Texas secession?

MadLib · May 27, 2012

A few things to note:

Comparing states to countries that can secede at any time they want is FACTUALLY incorrect. They are not countries. The U.S. is not the EU, where countries assist each other. A better term for the states is principalities. A state can only be founded with permission of Congress.

And to say that the Union simply conquered innocent rebels is incorrect also, because Union facilities were attacked by the CSA BEFORE the Civil War.

Quantrill · May 27, 2012

MadLib said:
A few things to note:

Comparing states to countries that can secede at any time they want is FACTUALLY incorrect. They are not countries. The U.S. is not the EU, where countries assist each other. A better term for the states is principalities. A state can only be founded with permission of Congress.

And to say that the Union simply conquered innocent rebels is incorrect also, because Union facilities were attacked by the CSA BEFORE the Civil War.

So your identification of a 'state' should replace that of the framers of our government. Sure.

Have you been keeping up with the discussion or just jumped in. Might should read some.

Quantrill

Somerville · May 27, 2012

Quantrill said:
So your identification of a 'state' should replace that of the framers of our government. Sure.

Have you been keeping up with the discussion or just jumped in. Might should read some.

Quantrill

It's more like you refusing to accept not only what other posters have shown you but also years of judicial precedent and the writings of the most influential of those men we call the Founding Fathers. You have an extremely limited view of history, rejecting every fact, action and deed that does not fit that limited viewpoint.

It is difficult, No - it is impossible to discuss this matter with one who lives in their own little world, adulating those who at times were great men but in other ways were all too human with all of the failings that being human entails. One could easily take away the assumption from your writings that you honestly believe slavery was not such a big deal and that you in particular would not mind living in a time and place where you could have owned another human being.

Henrin · May 27, 2012

Somerville said:
It's more like you refusing to accept not only what other posters have shown you but also years of judicial precedent and the writings of the most influential of those men we call the Founding Fathers. You have an extremely limited view of history, rejecting every fact, action and deed that does not fit that limited viewpoint.

What efforts exactly has anyone taken to show writing of the founders that say secession is illegal in the Constitution?

ttwtt78640 · May 27, 2012

Somerville said:
It's more like you refusing to accept not only what other posters have shown you but also years of judicial precedent and the writings of the most influential of those men we call the Founding Fathers. You have an extremely limited view of history, rejecting every fact, action and deed that does not fit that limited viewpoint.

It is difficult, No - it is impossible to discuss this matter with one who lives in their own little world, adulating those who at times were great men but in other ways were all too human with all of the failings that being human entails. One could easily take away the assumption from your writings that you honestly believe slavery was not such a big deal and that you in particular would not mind living in a time and place where you could have owned another human being.

Slavery is an apt description of a taxpayer that has their weekly wages garnished for the express purpose of supporting the life of another citzen, simply because that other citizen has chosen not to support themself or their family by working. If one is forced to work yet the proceeds do not belong to them, but to another individual not designated by them to receive those proceeds, totally beyond their control, perhaps even living in another state that is indeed slavery.

Welfare has made slaves of the working, yet they are expressly forbidden to even require that the ones that they are forced to support either must remain sober or make efforts to cease their need for endless support, as these welfare receiving parasites have "equal" rights to the proceeds of the labor of another that has 'chosen' to work. It is charity, if I choose to help my neighbor in need, it is tyranny, if you force me to help your neighbor in need.

ttwtt78640 · May 27, 2012

The state of Texas is banned by federal law to refuse to bear the costs of educating, giving medical care to and otherwise caring for illegal aliens within its borders, removing them by force or even turning them over to federal officials for deportation. That is a big harm to the state, imposed by remaining a part of the U.S. that has no remedy under the constitution (so far). The state of Texas should be either allowed to cecede or to sue the federal gov't for the ENTIRE reimbursement of these costs, suffered by Texan's ONLY because the federal gov't will neither enforce existing laws on immigration nor allow that the state of Texas do so on its own.

Wiggen · May 27, 2012

rocket88 said:
Neither of which guaranteed the right to own slaves forever. It was completely possible for Congress to pass a law that made it illegal, thus the South seceded because they were afraid that would happen. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to own another human being written in it, neither of these things that you point to did not guarantee a perpetual right to own another person.

Dred Scott was a slave who, years later, sued for his freedom because his owner took him into free territory at one point. The argument was that he became perpetually free, despite his later return to a slave state. Had he sued for his freedom while in free territory, it's possible that he would have had a point. Ironically, for your love of this ruling, the ruling was anti-states rights as it effectively invalidated a state's right to make slavery illegal in it's territory. It did NOT, however, say that slavery could never be made illegal, it upheld the legality at the time.

You know you are arguing with a Cretin when the basis of his argument is his right to own other human beings.

Wiggen · May 27, 2012

Somerville said:
It's more like you refusing to accept not only what other posters have shown you but also years of judicial precedent and the writings of the most influential of those men we call the Founding Fathers. You have an extremely limited view of history, rejecting every fact, action and deed that does not fit that limited viewpoint.

It is difficult, No - it is impossible to discuss this matter with one who lives in their own little world, adulating those who at times were great men but in other ways were all too human with all of the failings that being human entails. One could easily take away the assumption from your writings that you honestly believe slavery was not such a big deal and that you in particular would not mind living in a time and place where you could have owned another human being.

I think you've figured him out. When you get all of your historical knowledge from websites with the Confederate Flag at the top, you come to believe that slavery really was a pretty good thing and worth destroying the nation over.

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Henrin said:
What efforts exactly has anyone taken to show writing of the founders that say secession is illegal in the Constitution?

Why would it even matter what the personal writings of a founder say?

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Quantrill said:
Yes, that official body flouted and disregarded the Constitution, making them wrong with the Constitution. That official body determined that union based on the Constitution was no good. So, they went to a different and higher law.

Again, they destroyed the glue which held the union together. They are the traitors.

Quantrill

So who died and appointed you God? You seem to reject everything except your own opinion.

Henrin · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
Why would it even matter what the personal writings of a founder say?

I don't know, maybe because it might lead you to understand that Texas v. White is completely full of it?

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Henrin said:
Oh so that is why you support using people and fining them when they leave your claw? Is that why we tax people all around the world when they don't even live here and you support it? Whatever Hay. Just admit you love using people for their taxes. Hell you have admitted it before, should I just quote it and get it over with or will you just admit the obvious?

Sure. Do that. Complete with the words and link.

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Henrin said:
I don't know, maybe because it might lead you to understand that Texas v. White is completely full of it?

Why? I could not care less what one individual said nearly a century before the problem arose.

Henrin · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
Why? I could not care less what one individual said nearly a century before the problem arose.

:slapme: That was genius hay. They talked about secession over and over again. The civil war didn't change anything about the topic.

Centinel · May 27, 2012

Henrin said:
:slapme: That was genius hay. They talked about secession over and over again. The civil war didn't change anything about the topic.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It's pretty simple, really. The power to secede is not prohibited and is therefore a reserved power.

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Henrin said:
:slapme: That was genius hay. They talked about secession over and over again. The civil war didn't change anything about the topic.

Now here is where real genius comes in: if you know this and all your libertarian fellow true believers know this, and the founders knew this, why was this kept such a big secret when the Supreme Court decided the issue?

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Centinel said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It's pretty simple, really. The power to secede is not prohibited and is therefore a reserved power.

Or it is not a power at all - reserved or otherwise. My birth certificate does not bar me from flying on my own power. But guess what?

Centinel · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
Or it is not a power at all - reserved or otherwise. My birth certificate does not bar me from flying on my own power. But guess what?

The constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, therefore they may.

haymarket · May 27, 2012

Centinel said:
The constitution does not prohibit the states from seceding, therefore they may.

You make it sound so simple. I wonder why that point was lost on the US Supreme Court when they decided the issue?

It is always rather curious how the LewRockwell.com crowd sees things so crystal clear but yet the Supreme Court managed a far different conclusion.

Chief Justice Chase in the White decision

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[7] ”
After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[16]

“ When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[7]

Yeah.... I know..... if only Lewrockwell.com had been around. Then they would have been schooled differently. :roll:

Centinel · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
You make it sound so simple. I wonder why that point was lost on the US Supreme Court when they decided the issue?

It is always rather curious how the LewRockwell.com crowd sees things so crystal clear but yet the Supreme Court managed a far different conclusion.

...and queue the hand waving.

It's right there in black and white. Do you see anything in the constitution that places a restriction on any state leaving the union?

Nope, didn't think so.

Quantrill · May 27, 2012

Somerville said:
It's more like you refusing to accept not only what other posters have shown you but also years of judicial precedent and the writings of the most influential of those men we call the Founding Fathers. You have an extremely limited view of history, rejecting every fact, action and deed that does not fit that limited viewpoint.

It is difficult, No - it is impossible to discuss this matter with one who lives in their own little world, adulating those who at times were great men but in other ways were all too human with all of the failings that being human entails. One could easily take away the assumption from your writings that you honestly believe slavery was not such a big deal and that you in particular would not mind living in a time and place where you could have owned another human being.

Nice speech. Doesn't add anything to whats been said.

Proves you have nothing to call the South traitor over. And that it was the North that was traitor.

So, lets sing, Glory, glory...hallelujah!

Quantrill

Faux Pas · May 27, 2012

I really don't think that, in the event Texas does decide to secede, that they will give a flying c@$% about the legality of the decision.

Quantrill · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
So who died and appointed you God? You seem to reject everything except your own opinion.

I reject what you and others say based on history. Higher law, is history. Constitution is history. Slavery is history.

You and others admit you must resort to the higher law to make the South traitor. You can't resort to the Constitution. So your posts are becoming small and empty.

Quantrill

digsbe · May 27, 2012

Quantrill said:
Nice speech. Doesn't add anything to whats been said.

Proves you have nothing to call the South traitor over. And that it was the North that was traitor.

So, lets sing, Glory, glory...hallelujah!

Quantrill

Wait.... What? The North was somehow a traitor?

Henrin · May 27, 2012

haymarket said:
Now here is where real genius comes in: if you know this and all your libertarian fellow true believers know this, and the founders knew this, why was this kept such a big secret when the Supreme Court decided the issue?

It wasn't.

Btw, stop quoting chase. We already went over he changed his opinion on that later in life and we already went over that he was the Secretary of the Treasury during the war.

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

Anytime they want

Bad times only

No way

I don't know

Other

More options

MadLib

monstrous vermin

Quantrill

Well-known member

Somerville

Henrin

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Wiggen

Wiggen

haymarket

haymarket

Henrin

haymarket

haymarket

Henrin

Centinel

haymarket

haymarket

Centinel

haymarket

Centinel

Quantrill

Well-known member

Faux Pas

Quantrill

Well-known member

digsbe

Truth will set you free

Henrin

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

Anytime they want

Bad times only

No way

I don't know

Other

monstrous vermin

Well-known member

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Well-known member

Faux Pas

Well-known member

Truth will set you free

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency