• 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
A state is a geographic and political contrivance that can do nothing as it is not human and does not exist as a living thing. It is THE PEOPLE who the Constitution was created for and it is THE PEOPLE who created it.
 
haymarket said:
A state is a geographic and political contrivance that can do nothing as it is not human and does not exist as a living thing. It is THE PEOPLE who the Constitution was created for and it is THE PEOPLE who created it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Institutions are like living things (corporations, states, etc). Well, at least in jurisdiction. :)
 
Canell said:
Wrong. Institutions are like living things (corporations, states, etc). Well, at least in jurisdiction. :)
Click to expand...

What baloney. A state is a place on a map. It is NOT a living thing independent and divorced from the human people that live in it.
 
MadLib said:
Texas wasn't "invaded". It was annexed by the United States, and it wanted to be.
Click to expand...

False. It was invaded FIVE TIMES by US forces, prior to the Anglo American colonists.

And Texas was never independent, any more than Chechnya is today. It had no legal right to ask to become part of the US.

More than half the territory the insurgents claimed was never under the slightest bit of control by them. The "Texas Republic" claimed parts of Wyoming ferpetessake.

Even the parts it OCCASIONALLY controlled, that was in large part due to ethnic cleansing of both the Native and Mexican population.
 
Canell said:
No, that's territory. :)
A state is a political entity, created by humans.
Click to expand...

And it is with the human citizens that the Constitution is addressed to.

WE THE PEOPLE...... not we the states.
 
See my answer to Mad Lib.

And no, it was not. Its "independence" was not recognized by any nation, except kinda sorta France. France sent an ambassador who never got any closer than New Orleans.

Most importantly, Mexico never recognized its independence, and the majority of loyal Mexican citizens living in the claimed area never wanted independence either.

In fact, Texas's leaders didn't want independence. They asked for admission to the US only TWO DAYS after the start of their insurgency.
 
Quantrill said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was one of the reasons, though. I don't necessarily blame them for wanting to divorce themselves from a government that may one day wish to remove their livelihood. Slavery was a big part of how the economic system of the South worked.

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.
Click to expand...

I have never once heard anyone say that Northerners went into the war hoping to destroy the South's economy. With the exception of Sherman's march, but that was a war measure during the war. Nobody wanted to destroy slavery because it was Southern that I have heard or read. There was definitely abolitionist sentiment in Union armies, but that was based on the idea that slavery was wrong. They weren't necessarily believers that blacks were equal either (so don't start with that), but definitely thought it was wrong to own other people.

Do you have a source for this claim that the North entered the war to destroy the South?
 
Quantrill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually it was the Southern Aristocrats that was hindering progress for the entire Economy by opposing Tariffs, opposing internal improvements like the railroad, and opposing public education K-6.

It was quite the Libertarian paradise in the South, for the Aristocrats.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
A state is a geographic and political contrivance that can do nothing as it is not human and does not exist as a living thing. It is THE PEOPLE who the Constitution was created for and it is THE PEOPLE who created it.
Click to expand...
Of course. The term state is simply the word we use to describe the sovereign political society created by a group of people.

When a state enters into a treaty or compact, nobody really believes that there is a living, breathing thing that does this. Most people recognize that when Denmark signs a treaty with Norway, there are not two imaginary entities interacting. It is the sovereign people of Denmark, acting through their duly elected representatives making an agreement with the sovereign people of Norway.

Likewise, the constitution represents the sovereign people of Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, etc. entering into a mutual compact the people of the other sovereign states. The federation is the result of this compact.
 
Too bad for your argument that they gave up much of that sovereignty to join the larger unit of the USA.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Too bad for your argument that they gave up that sovereignty to join the larger unit of the USA.
Click to expand...

If states are not sovereign what's the point of having them in the first place? Why not just let DC decide?
 
Canell said:
If states are not sovereign what's the point of having them in the first place? Why not just let DC decide?
Click to expand...

Perhaps as a functional layer of local government.
 
As a native Texan, and as I stated in an earlier post. It doesn't matter whether or not Texas could secede tomorrow - meaning without out any legal hitches what-so-ever with the Federal Government. It all boils down to what it cost and what resources are needed to run an independent country.

Texas doesn't have the economic or resource strength to become its own country...period. It would never survive being an independent country. Well, maybe it could if we in Texas want to become another Haiti or the like.
 
haymarket said:
Too bad for your argument that they gave up much of that sovereignty to join the larger unit of the USA.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see your evidence that the states gave up their sovereignty by entering into an compact with each other. States enter into treaties and compacts all the time. They do not automatically give up their sovereignty by doing so.
 
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?
Click to expand...

I like where this is going. :) It is well within their rights to secede from any form of government, otherwise the government is coercive.

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.
Click to expand...

A national shame.
 
Removable Mind said:
As a native Texan, and as I stated in an earlier post. It doesn't matter whether or not Texas could secede tomorrow - meaning without out any legal hitches what-so-ever with the Federal Government. It all boils down to what it cost and what resources are needed to run an independent country.

Texas doesn't have the economic or resource strength to become its own country...period. It would never survive being an independent country. Well, maybe it could if we in Texas want to become another Haiti or the like.
Click to expand...

So Texas, a very prosperous state, would suddenly become a third-world nation if it was to secede? This is pretty ridiculous. They have many times more capital than Haiti, and enacting policies that encouraged capital accumulation would make it a very rich nation indeed.
 
haymarket said:
Too bad for your argument that they gave up much of that sovereignty to join the larger unit of the USA.
Click to expand...

The states delegated various specific powers to the federal government. In no way does this action repeal or limit sovereignty. Furthermore, any power which has been delegated may be un-delegated in the future.

del·e·gate
verb \-ˌgāt\
: to entrust to another
 
phattonez said:
So Texas, a very prosperous state, would suddenly become a third-world nation if it was to secede? This is pretty ridiculous. They have many times more capital than Haiti, and enacting policies that encouraged capital accumulation would make it a very rich nation indeed.
Click to expand...

Saying it would be 3rd World may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's no question that it would hurt Texas economically.
 
rocket88 said:
Saying it would be 3rd World may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's no question that it would hurt Texas economically.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a share of $16 trillion national debt hurt Texas as well? :)
 
Canell said:
Wouldn't a share of $16 trillion national debt hurt Texas as well? :)
Click to expand...

Not as much as not making the money to pay on it. Interstate commerce is the way things work. Heck, it's even more now, it's globalization. Interdepence means that Texas' economy is far better within the United States than outside of it. Exiting the United States would have great consequences globally. Our trading partners know the United States, they know we're good for the money. An independent Texas not so much.

Greece leaving the Euro zone would be nothing by comparison
 
phattonez said:
So Texas, a very prosperous state, would suddenly become a third-world nation if it was to secede? This is pretty ridiculous. They have many times more capital than Haiti, and enacting policies that encouraged capital accumulation would make it a very rich nation indeed.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've never put a pen to all of the things that a country has to financially manage. Just upgrading the military to one that could provide adequate protection (against the next American President)...a ton of money The education system alone would bankrupt Texas. Then there is those things in place such as Medicaid and Medicare. I can continue to list all of the things necessary, but not worth the time or finger energy. You'll have to put on your thinking cap.
 
rocket88 said:
Saying it would be 3rd World may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's no question that it would hurt Texas economically.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. The inflation of the Fed sucking away their capital takes away much of the states' productive capacity.
 
Removable Mind said:
Apparently you've never put a pen to all of the things that a country has to financially manage. Just upgrading the military to one that could provide adequate protection (against the next American President)...a ton of money
Click to expand...

We should let Texas go peacefully.

The education system alone would bankrupt Texas. Then there is those things in place such as Medicaid and Medicare. I can continue to list all of the things necessary, but not worth the time or finger energy. You'll have to put on your thinking cap.
Click to expand...

These things aren't necessary. :) All can be provided privately.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I'm using it wrong at all. You are placing more authority than they deserve on them so you don't need to debate. While they surely have authority you can't very well trump authority of the founders with them. What the founders said the clauses mean is still the factor that will decide if the courts got it right and everything here points them NOT getting it right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom