• 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
****'em one less state filled with assholes to worry about.
Are they different than KY assholes? In my experience, KY has a much higher percentage in that category.

.
 
While I do enjoy having this debate because it never seems to get old, I will only add that it is patently obvious how many of the politicians in Washington view the people of the United States: tax slaves.

Excerpt from the Ex-PATRIOT Act submitted by Schumer and Casey:
... when an individual expatriates for a substantial tax purpose—as judged by the Internal Revenue Service—that individual will be subject to a 30% capital gains tax on future investment gains. ... if the IRS finds that avoidance of taxes was a substantial purpose of expatriation, the individual who renounced citizenship will be barred from any type of re-entry into the United States.

I think that is pretty clear...
 
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.

Ratification by the States or else it would not exist. If it had been for the people of the Unitied States as a whole, as a Nation, then no need for ratification of the States or anyone as the delegates in Philedlphia already represented the US. And when they finally voted on the Constitution they created, then that should have been it, if we the people were we the people of the Nation as a whole. But it wasn't it because we the people were the people of the States and so the States needed to ratify.

Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
It is telling that it is simply assumed that any movement toward self-rule will immediately met by invasion and conquest. It sort of dispels any fantasies that self-rule is a meaningful value in the minds of the American people. What we all seem to accept is "other-rule", which asserts, for instance, that the people of 49 states have some sort of divine right to rule over the 50th state. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why or how they believe this.

It isn't "ruling over". If I recall, Texas has representation.
 
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?

Another issue is that people worry about "States Rights" all the time without much thought to our territories. Centinel sees that, if there was a civil war over Texas, that would turn Texas into an occupied territory, and he sees that as wrong; however, we do already own territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa that do not have representation in Congress yet have to listen to federal law anyway.
 
Last edited:
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?

Or have counties in one state try to secede and move to another state. I know that's a desire of many on the NM/TX border, and it's all going one direction.
 
As far as I know, Texas has an exclusive right to succeed, it's negotiated before they joined the US. Right?

This is purely an urban legend.

Texas did get the unique right to break into as many as five states. This is because the invasion of Texas (often falsely claimed to be an independence movement) intended the state to be seized for more US slave states.
 
Hello, new to the forum and glad to be here. In fact it was this topic that brought me here.

I've written more than little about this.
Smashwords — The End of Texas — A book by Juan Batista
"A bumbling Texas governor flirts with secession. Far right militias flock to his call and prepare for violence to bring about independence. A backlash from Indigenous Mexicans in Texas calls for the Aztlan Now movement, Mexicans wanting to secede FROM Texas and stay loyal to the US. Militias, Brown Power people, prison gangs, police, and FBI clash. From this comes new Mexican-majority US states."

Anyone who imagines most Texans have ever wanted to secede doesn't know or understand Texas.
Slightly more half of all whites in the state do, most conservatives do, and most Republicans do.
But none of those groups are the majority in Texas anymore. The Latino population is the most fervently patriotic and opposed to such treasonous sentiment.
Any attempt at secession would
A) lead to violence
B) lead to a backlash by the indigenous Mexican population and
C) end in failure, and likely the breakup of the state.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, the idea that Texas ever had any mythical right to secede, or was ever truly an independent nation, are both false.
BTW, my book is free, for anyone interested to read in more depth on the subject.
 
This is purely an urban legend.

Texas did get the unique right to break into as many as five states. This is because the invasion of Texas (often falsely claimed to be an independence movement) intended the state to be seized for more US slave states.

Texas wasn't "invaded". It was annexed by the United States, and it wanted to be.
 
Somerville;1060514289The [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html" said:
majority decision[/URL] as written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase had the following:

Did you even notice his issue and mine and few others is with the accuracy of that ruling? What exactly makes you think people aren't aware of what it says?
 
This is purely an urban legend.

Texas did get the unique right to break into as many as five states. This is because the invasion of Texas (often falsely claimed to be an independence movement) intended the state to be seized for more US slave states.

You do realize that for a short period, Texas was an independent nation following independence from Mexico, right?
 
It isn't "ruling over". If I recall, Texas has representation.
It seem to me that if a state does not with to be a member of a federation but is forcibly prevented from exiting, then it is being ruled by the other member states, whether or not it gets to exercise its minority vote.
 
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?

Yes, this makes sense. If people want to govern themselves, I've go no problem with that.

Another issue is that people worry about "States Rights" all the time without much thought to our territories. Centinel sees that, if there was a civil war over Texas, that would turn Texas into an occupied territory, and he sees that as wrong; however, we do already own territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa that do not have representation in Congress yet have to listen to federal law anyway.

These territories should be allowed their independence if they want it.
 
MadLib said:
The problem with something like this is how far the "independence" idea can stretch to. If Texas or any other state can secede from the U.S., then wouldn't it be the right of an individual to secede with his own property?

Definitely. I'm not sure if you meant this as a rhetorical question but I absolutely believe that every person should be able to secede from any political chains. The only alternative is slavery; we are either free or we are not.
 
Explain, if you can.

Quantrill

Don't feel like reading, or don't like what it says?

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

You want to say slavery wasn't the only issue, that's fine. You're probably correct. You want to say it wasn't an issue? Dead wrong, it was an issue.
 
Last edited:
Did you even notice his issue and mine and few others is with the accuracy of that ruling? What exactly makes you think people aren't aware of what it says?


"the accuracy of that ruling?" Just what do you mean? Are you of the opinion that you and your friends are more knowledgeable in Constitutional law than the justices on the Supreme Court.

Of course, a few people are aware of the ruling, that does not mean however they actually know much about the subject. Simply because you disagree does not mean it is not a valid ruling.
 
If you can disprove it according to history, then why don't you instead of whining about what I said.

Quantrill

Me "whining"? I think not.. your pattern of response seems to be attack, attack, attack but without an artillery backup, You know - exploding shells of real history and law. Instead I see frequent assertions but seldom evidence of true understanding.
 
Perhaps. Did the USA repay Britain for all the money spent building early America, after we seceeded from the British Empire? I've never run across any info that we did...
The fledgling U.S. granted elite British land owners back their property after the war as if nothing had happened. The colonies were never a state of Britain, they were an outpost that Britain for all intent ignored until after it's war with France was over and it needed tax slaves to pay back it's war debt. That said, how could the colonies seceed if it wasn't a recognized state to begin with?
 
"the accuracy of that ruling?" Just what do you mean? Are you of the opinion that you and your friends are more knowledgeable in Constitutional law than the justices on the Supreme Court.

Of course, a few people are aware of the ruling, that does not mean however they actually know much about the subject. Simply because you disagree does not mean it is not a valid ruling.

Appeals to authority do not worry me, Somerville.

If you can defend the court in their ruling and get around obvious issues with it which everyone knows by now that has been following this thread, do so. If not, and you wish to just say I'm stupid that is your right, but don't expect it will win you anything.

Its interesting to note that Chase years after the ruling said session was legal. Then again, Chase was more of a politician than anything else and he was known to say something is this and then turn around and say it was the exact opposite.
 
Last edited:
Don't feel like reading, or don't like what it says?

Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

You want to say slavery wasn't the only issue, that's fine. You're probably correct. You want to say it wasn't an issue? Dead wrong, it was an issue.

Don't want to talk to a link. Its a forum. Hopefully a certain degree of knowledge is gained by the poster so that they can offer an explanation to what they have learned. Nothing wrong with proving a point by showing its source. But I like some explanation.

The statement made was that the South fought to preserve slavery. That was a blanket statement. Easy to say. If a man is trying to rob me and I resist, some can say I fought just for money. That money was to provide for my family. without it I couldn't. Yet I fought just for money.

The same for the North. Was slavery an issue? Of course. But not because they were concerned about the plight of the negroe, except some who were fanatical abolishonists. It was because it fueled the Southern economy. So, the North on the whole was against the Southern slavery hoping to hinder the Souths economy. Not because they wanted to free the black man.

The point here is, that the South was obedient to the Constitution. Regardless of what you think of slavery. The North viewed the Constitution with disdain because it protected the Souths agricultural economy by protecting slavery.

Go ahead and whine about slavery, but don't say the South was treasoness. We were obedient to the Constitution. And if we were obedient to the Constitution, why did the North pursue war against us? Who is the traitor now?

Quantrill
 
Ratification by the States or else it would not exist. If it had been for the people of the Unitied States as a whole, as a Nation, then no need for ratification of the States or anyone as the delegates in Philedlphia already represented the US. And when they finally voted on the Constitution they created, then that should have been it, if we the people were we the people of the Nation as a whole. But it wasn't it because we the people were the people of the States and so the States needed to ratify.

Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.

Quantrill

All that is baloney. Worse, its yesterdays digested baloney.

We both agree that a mechanism was set up to ratify the Constitution. And we both agree that the people played the major role in this ratification. You seem to feel, that because it was done on a state by state basis, that somehow- someway, this means that the people were not the important factor by that the states were the important factor.

A state is a man made contrivance that does not vote, does not speak, does not do anything independent of the human citizens who comprise it. The men who wrote and signed the Constitution speficied that CONVENTIONS in the states ratify the Constitution. There already were existing state governments in place and they could have been charged with the ratification process and one could argue as you do that it was STATES - through their established government - that ratified the Constitution.

But that was not the reality of it.

The Founders specified that CONVENTIONS made up of citizens - not the already established state government - handle this process.

WE THE PEOPLE means just what it says. If Madison or any other Founder wanted it to read WE THE PEOPLE OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES then he should have pushed for that and got the other Founder to agree to that wording.

But that did not happen.
 
Don't want to talk to a link. Its a forum. Hopefully a certain degree of knowledge is gained by the poster so that they can offer an explanation to what they have learned. Nothing wrong with proving a point by showing its source. But I like some explanation.

The statement made was that the South fought to preserve slavery.

Quantrill

Every year or so on sites like this, we have these go arounds. The evidence is always the same. We have the official statements from the states who seceded and in state after state after state THEY list the preservation of slavery as one of their main motivations in seceding.

This issue is dead and buried. The only way anyone can deny the significant and important role slavery played in causing the various states to secede is to deny the existence and authenticity of the statements from the states themselves.

This issue was settled a century and a half ago.
 
Appeals to authority do not worry me, Somerville.

If you can defend the court in their ruling and get around obvious issues with it which everyone knows by now that has been following this thread, do so. If not, and you wish to just say I'm stupid that is your right, but don't expect it will win you anything.

Its interesting to note that Chase years after the ruling said session was legal. Then again, Chase was more of a politician than anything else and he was known to say something is this and then turn around and say it was the exact opposite.

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY!?!?!?!?!?

This is at least the third time you have used this phrase in the last few weeks. Each time you employ it, you do so wrongly.

Please read this - it will explain to you what an appeal to authority actually is.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

You have been misusing it to mean acknowledgment of historical reality. Somebody tells you that a certain thing is legal and you say they are appealing to authority. You are telling us that a fallacy is committed by those who point out the historical reality of a Supreme Court ruling. That is silly.

Please look at the bolded section. The fallacy is committed when the person in question - in this case the US Supreme Court - is not an expert. In our system of government, the Supreme Court is the expert. Somebody telling you that the Supreme Court decided this issue is NOT employing the fallacy of an appeal to authority. It simply is a recognition of the historical record.

If you read further, you will discover that an Appeal to Authority is not in itself wrong or improper in debate. It can be employed usefully and properly. And when done so, there is nothing wrong with it in the least.

The mistake you are making is one often made by people with no formal debate training. It happens. Now you can learn and avoid it in the future.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, people like those who created the Constitution. Those types. States are a political and geographical body consisting of the people of that state. Its is part of our political makeup. You can't get away from it. The constitution was concerned with the powers to the State and those to the Central or Federal govt.

I agree that the constitution is a treaty or compact between the states, not a compact between individual people at large. The people of the states, as sovereign political societies, created the federal government to act as their agent, to perform certain specific enumerated functions. The federal government is the product of an inter-state agreement, not a broad social contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom