUS but normally, precedent does hold a strong position in determining such rulings. The present Roberts-led court does have a record of rejecting earlier decisions.
 
Somerville said:
Now I know where the poster is coming from - a complete and utter lack of historical knowledge.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I see you didn't contribute anything toward any knowledge. Waiting.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
I believe WE THE PEOPLE means WE THE PEOPLE..... the citizens.............. the humans beings .......... the Americans.
Click to expand...

You believe it means Americans as a whole, and not as represented by the States? Then the States need not ratify. Americans as a whole are represented by the delegates already in the 1787 convention.

Quantrill
 
Somerville said:
Earlier in the thread, a comment was made that referenced a SCOTUS case, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) (There's another Texas v. White decision from 1975, not relevant to this topic)

The majority decision as written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase had the following:
my emphasis

Now - you were saying? Of course, Supreme Court decisions can be overturned at any sitting of the SCOTUS but normally, precedent does hold a strong position in determining such rulings. The present Roberts-led court does have a record of rejecting earlier decisions.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the Articles of Confederation were tossed out. The 'perpetual' union went with it. The framers had enough shame in them to not add hypocrisy by declaring this new Constitution 'perpeutal' since they just destroyed the other 'perpetual' one.

Your example of Texas vs. White is in the middle of the Reconstruction period where the Courts are all slanted. Constitutional govt is being tramped on. And the methods of making ammedments and laws are a joke and travesty.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
No, it was the constant movement of the North in treating the Southern States as unequals. It was the Norths constant refusal to acknowledge the Souths rights under the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Money was part of it, as was slavery. There were many many reasons why the Civil War happened.

Essentially, the Southern ruling class thought that their future was better served outside of the Union. They were, most certainly, ardent capitalists who thought that tarriffs and abolitionist sentiment threatened their ability to make a profit.
 
Centinel said:
Cool. Someone earlier had indicated that the states were never sovereign. I'm glad we've established that they were and continue to be sovereign, free, and independent.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say more "interdependent" than "indpendent." It was that way in the 1850s, and is even more true today.
 
Quantrill said:
The fact is that the Articles of Confederation were tossed out. The 'perpetual' union went with it. The framers had enough shame in them to not add hypocrisy by declaring this new Constitution 'perpeutal' since they just destroyed the other 'perpetual' one.

Your example of Texas vs. White is in the middle of the Reconstruction period where the Courts are all slanted. Constitutional govt is being tramped on. And the methods of making ammedments and laws are a joke and travesty.

Quantrill
Click to expand...


Certainly can see a continuing pattern of refusal to actually study history. Always 'nice' to encounter someone with, shall we say - a 'flexible' interpretation of reality. If it fits with one's Truth, it is true - if it doesn't fit, it obviously is not true and why should anyone bother to check for themselves.
 
rocket88 said:
Well, I'd say more "interdependent" than "indpendent." It was that way in the 1850s, and is even more true today.
Click to expand...

Certainly interdependent economically, but independent politically.
 
Quantrill said:
You believe it means Americans as a whole, and not as represented by the States? Then the States need not ratify. Americans as a whole are represented by the delegates already in the 1787 convention.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

The CONVENTIONS of the various states were the mechanism in which the PEOPLE expressed their approval or disapproval of the proposed Constitution. And guess who made up those CONVENTIONS? People... citizens .... Americans.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Obviously they wanted a far larger and far broader electorate for approval than the mere 55 who made up the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

For example Virginia had but three of their seven delegates who signed the US Constitution. They had 168 in their ratification convention.

They were attempting to go to the people and used the already existing man made contrivance of states to do that.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Certainly can see a continuing pattern of refusal to actually study history. Always 'nice' to encounter someone with, shall we say - a 'flexible' interpretation of reality. If it fits with one's Truth, it is true - if it doesn't fit, it obviously is not true and why should anyone bother to check for themselves.
Click to expand...

If you can disprove it according to history, then why don't you instead of whining about what I said.

Quantrill
 
haymarket said:
The CONVENTIONS of the various states were the mechanism in which the PEOPLE expressed their approval or disapproval of the proposed Constitution. And guess who made up those CONVENTIONS? People... citizens .... Americans.

Ratification of the Constitution

Observing Constitution Day

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously they wanted a far larger and far broader electorate for approval than the mere 55 who made up the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

For example Virginia had but three of their seven delegates who signed the US Constitution. They had 168 in their ratification convention.

They were attempting to go to the people and used the already existing man made contrivance of states to do that.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly right. It is the people of the States as States that determined if the Constitution would be ratified. It was not the population of Americans at large. Because 'we the people' were the people of the individual sovereign states. Else there would have been no need for any ratification.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
If you can disprove it according to history, then why don't you instead of whining about what I said.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

The south fought the war to preserve slavery. The north fought the war to preserve the Union. Fighting a war and killing americans in order to preserve the right to own other people has to be one of the most despicable reasons anybody ever went to war. All the southern revisionist history sites in the world won't change that fact.
 
Wiggen said:
The south fought the war to preserve slavery. The north fought the war to preserve the Union. Fighting a war and killing americans in order to preserve the right to own other people has to be one of the most despicable reasons anybody ever went to war. All the southern revisionist history sites in the world won't change that fact.
Click to expand...

It was one of the causes. There were many.
 
Wiggen said:
The south fought the war to preserve slavery. The north fought the war to preserve the Union. Fighting a war and killing americans in order to preserve the right to own other people has to be one of the most despicable reasons anybody ever went to war. All the southern revisionist history sites in the world won't change that fact.
Click to expand...

Really? And what do you base that on?

Quantrill
 
megaprogman said:
Succession, going to the very fabric of the nation, is way to big a deal for something like the tenth. Try again.
Click to expand...

It would be quite an odd thing for the revolutionaries to say that states cannot secede after just having seceded themselves from the English government.
 
****'em one less state filled with assholes to worry about.
 
Quantrill said:
Thats exactly right. It is the people of the States as States that determined if the Constitution would be ratified. It was not the population of Americans at large. Because 'we the people' were the people of the individual sovereign states. Else there would have been no need for any ratification.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

We see it differently.

The Founders knew darn well that they needed a broader back home support for ratification and wisely mandated CONVENTIONS OF THE PEOPLE to achieve that goal.

Too many folks on the right talk about STATES like they are some walking, talking. breathing entity that exists apart distinct and different than the real flesh and blood people who actually are the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom