• 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!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
Constitutional Convention May 31st 1787

The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.

Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse [FN12] unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

The Committee then rose & the House

Adjourned
 
i would suggest you read and fully understand what a republican form of government is.


A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government.

The governmental or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Federation

That wiki link is a piss poor place to send anyone to understand what a republican form of government is.

A Republican form of Government is a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. The link that you provided is actually a general broad definition of Federations.

State secession is exactly what a Republican form of Government is supposed to prevent; ie a State rising to power over the Federal governments powers.
 
That wiki link is a piss poor place to send anyone to understand what a republican form of government is.

A Republican form of Government is a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government. The link that you provided is actually a general broad definition of Federations.

State secession is exactly what a Republican form of Government is supposed to prevent; ie a State rising to power over the Federal governments powers.

the link had nothing too do with a republican form of government, the link at to do with a union and what it is.

a republican form of government is a "mixed government" and is about the dividing of power.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...esenative-democracy-but-mixed-government.html
 
Last edited:
my link was clear, you made the point the people were the Union.......and they are NOT.

I said the the preamble of the US Constitution says that its WE THE PEOPLE not WE THE STATES. Are you denying that fact? They even made sure to put those words in big font. That is because what is important is the people not the States. All what you are doing is making States out to be nationalist governments with rights trumping the individual rights of the people. You do not at all care about the individual right of the minority in your scenario where the majority wants to secede. One of the main purposes of a Republican form of Government is to let everyone have a voice in our government including the minority voices. In fact the entire point was to not a let a majority of the public to dictate to the minority. Individual rights are more important than any perceived rights that a government thinks it has. Without individual rights the powers of the Government are void. There is no such thing as civil secession its either that we as a people are all in or we are all out. There isnt really any middle ground. Either we have our individual rights protected and if we dont there isnt a need for a State to secede there is a need for war to rid us of those that have oppressed us. This pretending that State secession is a fix for anything is BS if the the Federal government gotten to the point where we have no rights then they will most likely not allow a State to secede in the first place. Outside of the Government being oppressive there is no excuse for a State or its people to think that it can leave the Constitution.

I just dont see what you and all Secessionists have against the US Constitution nor do I care why you hate it so much. I am willing to die defending the US Constitution. Apparently secessionists want to run from the Constitution instead of defending it and its principles. Which is why secessionists are anti American scum.
 
Not only would I support Texas secession, I'd help them pack. A few conditions, however. First, no keeping of weapons systems bought and paid for by US taxpayers. Second, any Texan who decided he or she was an American first would be allowed to move to anywhere else in the United States. We would have to set up secure borders to keep them out of the US once they left. And of course, re-institution slavery would be a no-no, as much as they might desire to do so.
 
I support the right of Texas to secede, as long as its done in a democratic manner. However, if I were a resident of Texas, I'd vote against independence. Funnily enough, the romanticized period of an independent Texas actually did fairly poorly economically, which is the primary reason why it chose to join the United States in the first place.
 
I just dont see what you and all Secessionists have against the US Constitution nor do I care why you hate it so much. I am willing to die defending the US Constitution. Apparently secessionists want to run from the Constitution instead of defending it and its principles. Which is why secessionists are anti American scum.

i am not calling for secession, i am always standing up for Natural RIGHTS which the people have, and local, state, federal and constitutional law take a back seat too.

i am a strict constitutionalist, and i believe in it strongly and what its purpose is.

the government is created to secure rights of the people.....that alone is the purpose of government......it not here to feed, cloth ,house, or instruct people to behave socially.

if the people of a state wish to secede by exercising their right and do it in a democratic manner then no other state or the federal government has the power per the constitution to stop them, because other people JUST don't like it.

when people have rights, they are going to exercise them at times in ways other people will NOT like, however it not for you and others to tell them they cant, it is their right...... not yours.

THIS is the problem with world today is that people want to control the rights of other people........if another person is not violating your rights, or threating the health and safety of the public...........LEAVE THEM ALONE.
 
Last edited:
i am not calling for secession, i am always standing up for Natural RIGHTS which the people have, and local, state, federal and constitutional law take a back seat too.

i am a strict constitutionalist, and i believe in it strongly and what its purpose is.

the government is created to secure rights of the people.....that alone is the purpose of government......it not here to feed, cloth ,house, or instruct people to behave socially.

if the people of a state wish to secede by exercising their right and do it in a democratic manner then no other state or the federal government has the power per the constitution to stop them, because other people JUST don't like it.

when people have rights, they are going to exercise them at times in ways other people will NOT like, however it not for you and others to tell them they cant, it is their right...... not yours.

THIS is the problem with world today is that people want to control the rights of other people........if another person is not violating your rights, or threating the health and safety of the public...........LEAVE THEM ALONE.

SO let m,e get this straight: You are for the Constitution but you think it is peoples natural right to ignore it?

BTW if a State attempts to secede it cannot do so without violating the rights of the Americans within that State. Case in point: Once a State decrees it isnt going to adhere to the Constitution (that is what secession is) Every American citizen living in that State just lost their Representation in Congress. They also lost every single protection to their rights from the State (that they live in) that the US Constitution provides. Again though if you are supporting secession because you think the Federal Government has overstepped their powers then State Secession isnt a fix at all nor is it a act that would adhere to the principles of the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. State secession as a fix for disagreeing with the government is just plain stupid. And it would be stupid to believe that the State would be of any worth as a government after such an act against the US Constitution. Secession from the US Constitution is about as much as one could get to being opposed to the US Constitution. SO dont tell me that you are a Constitutionalist in one breath and a secessionist in another and try to tell me that you are about rights.
 
SO let m,e get this straight: You are for the Constitution but you think it is peoples natural right to ignore it?

BTW if a State attempts to secede it cannot do so without violating the rights of the Americans within that State. Case in point: Once a State decrees it isnt going to adhere to the Constitution (that is what secession is) Every American citizen living in that State just lost their Representation in Congress. They also lost every single protection to their rights from the State (that they live in) that the US Constitution provides. Again though if you are supporting secession because you think the Federal Government has overstepped their powers then State Secession isnt a fix at all nor is it a act that would adhere to the principles of the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. State secession as a fix for disagreeing with the government is just plain stupid. And it would be stupid to believe that the State would be of any worth as a government after such an act against the US Constitution. Secession from the US Constitution is about as much as one could get to being opposed to the US Constitution. SO dont tell me that you are a Constitutionalist in one breath and a secessionist in another and try to tell me that you are about rights.


what is the purpose of government?........to secure rights of the people.

if government is not securing rights, then why does it exist?........there is no purpose of government if it is violating rights of the people.

a Citizen of a state does not lose his right, rights are not created by governments rights are inherent in man, be it on a state or federal level.

why are you putting law above......... rights of the people.......rights are no supposed to be violated at all by government.
 
what is the purpose of government?........to secure rights of the people.

if government is not securing rights, then why does it exist?........there is no purpose of government if it is violating rights of the people.

a Citizen of a state does not lose his right, rights are not created by governments rights are inherent in man, be it on a state or federal level.

why are you putting law above......... rights of the people.......rights are no supposed to be violated at all by government.

Yes you keep saying those things no matter what I say. Even if I didnt say anything near it.

But heres the deal about what you have been saying about a State seceding from the Constitution: You keep asserting that its a State seceding oh you might throw in that it was done perhaps by the will of the people but the vehicle that does it is State Government. Even if there are 4 actual Americans (because actual Americans would never dream of seceding from the Constitution) those Americans will lose their right by an act of State Government.

You can look at the method of secession in two ways either it was the majority dictating secession or it was the State Government dictating the doctrine of secession either scenery is nothing good for liberty or freedom; and those natural rights that you talk about that magically are defined in thin air.
 
Yes you keep saying those things no matter what I say. Even if I didnt say anything near it.

But heres the deal about what you have been saying about a State seceding from the Constitution: You keep asserting that its a State seceding oh you might throw in that it was done perhaps by the will of the people but the vehicle that does it is State Government. Even if there are 4 actual Americans (because actual Americans would never dream of seceding from the Constitution) those Americans will lose their right by an act of State Government.

You can look at the method of secession in two ways either it was the majority dictating secession or it was the State Government dictating the doctrine of secession either scenery is nothing good for liberty or freedom; and those natural rights that you talk about that magically are defined in thin air.

natural rights are part of the organic laws of america and are our nation's foundation, which all of our laws are created from.
 
what is the purpose of government?........to secure rights of the people.

if government is not securing rights, then why does it exist?........there is no purpose of government if it is violating rights of the people.

a Citizen of a state does not lose his right, rights are not created by governments rights are inherent in man, be it on a state or federal level.

why are you putting law above......... rights of the people.......rights are no supposed to be violated at all by government.

That's not the Constitution, though. That'a the Declaration of Independence.
 
the constitution embodies the principles of the DOI, which the u.s. federal government recognizes by federal law.

Perhaps so, but it is the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

Nevertheless, the purpose of government should be to preserve individual rights. Now, if a state decides to secede, and some of its citizens are not on board with the decision, whose rights are being violated?
 
Perhaps so, but it is the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

Nevertheless, the purpose of government should be to preserve individual rights. Now, if a state decides to secede, and some of its citizens are not on board with the decision, whose rights are being violated?

correct...

if a state secedes.....how does a Citizen lose his natural rights.
 
correct...

if a state secedes.....how does a Citizen lose his natural rights.

That would depend on the sort of government the new nation passed. There is no reason to expect Lone Star, or Bear Flag, or any other new nation to follow either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of a foreign nation, is there?
 
That would depend on the sort of government the new nation passed. There is no reason to expect Lone Star, or Bear Flag, or any other new nation to follow either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of a foreign nation, is there?

do you believe that a state is going to depart from natural law, and take away people rights if it secedes.
 
:doh...why do people post things they know nothing about?

Indeed. My recollection of history is that the Texans were the last state to give up the battle, a month or so after Lee surrendered. And even that did not end the war. I believe the Indian confederates finally gave it up almost a month after the Texans did. It took quite awhile for the news to spread that Richmond had fallen and Lee had surrendered so Lee's surrender didn't end the war. It just started the process for it to end.

But I do agree with some, that I'm pretty sure Washington would not take kindly to Texas seceding from the Union and would likely use military force to deal with that. But nevertheless. America was founded on the principle that if the government overstepped its assigned authority and became a problem, we the people had every right to dissolve it and do something else.
 
do you believe that a state is going to depart from natural law, and take away people rights if it secedes.

There is no guarantee that it won't. If a state secedes, then it is an independent nation and can set up whatever government it wants to.

When the Confederacy seceded, had it been allowed to secede that is, can you think of anyone's natural rights that might have been lost as a result?
 
There is no guarantee that it won't. If a state secedes, then it is an independent nation and can set up whatever government it wants to.

When the Confederacy seceded, had it been allowed to secede that is, can you think of anyone's natural rights that might have been lost as a result?

the constitution of the confederacy, is modeled on the federal constitution with same rights of the people ......and the southern states followed the same avenue the founders did when they separated from Britain.

if a state were to secede, which i don't see it, its going to be for the reason of the federal government violating the constitution and the rights of the people, no state is going to secede on based on that and then do the same thing they accuse the federal government of doing....because that would make no sense.
 
the constitution of the confederacy, is modeled on the federal constitution with same rights of the people ......and the southern states followed the same avenue the founders did when they separated from Britain.

if a state were to secede, which i don't see it, its going to be for the reason of the federal government violating the constitution and the rights of the people, no state is going to secede on based on that and then do the same thing they accuse the federal government of doing....because that would make no sense.

People do things that make no sense all the time.

And, had the confederacy been allowed to secede, Constitution or no, they would have continued to keep slaves. It seems to me that the natural rights of the slaves might have been in some jeopardy.
 
People do things that make no sense all the time.

And, had the confederacy been allowed to secede, Constitution or no, they would have continued to keep slaves. It seems to me that the natural rights of the slaves might have been in some jeopardy.

the states did secede, during the war the federal government stated the southern state had not secede, yet after the war the federal government stated they did in order to punish them.

the states created declarations of independence, and formed a government of the people, slaves were considered property and not people which is how they were salves.
 
the states did secede, during the war the federal government stated the southern state had not secede, yet after the war the federal government stated they did in order to punish them.

the states created declarations of independence, and formed a government of the people, slaves were considered property and not people which is how they were salves.

Yes, that is so.

Now, how is it that considering people as "property" is not violating their natural rights?
 
Back
Top Bottom