Texas secession?

Henrin said:

Please look up that clause. I told you already why it doesn't apply to the AOC. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Click to expand...

Tell us again. Because it specifically mentions the Articles in Article VI. I know that it's the whole "Lincoln/Chase" thing that bothers you, but I can't say that I believe that you're a bigger Constitutional authority than any Supreme Court Justice there ever has been.

Your views are one thing. I don't particularly like the Citizens United ruling, but I don't see how it could have been ruled any other way by the Supreme Court.

Centinel said:

It's not less valid than others, nor did I say it was.

Click to expand...

But you throw out the "perpetual union" as mentioned in it. If it was valid as a "treaty" in 1860, and if it is valid as one today, there is no possiblity for secession that I can see.

You may want to be able to, but legally, I don't see it.

Sure. They aren't too big to fail.

All non-Texans who believe that everybody in Texas has an oil well in their backyard...and everybody is a cowboy or cowgirl...and in Rick Perry's case...a trans-cow-goatish something or another...Please Raise Your Hand!

There is so much nonsense I see about people's beliefs about Texas' wealth and great resources. Yes, there are resources and wealth, but there are a millions of people who won't be contributing to the state's revenue requirements needed to maintain the expenses of running a country. I was born in Texas, never lived outside of Texas...and I've been around for quite a few decades. Texas cannot. I repeat, Texas cannot survive as an independent nation. Texas would rapidly turn into a 3rd world country if it seceded. Anybody in Texas with any sense at all knows we can't make it.

Centinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was returned to the people who attended conventions in the states for ratification.

That reality destroys your whole premise that somehow THE STATES are these independent self sufficient god-like entities apart from the people who actually did the voting for ratification.

Moot said:

The US government never recognized S. Carolina's succession and never recognized the South as separate from the Union nor recognized the confederate government. They never left the union. Sorry....


Lincoln proclamation - September 24, 1862...


From Lincoln's last speech before his assassination....


Scalia said in his letter, "Is the state suing the United States for Declartory judgement? But the United States cannot be sued without it's consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit."

Conclusion: Lincoln nor the US government never recognized the states seccession. Now let's hear your rebel yell. lol

Click to expand...

The Central government did not have the authority to decide if a state could leave the Union. That was the States decision. It doesn't matter whether or not Lincoln recognized it. It mattered as to going to war. It doesn't matter to the legaity of it. Every state had the right to secede.

The Central or Federal govt of course does not want the States to secede. It loses power because it gets its power from the states.

Quantrill

MoSurveyor said:

Feed that line to your buddies but don't bother doing it here. SC made an agreement with the government then didn't want to honor it. They should have thought of it before they handed over the deed and the Fed spent money building on site. Did they bother to give or even offer the Fed money for the improvements? Of course not. They knew what they were doing was wrong - they just didn't give a ****.

And if you believe the kind of thing SC tried to pull flies in other parts of the world you should ask Castro about Guantanamo Bay.

Click to expand...

Sorry pal. I will feed it here also. Because its true. And you want to talk about not honoring your agreement, go to the Constitution and see how the north failed to acknowledg the protection of slavery under the Constitution. See how the north was guilty of sending terrorists such as John Brown to the South to disrupt, kill, and create a slave revolt. So, talk about 'honor' to you buddies. But don't talk about it here. You have none.

Quantrill

rocket88 said:

And according to Article VI of the Constitution, all engagements entered into under the Articles are still valid. The only way that's not true, is if the Constitution explicitly says something else.

If, as Centinel does, you view it as a treaty of sorts, the "treaty" of the Articles of Confederation, which by its wording is a "perpetual union," is valid. It is as valid as the treaties and agreements entered into with France during the Revolution and immediately following.

Click to expand...

I view the Constitution as the Constitution. It is upon it that the Union functions. The States within the Union are bound by that Constitution. When you replace the Constitution with another Constitution, then that former union ceases to exist. It exist now under the new Constitution.

So, as I have said, the Ariticles of Confederation were chunked out the window. That union was declared perpetual but that union ceased to exist. The perpetual union wasnt perpetual as it got throwed out the window. Thus now only 9 states were needed to ratify. Because they didn't think they could get all to ratify. Different union.

And as I have said, the framers had enough shame in them to not add hypocrisy to their actions of destroying what was declared perpetual. Which is why 'perpeutual' was left out of this one.

Quantrill

Quantrill said:

Actually all Southernors were loyal Americans. But we lost the war.

You say many things but support none.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Nope, every one of them that volunteered to take up arms vs the lawful govt was a traitor. Many CSA soldiers were draftees, and the CSA army had a desertion rate more than double the US Army.

But the officers and officials of the CSA should have been executed as traitors. The US was far too soft on them, only executing a single CSA officer for war crimes.

Quantrill said:

Actually all Southernors were loyal Americans. But we lost the war.

You say many things but support none.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you didn't lose the war. You weren't even alive yet.

And every one of my statements was backed by fact. Yours are delusion. I do this for a living as a history professor, demolish neo Confederate delusions.

Quantrill said:

Oh yeah. Whose the traitors now?

Whose the biggots now?

Quantrill

Click to expand...

The Confederates were.

So are Texas secessionists.

RabidAlpaca said:

Nothing pains me more to see Quantrill try to argue for something I even semi-agree with, because you're right, he certainly makes us look bad. I'm not one of the confederacy idiots, I'm not a white pride moron, and I'm not uneducated. I however simply believe that an independent republic of Texas could be a really good thing. We have the population, we have the geography, and we have the resources. There are many a great nation with far less than what we would have.

Maybe I'm not bound by some sense of American nationalism to try to keep Texas part of the union. Although a little melodramatic, I see this country in flames and would like to see a different approach.

Click to expand...

May I ask, are you involved with the secession movement?
And are you aware that secesson sentiment in TX is virtually all among very conservative whites? The Latino population would oppose this to their last breath, as would progressive cities like Austin.
Any secession attempt would lead to violence and a shattered state.

Quantrill said:

Well, if you don't like the discusssion, then go somewhere else. Or maybe you would like to answer the question, if slavery was protected by the Constitution, then why should the South secede to preserve slavery?

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Because the constitution could be amended. Did you never take a govt class in your life? Did you sleep thru every history class that ever talked about why the slave owners always wanted an equal number of slave and free states? To block any const amendments.

And again, the slave owning elite is not the south.

For that matter, not even those elites would anything to do with someone named Quantrill. The man was a butcher who mass murdered civilians, a bandit posing as a soldier.

Wake said:

So like with America and England in the past, the message may have to be made with blood?

Personally I think it's ironic how we split from England in the past, but are oh so adamant about allowing a state like Texas to do the same peacefully.

Click to expand...

A colony is not the same as a state. Imagine if the wealthy factory owners of Liverpool decided to secede because they objected to child labor laws. How credible would their claim of the right of secession be?

Quantrill said:

The reality of the period was that the Constitution supported the South. Not the North. The South was not triator to the Constitution. The North was.

Thus the Confederate flag is not one of treason, but patriotism. Just not the yankee patriotism which ignored the Constitution.

You see, when the South lost, America lost. But, the yankees won. The traitors.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Problem with that is, most Southerners were pro Union.

The bigger problem is that the US was far too generous to Confederate traitors. And so the Confederate traitors became the terrorist KKK and White Leagues, winning by terrorism and reestablishing white supremacy what they could not win on the battlefield.

And so the US lost when the terrorist KKK won by terrorism. If the US had executed most CSA leaders, the civil rights movement would've been a success, not in the 1950s and 60s, but in the
1860s and 70s.

upsideguy said:

Talk, talk, talk and no action. This doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I just want to know if there is anything we can do to help? I know a great many of us, though we might miss Texas, we would nonetheless be happy to do what we could to help.

Click to expand...

Most Texans don't want any such "help." We'd kick the tails of the secessionists if they ever made a serious effort.

Quantrill said:

Really? And what do you base that on?

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Every history written by every reputable historian ever to write about the Civil War.

Hint: When you get your history from websites with the Confederate Flag at the top, it's likely not to be too accurate.

Centinel said:

I see the federal government as a voluntary compact among a group of sovereign states. If any state wishes to leave, they can. The people of the other 49 states are not the owners of Texas.

Click to expand...

To see the united states as an agreement between countries is naive nowadays. More over we need to solidate our country with our federal government and not the states.

JuanBatista said:

Because the constitution could be amended. Did you never take a govt class in your life? Did you sleep thru every history class that ever talked about why the slave owners always wanted an equal number of slave and free states? To block any const amendments.

And again, the slave owning elite is not the south.

For that matter, not even those elites would anything to do with someone named Quantrill. The man was a butcher who mass murdered civilians, a bandit posing as a soldier.

Click to expand...

He also apparently was a deserter and a coward who personally murdered a number of civilians in Lawrence, Kansas.

MoSurveyor said:

It seems very plain to me that no State ever declared itself to be a nation unto itself.

Click to expand...

I still disagree with your contention that the colonies never became free, sovereign, and independent states. It appears that they considered themselves to be free and independent.

We've already seen that at the end of the revolutionary war they signed a treaty that proclaimed them to be free and independent states.

Also, the articles of confederation proclaim them to be free and independent states.

Finally, we have the declaration of independence itself:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[emphasis added]

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Actually, it was returned to the people who attended conventions in the states for ratification.

That reality destroys your whole premise that somehow THE STATES are these independent self sufficient god-like entities apart from the people who actually did the voting for ratification.

Click to expand...

Now if that's what I had actually said, then you might actually have a point.

A state is simply the term we use for the duly elected representatives of a sovereign people. It is nothing more than the people that make it up. It has not physical reality.

So the constitution was ratified on a state-by-state basis. The people of each state chose whether to join the compact. We all know this. What's your point?

God, are people who believe that Texas can secede from the Union eating massive numbers of bowls of Moron Flakes for breakfast everyday?

Centinel said:

I still disagree with your contention that the colonies never became free, sovereign, and independent states. It appears that they considered themselves to be free and independent.

We've already seen that at the end of the revolutionary war they signed a treaty that proclaimed them to be free and independent states.

Also, the articles of confederation proclaim them to be free and independent states.

Finally, we have the declaration of independence itself:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[emphasis added]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Then why did they bother to use the term "United Colonies" instead of just "Colonies"? IF what you say is try then "Colonies" would have been just as accurate and could not have been mistaken for anything else. Instead they chose to use "United Colonies" at the beginning of all that.

Again, I think you're confusing States (plural) with States as used in United States.

MoSurveyor said:

Then why did they bother to use the term "United Colonies" instead of just "Colonies"?

Click to expand...

Perhaps because they intended to fight, united as allies, against Britain.

IF what you say is try then "Colonies" would have been just as accurate and could not have been mistaken for anything else. Instead they chose to use "United Colonies" at the beginning of all that.

Again, I think you're confusing States (plural) with States as used in United States.

Click to expand...

We declare that these united colonies are free and independent states.

That doesn't sound confusing. The colonies are free and independent states. That's what I've been saying all along.

Quantrill said:

The land was South Carolinas. The Fed. govt was given use of the land for whatever reasons and whatever conditions. When a state secedes, she is no longer part of the Union. The Fed. govt. leaves. Its tresspassing.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Okay, lets looks at this logically....

South Carolina signed a compact with the US government called a Constitution. The Constitution is a contract between the people who inhabit each state and the collective states as a whole aka union, republic, nation.

The land for the building of Fort Sumter was ceded to the US government by S. Carolina in 1838. It was a legal contract between two sovereign governments, the state and the federal, which gave the federal government exclusive rights over the property "provided" that S. Carolina would still have jurisdiction to serve summons and supeonas on the federal property.

Are we in agreement so far?

Twenty two later in 1861, and after great expense and effort to bring in landfill and material to build the island and the fort, which was still under construction, South Carolina decides to reneg on it's compact with the union, and reneg on it's contract that ceded property to the US government.

Are we in agreement so far?

So after S. Carolina renegs on two legal contracts you think the US government had no right to stay on Fort Sumter? Do you really believe that two binding legal contracts were null and void without the US governments consent, especially ones that they were party to? There were two legal entities that signed binding legal contracts and just because one side decides they don't like the terms years after the fact does not make those contracts automatically null and void. In fact if you think about it, the purpose of signing of legal contracts is to protect both parties from one side arbitrarily renegging on the agreement. No sir, the US government had a binding legal claim to Fort Sumter no matter how much of a hissy fit S. Carolina threw.

I really don't expect you to be in agreement at this point because this same exact arguement has been going on since 1861 (see Lincoln's last speech) and no amount of reason or legaleze is going to convince you otherwise because you are obviously very vested in your version of the truth. But at least we seem to be in agreement that the Civil War put an end to the states right to secede.....aren't we?