Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I cannot even begin to respond to this mindless bullshit.

The 60 million number is unadulterated crap. Cite a reputable source.

I have no problem believing 60 million people died at the hands of communists from 1918 through the fall of the iron Curtain, mostly through internal pogroms in China and the Soviet Union.

But the US is not responsible for the deaths of every single person in Southeast Asia and South America in the civil wars that occurred in the second half of the 20th century. We might have chosen a side in those wars, but so did the Soviet Union which sought to export communism around the world. It takes two to tango, so the communists get the blame, too.

And the number of dead attributable to guerrilla wars, and civil wars does not add up to anywhere near 60 million dead. That is more than died in WW1 and WW2 combined.

Stop citing Lyndon LaRouche websites.

Do all the hookers that join your agency also have to join your cult?

60 million dead because of US covert action comes from CIA officer John Stockwell.

Stalin murdered 40 million and Mao murdered about 60 million - from archives.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Uh, listen Einstein I don't know how to break this to you but Ho Chi Minh was dead years before the US left Vietnam....

You call me names because you can't win any arguments.

Go back to Kindergarten.

Yes. You are correct. Ho Chi Minh did die in '69. It was his communist followers that killed tens of thousands after the U.S left Vietnam. Again, what self-respecting fascist would quote Noam Chomsky, or what self-respecting communist would quote Mein Kampf.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by bojulay

True the southern states seceded from the union for
fear of Lincoln abolishing slavery, but the war started
because of the south seceding,.

That's like saying the American colonies started the revolutionary war by declaring independence.

How is it that people like you always buy the load of crap dished out by the winning side no matter how nonsensical it is?

The southern states which secceeded did so peacefully, but it required that they disarm the US military forces in their mist, and that's how Ft. Sumpter occurred.

In Texas the Governor refused to disarm the US army encamped in our borders so there was a coup and a new Governor was appointed.

Lincoln wanted to send all Africans back to Africa. Not only did he state this, but he convened a meeting in the White House in 1862 of freed black leaders and begged them for help in doing so.

They refused.

He signed the Amancipation Proclamation ONLY to weaken the south.

He pushed for voting rights for freed slaves ONLY so they would vote Republican after the war was finished.

He didn't give a shit about slavery or slaves other than he opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories for the same reason he opposed immigration from Ireland and Germany-----he was currying favor with the white poor wage earners.

In Illinois it was ILLEGAL for any free black man to even enter the state! They couldn't even set foot there without being arrested and sent back LOL

That's how racist Lincoln actually was.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are correct, that topic is not covered in the Constitution, but it is a right recognized in this nation's other founding document: the Declaration of Independence.

Now, there is some vague, feel-good gibberish for you.

The Declaration of Independence laid forth our reasons for leaving Great Britain. But it is not the governing document of the United States, which I might add, did not exist at the time the Declaration was signed. The Declaration does NOT trump the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. But by all means, cite the part of the Declaration of Independence that describes how a state (which did not yet exist) could leave the Republic (which also did not yet exist). Again, I'll wait.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Furthermore, this is what the Founding Father and "Father of the Constitution" had to say on the matter:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

James Madison, The Viriginia Resolution 1798.

What part of what you cut-and-pasted above addresses what I wrote above. The cited text outlines well-known principles of US government, namely that the powers of the federal government are enumerated (i.e., spelled out in the Constitution) and those powers are drawn from the states (and from the people, I might add). Any power NOT enumerated in the Constitution remains in the states and the people. But Article 1, Section 8 specifically states that Congress has the power to call forth the Militias to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions.

How 'bout them apples?

And Madison's writings don't even have the force of law, only the actual language of the Constitution does. But putting that aside, the cited text doesn't even say states have the right to leave the union. It says if the federal government exceeds the powers granted in the Constitution, the states have the right and duty "to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil." Whatever that means.

And in 1860, the federal government was not even exceeding its powers. Demographics were working against the slave states and they knew it was just a matter of time until the non-slave states had the power to amend the Constitution and do away with slavery. So the federal government would not even have to exceed its power. That power would then be constitutional.

Hence, the sudden departure of the slave states had nothing to do with an overbearing federal government and everything to do with avoiding democratic (and constitutional) destiny.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One additional detail you are ignoring ExNYer, according to Lincoln, et al, all of the Southern States WERE STILL IN THE UNION! Lincoln never once recognized the Confederacy as a separate and independent nation. So that shoots your POV all to hell, and it makes Lincoln's actions regarding West Virginia unconstitutional.

Actually, no, it doesn't shoot my POV to hell.

Lincoln's thoughts, like Madison's, aren't controlling law. Only the language of the Constitution is. And the Constitution STILL has no language regarding dissolution. No matter how you spin it.

So, even if Lincoln thought the Confederacy was still part of the Union, that doesn't mean that Article 4, Section 3, language must be interpreted to prevent the Union from accepting back into the Union a breakaway piece of a former state that is now declaring itself part of another country.

To be a little more topical, both President Obama and Congress recently said Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause, to impose a federal mandate to buy health insurance as part of President Obama's health care law. 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices said "No, the Commerce Clause does not give you that power." But, Chief Justice John Roberts added "however, Congress does have that power under its power to tax."

So, the words or thoughts of individuals and even Congress are NOT controlling. Only the written language of the Constitution controls. And it mentions nothing about secession.

I don't know from what revisionist Confederate websites you are cutting and pasting. But they all like to take a cramped reading of federal law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of the Founding Fathers (as you are doing) and to quote them out of context in order to use the Constitution to handicap the Union, but not the Confederacy.

That's horseshit.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

60 million dead because of US covert action comes from CIA officer John Stockwell.

Who is he and why do you think he is some kind of authority?

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

What part of what you cut-and-pasted above addresses what I wrote above. The cited text outlines well-known principles of US government, namely that the powers of the federal government are enumerated (i.e., spelled out in the Constitution) and those powers are drawn from the states (and from the people, I might add). Any power NOT enumerated in the Constitution remains in the states and the people. But Article 1, Section 8 specifically states that Congress has the power to call forth the Militias to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasions.


And in 1860, the federal government was not even exceeding its powers. Demographics were working against the slave states and they knew it was just a matter of time until the non-slave states had the power to amend the Constitution and do away with slavery. So the federal government would not even have to exceed its power. That power would then be constitutional.

Hence, the sudden departure of the slave states had nothing to do withan overbearing federal government and everything to do with avoiding democratic destiny.


Actually, no, it doesn't shoot my POV to hell.

So, even if Lincoln thought the Confederacy was still part of the Union, that doesn't mean that Article 4, Section 3, language must be interpreted to prevent the Union from accepting back into the Union a breakaway piece of a former state that is now declaring itself part of another country.

You are so completely wrong Dude.

The first southern states seceeded because they feared that Congress would enact statutes limiting slavery to only existing states, and that would mean that non-slave states would outnumber slave states in the Senate, which would then outlaw all slavery everywhere BY ENACTING STATUTES.

The notion that they thought there would be a Constitutional Amendment forbading slavery because "demographic writings on the wall" is total lunacy and has nothing to do with history Dude.

Furthermore the rest of the southern states seceeded NOT BECAUSE OF SLAVERY concerns, but BECAUSE LINCOLN ILLEGALLY DEMANDED THAT THEY RAISE ARMIES AND INVADE THEIR FELLOW STATES.

That's why Virginia and Tennessee and the like joined the Confederacy...it had nothing to do with slavery.

And if you're going to say that Lincoln was acting to SUPPRESS INSURRECTION then you're really wacked because an insurrection is a rebellion AGAINST the government of the state in question...

....NOT AN ACT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT ITSELF!!

If the state government itself votes to seceed that's not an insurrection Dude.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Who is he and why do you think he is some kind of authority?

Look him up Dude.

There's no one higher in the CIA who has done what he's done.

He's also a native of Austin, lives in Dallas now, and his father was the pastor of the largest Preysb. congregation in Austin for decades.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Once upon a time, there was one Virginia. And now there are two.

West Virginia broke away from Virginia in 1863, during the Civil War. Also, Nevada separated from Utah Territory and became a state during the Civil War. So apparently it can happen.

Re-read my post above. I didn't say the US would take land away from Texas. I said "what if" regions in Texas decided FOR THEMSELVES to break away from Texas.

So you need to read the Constitution. And then cite the Article and Clause that says "you cannot just take land from a current state to make a new state". Because if that is true, West Virginia and Nevada are unconstitutional.

Article IV

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Read the damn thing, will you? You might learn something. And BTW, a territory isn't a state. So Nevada is no problem. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of West Virginia. Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).

Next time, know what you're talking about before spouting off and sounding stupid.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Now, there is some vague, feel-good gibberish for you.

The Declaration of Independence laid forth our reasons for leaving Great Britain. But it is not the governing document of the United States, which I might add, did not exist at the time the US was formed. the Declaration does NOT trump the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. But by all means, cite the part of the Declaration of Independence that describes how as state (which did not exist) could leave the Republic (which also did not exist). I'll wait.



What part of what you cut-and-pasted above addresses what I wrote above. The cited text outlines well-known principles of US government, namely that the powers of the federal government are enumerated (i.e., spelled out in the Constitution) and those powers are drawn from the states (and from the people, I might add). Any power NOT enumerated in the Constitution remains in the states and the people. But Article 1, Section 8 specifically states that Congress has the power to call forth the Militias to execute the Laws of the Unionsuppress Insurrection and repel invasions.

And Madison's writings don't even have the force of law, only the actual language of the Constitution does. But putting that aside, the cited text doesn't even say states have the right to leave the union. It says if the federal government exceeds the powers granted in the Constitution, thestates have the right and duty "to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil."Whatever that means.

And in 1860, the federal government was not even exceeding its powers. Demographics were working against the slave states and they knew it was just a matter of time until the non-slave states had the power to amend the Constitution and do away with slavery. So the federal government would not even have to exceed its power. That power would then be constitutional.

Hence, the sudden departure of the slave states had nothing to do withan overbearing federal government and everything to do with avoiding democratic destiny.


Actually, no, it doesn't shoot my POV to hell.

Lincoln's thoughts, like Madison's, aren't controlling law. Only the language of the Constitution is. And the Constitution STILL has no language regarding dissolution. No matter how you spin it.

So, even if Lincoln thought the Confederacy was still part of the Union, that doesn't mean that Article 4, Section 3, language must be interpreted to prevent the Union from accepting back into the Union a breakaway piece of a former state that is now declaring itself part of another country.

To be a little more topical, both President Obama and Congress recently said Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause, to impose a federal mandate to buy health insurance as part of President Obama's health care law. 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices said "No, the Commerce Clause does not give you that power." But, Chief Justice John Roberts added "however, Congress does have that power under its power to tax."

So the words or thoughts of individuals and even Congress are NOT controlling. Only the written language of the Constitution controls. And it mentions nothing about secession.

I don't know from what revisionist Confederate websites you are cutting and pasting.But they all like to take a cramped reading of federal law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of the Founding Fathers and to quote them out of context in order touse the Consitution to handicap the Union, but not the Confederacy.

You apply constrictions to the Declaration of Independence not found in its stated general purpose:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preamble

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Lincoln purposefully and pointedly did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation; hence, he was obliged to abide by the Constitution he claimed to be defending. Thus, his actions were unconstitutional regarding West Virginia per Art 4, Sec 3.

Furthermore, the assembly requesting to organize as a separate state was not representative of the majority of the people who lived there -- it had no legitimacy -- and there is extant evidence that Union soldiers suppressed the popular vote and also cast fraudulent votes supporting independent statehood. The whole contrived process was unconstitutional from beginning to end. It's very curious you should compare such unconstitutionality to Odumbocare.

Madison and Jefferson's writings pertaining to the thoughts of the Founding Fathers regarding the union of the states are relevant to the question of secession. If the Father and author of the Constitution maintains such a right did exist, who the hell are you to claim differently?

Of further note is the use of the phrase "United States" which was originally treated as plural—e.g., "the United States are"—including in the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1865. It became common to treat it as singular—e.g., "the United States is"—after the end of the Civil War. The singular form is now standard; the plural form is retained in the idiom "these United States" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States].

This other nonsense you posted regarding the Commerce Clause is just that: nonsense.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Read the damn thing, will you? +1 You might learn something. +1 And BTW, a territory isn't a state. +1 So Nevada is no problem. +1 And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of West Virginia. Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871). A court decision rendered by a Reconstruction Court while the South was under military occupation. The Radical Republicans reduced the number of sitting justices from ten to seven to prevent President Johnson's appointing justices who disagreed with Radical Reconstruction; hence, the court was purposefully and with malice of fore thought stacked to rule against the interests of any Southern State. The case regarding West Virginia's admission as a separate state was a fraud from beginning to end.
Next time, know what you're talking about before spouting off and sounding stupid.

[cptjohnstone]

Nevada was made a state because Lincoln need 2 more votes in the Senate, the population at time was about 6000

The South could have won the war if it were not for a decision by Jefferson Davis to change commanders in northern Alabama,southern Tenn

Lee was holding his own in Virginia and the commander in northern Alabama was holding his own and if the war was still going on, Lincoln would not have been reelected. However, Davis made the decision and the new commander was more aggressive and ended up losing a couple big battles

per Ken Burns, it was a great movie

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The first southern states seceeded because they feared that Congress would enact statutes limiting slavery to only existing states, and that would mean that non-slave states would outnumber slave states in the Senate, which would then outlaw all slavery everywhere BY ENACTING STATUTES.

The notion that they thought there would be a Constitutional Amendment forbading slavery because "demographic writings on the wall" is total lunacy and has nothing to do with history Dude.

Uh, Dude. Next time please refer to the actual Constitution, not the Confederate apologist rumor mill.

First, the Senate does not pass statues, BOTH houses do.

Second, Article V sets forth the rules for amending the Constitution. 2/3 of the House and 2/3 Senate are all that are needed to send an amendment to the state legislatures. The 2/3 number was doable or close to it in 1860. Unfortunately, 3/4s of the states have to ratify, which was not doable in 1860 - but possibly within another generation (20-30 years). Demographics would eventually prevail on behalf of the non-slave states, which were growing much more rapidly. So, yes, there was significant discussion among northerners and abolitionists in particular about amending the Constitution once and for all to free the slaves and eliminate the 3/5s compromise. Just consult ANY history book not written by a southern apologist.

And, as you noted, the Federal government could assist demographics by statute by stopping the spread of slavery into the new territories, thereby ensuring more and more state legislatures willing to ratify. That was legal and constitutional. No exceeding of enumerated powers there.

In fact, there was nothing in the Constitution that said that slavery must remain legal. Also, there was nothing in the Constitution to prevent the federal government from passing a statute stating that newborn blacks would not be treated as slaves. Southerners would not lose their precious "property" rights in another human being, because that new human being did not exist yet. As all the existing slaves died out, they would count as 3/5ths of nothing in Congressional representation.

The South had to secede to save slavery.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

And if you're going to say that Lincoln was acting to SUPPRESS INSURRECTION then you're really wacked because an insurrection is a rebellion AGAINST the government of the state in question...

....NOT AN ACT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT ITSELF!!

If the state government itself votes to seceed that's not an insurrection Dude.

No, idiot. I'm not even going to bother with "dude" anymore. I've had enough of the onslaught of Dixie bullshit.

Can you please point to where that definition of insurrection comes from? Because nothing in Article II, Section 8 says it has to be an Insurrection against a state, as opposed to the federal government.

In fact, the language says Congress had the power "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invaders."

The "Militias" are the state militias. The "Laws of the Union" are federal laws, NOT state laws. "Invaders" are foreign countries. "Insurrection" includes insurrection against the United States. Nothing limits it to states.

Just in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind, this clause gave Congress the power to call up state militias to do the bidding of Congress when needed. So, if Congress called up the Militia for any reason, the governor of South Carolina could NOT say "no".

Once again, you have engaged in a cramped reading of the Constitution to fit your revisionist agenda.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Furthermore the rest of the southern states seceeded NOT BECAUSE OF SLAVERY concerns, but BECAUSE LINCOLN ILLEGALLY DEMANDED THAT THEY RAISE ARMIES AND INVADE THEIR FELLOW STATES.

See what I wrote above. It is NOT illegal for Congress to call up the Militias to suppress Insurrection. Even if bad man Lincoln supports it. Sorry.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

Nevada was made a state because Lincoln need 2 more votes in the Senate, the population at time was about 6000

The South could have won the war if it were not for a decision by Jefferson Davis to change commanders in northern Alabama,southern Tenn

Lee was holding his own in Virginia and the commander in northern Alabama was holding his own and if the war was still going on, Lincoln would not have been reelected. However, Davis made the decision and the new commander was more aggressive and ended up losing a couple big battles

per Ken Burns, it was a great movie

Well that's all sort of hypothetical.

All I know is that Lee was just aweful at Gettysburg.

Lee allowed the north to take all the high ground and then he tried over and over again to assault them. That was just stupid. If Lee was thinking he would have treated the northern positons as the fortress they were, and just initiated a seige.

Lee should have left a seige force behind to pin down the north's forces and then taken most of his men down to Washington DC to end the north's aggression against the south once and for all.

When Lee entered Maryland the population there would have joined him and cut the throats of the Yankees who had been tyrannizing over them at Lincoln's direction.

Maryland would have joined the south and Lincoln would have had to flee to Philadelphia.

Needless to say the peace candidate would have won in 1864.

Lincoln the war candidate would have been imprisoned and sentenced to death for treason.

After Lincoln and his war conspirators were sentenced and executed you know what would have happened then?

THE SOUTH WOULD HAVE RE-JOINED THE UNION.

[waverunner234]

If Texas would become an independent state, the rest of the USA would face a severe new problem:

Illegal immigrants from Texas.

All those people who find out that healthcare, education, minimum wages and so on are so much better in most of the rest of the USA.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Article IV

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Read the damn thing, will you? You might learn something. And BTW, a territory isn't a state. So Nevada is no problem. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of West Virginia. Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).

Next time, know what you're talking about before spouting off and sounding stupid.

Pull your head out of your ass are read what i wrote first.

I said above that once Virginia (and the rest) pulled out the Union, they were no longer "states". They were part of another country - by their own declaration. Therefore, what prevented West Virginia from pulling out of Virginia? Virginia cannot rely on Article 4, Section 3, it was no longer a state. Confederates cannot have it both ways.

If Virginia is part of another country and West Virginia pulls out to join the union, how is that any different from Texas pulling out of Mexico and joining the union? Or do you think Mexico could have sued under Article IV, Section 3?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of West Virginia. Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871).

The Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia's favor. How does that prove me wrong on anything written above. Per Wikipedia, the actual holding was:

Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1871), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that where a governor has discretion in the conduct of the election, the legislature is bound by his action and cannot undo the results based on fraud. The case implicitly ratified the secession of the state of West Virginia from the state of Virginia, and explicitly ratified that the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson were part of West Virginia.

So, apparently, there was nothing to stop West Virginia from seceeding from VA and rejoining the Union.

Which brings me back to my original question about regions of Texas pulling out of Texas. And this includes YOU, in particular, since you so lovingly approved of the secession BS in Texas and Louisiana.

Are you OK with the breakup of Texas when (NOT "if", but "when") the wealthy, educated, regions of Texas (i.e., the big cities) thumb their noses at the new "Republic of Texas" and leave the trailer park clowns who support it to wallow in their ignorance.

[CuteOldGuy]

I fully support the right of self determination. No question about that. Sorry if I misunderstood your point, but yes, if those counties decide to leave Texas, fine.