• 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
Then ask yourself a very simple question: what changed between those early days of the USA and the current powers that states have?

What changed was the the states ****canned the articles and entered into a new compact in which the delegated more powers to the federation.

What’s your point? Sovereign states leave and enter various treaties and compacts all the time. However, they still remain sovereign.

Are you taking the position that what you call international law is superior in authority to the US Constitution?

Nope. I’m saying that the states were and are sovereign, and they created the federal government through a voluntary compact. Since the compact places no restrictions on exit and has no specific time limit, international law and historical precedent would indicate that any of the states may exit when they wish.
 
Here is another source. A quote from Samuel White of Delaware from a speech delievered to the Senate on Nov. 2, 1803 concerning the Louisiana Purchase. Anals of America, Encyclopedia Britanica, p.175

" Louisiana must and will become settled if we hold it, and with the very population that would otherwise occuppy part of our present territory. Thus our citizens will be removed to the immense distance of 2,000 or 3,000 miles from the capital of the Union...their affections will become alilenated; they will gradually begin to view us as strangers; they will form other commercial connections; and our interests will become distinct.

"These, with other causes that human wisdom may not now forsee, will in time effect a separation, and I fear our bounds will be fixed nearer to our houses than the waters of the Mississippi. "

So, as you can see, from the very begining the New England States were concerned over losing power and wealth and control over the new government. And it is for these very reasons that I believe the power in the North had made the determination that it simply must conquer the South in order to protect this power and interests. Slavery was an issue that was there and could be used against the South later.

Quantrill

Neither of these things say anything about ruining the Southern economy. Both are about Westward expansion.

I don't know how a quote from one guy from Delaware says anything about New England's power grab. Delaware isn't a New England state, and if anything in 1803, they would have been more on the side of admitting more slave states, as Delaware was a slave state. Even though it says "Louisiana," the Louisiana Territory as added was much bigger than what became the state of Louisiana. He could have been as concerned about what is Iowa now.

At any rate, making the leap from this to "See, they were out to destroy the South" is a HUGE stretch. Both of these quotes are more about East vs. West than they are North vs. South.
 
What changed was the the states ****canned the articles and entered into a new compact in which the delegated more powers to the federation.

What’s your point? Sovereign states leave and enter various treaties and compacts all the time. However, they still remain sovereign.



Nope. I’m saying that the states were and are sovereign, and they created the federal government through a voluntary compact. Since the compact places no restrictions on exit and has no specific time limit, international law and historical precedent would indicate that any of the states may exit when they wish.

The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty.
 
The supreriority of the anglo-saxon over the negroe was held by both North and South. Including Lincoln.

Quantrill

Sure, many held the view that whites were superior. Not exactly uncommon for the time, but it was also fairly common in the North to believe that while blacks were "inferior," owning people as property was wrong.
 
Not a treaty? It’s an agreement between free, sovereign, and independent states. What else could it be?

The founding document of a Republic. That's why we call the people that wrote it "founders" instead of "diplomats."

It was also meant to strengthen the bond of a bunch of states held together in a very loose Confederation.
 
Last edited:
What changed was the the states ****canned the articles and entered into a new compact in which the delegated more powers to the federation.

What’s your point? Sovereign states leave and enter various treaties and compacts all the time. However, they still remain sovereign.



Nope. I’m saying that the states were and are sovereign, and they created the federal government through a voluntary compact. Since the compact places no restrictions on exit and has no specific time limit, international law and historical precedent would indicate that any of the states may exit when they wish.

I see by your response that you failed to do your homework.

Again, if you go through the easy steps I have outlined for you - and I have provided you with the necessary resources - you will have your own answer to your own question staring you right in the face.

Discovery is a wonderful experience.
 
The Constitution of the United States is not a treaty.

Exactly. Its the Constitution of the USA. No more need to be said.

And in it, the States gave up lots of power that they had under the Articles to belong to a nation that had a future - which it most certainly may not have had under the weak Articles. They had sovereignity and gave some of it up for a higher purpose.
 
The founding document of a Republic.
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.

That's why we call the people that wrote it "founders" instead of "diplomats."
I believe they were called delegates. They were sent to the convention by their respective states.

It was also meant to strengthen the bond of a bunch of states held together in a very loose Confederation.

Yes, it was meant to strengthen the bonds between the states. However, the states were and continue to remain free, independent, and sovereign republics.
 
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.


I believe they were called delegates. They were sent to the convention by their respective states.



Yes, it was meant to strengthen the bonds between the states. However, the states were and continue to remain free, independent, and sovereign republics.

Other than your own personal opinion about this "federation" allegation, what can you cite to show evidence of this claim?
 
The united states are a federation of sovereign republics, not a single republic.

That's a radical interpretation that not many outside of ultra-libertarian thnk tanks would hold.

Yes, it was meant to strengthen the bonds between the states. However, the states were and continue to remain free, independent, and sovereign republics.

Yet they gave up everything that would make them sovereign. Military, currency, and control of foreign affairs were what made a sovereign state in the 18th Century. There was no UN to give you a seat, if you didn't have those 3 things, you simply weren't sovereign. You're grafting a 21st Century understanding of sovereignty onto the 18th Century.

It was the founding of one institution that took over all the trappings of sovereignty. Doubtless, the founders understood this.
 
As a resident of Texas, I see no reason that Texan's would seek such an action. I am an American first and Texan a close second. With the current situation in Mexico, Texas would soon find itself virtually at war with Mexico. Not a declared war, but a war against the criminal cartels that virtually control Mexico and that would soon try to control Texas. I see no situation that our nation would allow a state to secede without a fight.
 
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100
Ó2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute
Ludwig von Mises Institute : The Austrian School Is Advancing Liberty
39
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF SECESSION IN
POLITICAL THEORY AND HISTORY

In the case of Texas v. White (1868), the Supreme Court
of the United States effectively delegitimized secession as a viable
constitutional option when it held that the unilateral secession of a
state was unconstitutional.76 In addition, the War Between the States
came at a terrible cost in lives and property. Had there been an express
constitutional right of secession inserted in the U.S. Constitution,
the War itself might have been averted.77
Although secession as an inherent right of the several States was
effectively delegitimized by the Union victory over the South and by
Texas v. White, peaceful secessions guided by the rule of law were not
completely unknown. Robert A. Young cites three such examples: the
secession of Hungary from Austria in 1867, the secession of Norway
from Sweden in 1905, and the secession of Singapore from Malaysia
in 1965.

Please tell the reading audience what the difference(s) might be when comparing the peaceful secessions noted and any such attempt in the US
 
Journal of Libertarian Studies
Volume 17, no. 4 (Fall 2003), pp. 39–100
Ó2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute
Ludwig von Mises Institute : The Austrian School Is Advancing Liberty
39
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF SECESSION IN
POLITICAL THEORY AND HISTORY



Please tell the reading audience what the difference(s) might be when comparing the peaceful secessions noted and any such attempt in the US

The other secessions did not take place in the United States. Therefore, the United States Constitution does not apply.
 
Again, if you go through the easy steps I have outlined for you - and I have provided you with the necessary resources - you will have your own answer to your own question staring you right in the face.

Question? What question?
 
Exactly. Its the Constitution of the USA. No more need to be said.

And in it, the States gave up lots of power that they had under the Articles to belong to a nation that had a future - which it most certainly may not have had under the weak Articles. They had sovereignity and gave some of it up for a higher purpose.

The states sent delegates to a convention. A document was drafted. That document was sent back to the states for ratification. And the states ratified it.

The constitution is an compact among free, independent, sovereign states. Generally such an agreement is called a treaty, but feel free to call it whatever you like. What you call it doesn't change the fact that the sates were and continue to be sovereign and the federal government was created by them as their agent to carry out certain specific tasks. To empower their agent to undertake these tasks, the states delegated some of their authority.
 
Other than your own personal opinion about this "federation" allegation, what can you cite to show evidence of this claim?

Evidence of that fact that the states prior to creating the constitution were free, independent, and sovereign states?

Evidence that they sent delegates to a convention, that these delegates wrote a constitution, that this constitution was returned to the states for ratification, and that the states then ratified this agreement?

Evidence that the constitution contains no language in which any of the states relinquish their status as sovereign states?

You need evidence for these basic historical facts? I thought you were supposed to be some sort of history teacher.
 
That's a radical interpretation that not many outside of ultra-libertarian thnk tanks would hold.

I have no idea what they do in libertarian think tanks, nor does my position have anything to do with libertarianism. It is simply an understanding of the historical origins of the union among our states.

Yet they gave up everything that would make them sovereign.

They did not give up any power. They delegated powers to the union. As sovereign states, they alone determine what powers they choose to exercise for themselves and which they choose to delegate to an agent.
 
To a lesser extent certainly, but that still doesnt negate the fact that the South seceeded and fought a war, by their own admission, to preserve slavery.

No, not lesser and probably greater. The North cared not for the negro.

You misunderstand. The South didn't secede to preserve slavery. The South seceded because the North refused to treat them as equals. The North was going to use the slave issue to destroy the Souths economy. And the North had no constitutional grounds to do it. Yet they were continually allowing the constant attacks against the South concerning slavery.

The South legally had nothing to fear. But thats only if all parties were legal abiding parties. And the North now was fortelling the 'irresistable conflict' concerning slavery, as Seward says. And Lincoln was telling how a house divided cannot stand, concerning slavery. Yet it was protected. Nothing the South should fear. The Federal govt. had no say.

Consider, the Dred Scott decision. The South could take its slaves anywhere in the country it wanted.

But the South knew the North would not abide these decisions. They called the Constitution a covenant with hell. They claimed they came under a 'higher law'.

So, you see. The South didn't secede to preserve slavery. The South seceded because they were not offered equal protection under the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
The other secessions did not take place in the United States. Therefore, the United States Constitution does not apply.

:lol: well, sure

another difference is, those other secessions took place within the framework of their laws... which his also possible under our Constitution.

it's not that secession is unconstitutional.. it's that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
 
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.

I'm from Texas as well, and agree. Any attempted secession, even if successful, would just lead to it becoming like Somalia or Lebanon, a fragmented failed nation that would be a magnet for terrorist bases. Instead of jihadists, these terrorists would be militias and white supremacists.

What most people don't seem to realize is that Texas secessionists are virtually all white hardline conservatives, to the right of someone like Santorum. Those huge parts of Texas that are Latino would fight secession tooth and nail.

Any secession would just lead to a shattered state looking like this, the third map.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/download/158998/1/3212626/the-end-of-texas.pdf
 
Neither of these things say anything about ruining the Southern economy. Both are about Westward expansion.

I don't know how a quote from one guy from Delaware says anything about New England's power grab. Delaware isn't a New England state, and if anything in 1803, they would have been more on the side of admitting more slave states, as Delaware was a slave state. Even though it says "Louisiana," the Louisiana Territory as added was much bigger than what became the state of Louisiana. He could have been as concerned about what is Iowa now.

At any rate, making the leap from this to "See, they were out to destroy the South" is a HUGE stretch. Both of these quotes are more about East vs. West than they are North vs. South.

These are just two quotes to show that it was in the New Englanders thinking that they were losing power and control. That fear goes all the way back to the begining of the country. This westward expansion would be an explosive issue prior to the War between the States. The balance of power as the North feared. This is what caused the many 'compromises'.

So, these are only a couple of quotes showing you that regardless of slavery, the yankee feared losing control and losing money. Which I believe would cause them to decide to make war and conquer the South.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
I'm from Texas as well, and agree. Any attempted secession, even if successful, would just lead to it becoming like Somalia or Lebanon, a fragmented failed nation that would be a magnet for terrorist bases. Instead of jihadists, these terrorists would be militias and white supremacists.

What most people don't seem to realize is that Texas secessionists are virtually all white hardline conservatives, to the right of someone like Santorum. Those huge parts of Texas that are Latino would fight secession tooth and nail.

Any secession would just lead to a shattered state looking like this, the third map.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/download/158998/1/3212626/the-end-of-texas.pdf

not sure I buy into the speculation that Texas would turn to a jihadist ****hole if it seceded.

it is possible that a very powerful economy could flourish from day 1.. and it's also possible that it could be a somalia-like ****storm of an economy... it's impossible to know which it would be.
 
Sure, many held the view that whites were superior. Not exactly uncommon for the time, but it was also fairly common in the North to believe that while blacks were "inferior," owning people as property was wrong.

Yeah, funny how they got that idea after they sold all their slaves South. Oh the yankee loves to ride the moral high horse after he has been compensated.

What hypocrits.

Quantrill
 
Last edited:
Texas is actually near the bottom in almost every index in the country, highest poverty rates, highest dropout rates, highest infant mortality. The only thing low is the taxes, and the two are related.

The first thing that happens after independence is usually an economic slump caused by lack of confidence in the currency and lack of loans from elsewhere. No reason TX would be different. In fact the small govt mentality guarantees a tanked economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom