• 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
Quantrill said:
Should have thought about that before you went against the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So since the Northerners interpreted the Constitution the way the Southerners didn't like, the Southerners get to attack the Northerners? Who appointed them the judges of the Constitution?
 
MadLib said:
In regards to slavery? You think they should have let the Southerners continue their crime?
Click to expand...

How was it a crime when it was the law?

Quantrill
 
MadLib said:
So since the Northerners interpreted the Constitution the way the Southerners didn't like, the Southerners get to attack the Northerners? Who appointed them the judges of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Article 4 sec. 2 is not up for interpretation. It is specific.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Article 4 sec. 2 is not up for interpretation. It is specific.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Which part? The part that says only Congress can create states? The right to a republican form of government?
 
Quantrill said:
How is it a myth? The North flouted the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
The myth is that the South followed the constitution. Kinda hard to follow the constitution when ur trying to break up the Union with seccession. The whole point of the Constitution was to bind the states together, not break them up.
 
Moot said:
The myth is that the South followed the constitution. Kinda hard to follow the constitution when ur trying to break up the Union with seccession. The whole point of the Constitution was to bind the states together, not break them up.
Click to expand...

First, secession was not uncontitutional. Second, why does the North disregard the fugitive slave law? Article 4 sec. 2. Why does the North allow John Brown freedom in the North to plot terroristic attacks against the South?

The South was not disobedient to the Constitution.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
First, secession was not uncontitutional. Second, why does the North disregard the fugitive slave law? Article 4 sec. 2. Why does the North allow John Brown freedom in the North to plot terroristic attacks against the South?

The South was not disobedient to the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Can you prove that the government supported the raid that they suppressed with military?
 
MadLib said:
Which part? The part that says only Congress can create states? The right to a republican form of government?
Click to expand...

How about you get a book with the Constitution written in it and see.

Quantrill
 
Henrin said:
:yawn: And here I was thinking you had something to say.
Click to expand...

It went right over your head. It appears that you had no idea how many founders signed the Constitution. Its a good day when you can learn something.
 
MadLib said:
Can you prove that the government supported the raid that they suppressed with military?
Click to expand...

John Brown was allowed to roam free in the northern states after having been arrested for the murders in Kansas. Once he got to the 'free' states, he mysteriously got free. Met with northern money men, and even politicians for support in future attacks upon the South.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
John Brown was allowed to roam free in the northern states after having been arrested for the murders in Kansas. Once he got to the 'free' states, he mysteriously got free. Met with northern money men, and even politicians for support in future attacks upon the South.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

Can you prove this? Hint: the source should not be a dumb uberconservative Confederate site.
 
Quantrill said:
How about you get a book with the Constitution written in it and see.

Quantrill
Click to expand...

The fugitive slave bill, I'm guessing.

Look, the Constitution is over 200 years old. It should be adjusted to fit modern times. An amendment that keeps states from seceding would be in line.
 
MadLib said:
The fugitive slave bill, I'm guessing.

Look, the Constitution is over 200 years old. It should be adjusted to fit modern times. An amendment that keeps states from seceding would be in line.
Click to expand...

It should be obeyed during the time it is in force. Don't you agree?

Quantrill
 
MadLib said:
Can you prove this? Hint: the source should not be a dumb uberconservative Confederate site.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can. It's not uncommon knowledge. But disregarded by most. I will get back with you.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
First, secession was not uncontitutional. Second, why does the North disregard the fugitive slave law? Article 4 sec. 2. Why does the North allow John Brown freedom in the North to plot terroristic attacks against the South?

The South was not disobedient to the Constitution.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
Where in the constitution does it give any state the right to form a new compact with other states to form a new central government that could wage war on the other states still in the union? No where that I can see. But what I can see were a handful of radicals commiting treason by trying to bust up the union and throwing a tantrum because they couldn't get their own way.

Do you understand anything about legal contracts? Anything at all? The Southern states signed a legal contract with 36 other states and in those days a man's honor was as good as word. The contract did not give one state the right to break the agreement with all the other states without their consent or a majority vote. The South's renegging on it's contract with the other states showed that the South had no honor and couldn't be trusted to keep it's word.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
It went right over your head. It appears that you had no idea how many founders signed the Constitution. Its a good day when you can learn something.
Click to expand...

:yawn: Nothing went over my head. I just thought you had something to say and like usual I was disappointed. I really have to stop expecting something from you.
 
Moot said:
Where in the constitution does it give any state the right to form a new compact with other states to form a new central government that could wage war on the other states still in the union? No where that I can see. But what I can see were a handful of radicals commiting treason by trying to bust up the union and throwing a tantrum because they couldn't get their own way.

Do you understand anything about legal contracts? Anything at all? The Southern states signed a legal contract with 36 other states and in those days a man's honor was as good as word. The contract did not give one state the right to break the agreement with all the other states without their consent or a majority vote. The South's renegging on it's contract with the other states showed that the South had no honor and couldn't be trusted to keep it's word.
Click to expand...

A "handful of radicals" who were "throwing a tantrum"? This is your summation of the War Between the States?

You go far too far, missy, when you state that the South had no honor and that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word. Fie on you.
 
haymarket said:
And yet again, in your hubris, you assume that thought escaped the members of the US SUpreme Court? Its amazing how the world managed to get this far without lewrockwell.com to provide all these talking points.
Click to expand...

And yet again you fail to give even a hint of a clue as to why secession would be prohibited.

Oh wait. That's because it's NOT prohibited.
 
JuanBatista said:
Apparently, that is how secessionists think.

Because a small groups of secessionists keeps trying to impose their will on loyal majorities.
Click to expand...

If the majority of a state don't want to secede, then that state won't secede.
 
JuanBatista said:
You really haven't been following this thread have you?

That's been beaten to death, case law showing it again and again.
Click to expand...

And this case law is based upon what language in the constitution?
 
JuanBatista said:
Apparently you didn't bother to read most of the thread.

Or the rest of the Constitution...

Here's a hint: Have you read the parts where it talks about admission of states, the only relevant parts to the question?

Didn't think so...most Libertarians conveniently ignore them. And secessionists breath fire if you mention them.
Click to expand...

Please quote me the section that forbids a state from leaving the union.
 
MadLib said:
I agree with the general idea, but I think that the Constitution should be flexible.
Click to expand...

The constitution cannot be flexible else it wouldn't be a constitution. It can be ammeded however.

Quantrill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom