Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’

[Ender]

If you want to argue from history, you might want to remember that the States that seceded did so in order to be able to continue to enslave people. This isn't some sort of woke myth dreamed up by the 1619 Project; you should read the Texas secession resolution:



Who was the real tyrant in 1861 -- Lincoln or the slaveowner?

Nope- that is false history; the war was never about slavery- it was about money.

The South seceded because of the tariffs that were imposed by the North. The South was making more money doing business with Europe & was much more productive than the North & the Yankees could not have that. Slavery was about over & approximately 3% of the southern population still had slaves. Many blacks had their own land, farms etc & were part of the growing success of the South.

And, as @Occam's Banana said:

Lincoln's much-vaunted "Emancipation Proclamation" explicitly exempted virtually all slaves under Union purview - including not only those in the five aforementioned Union slave states, but also those in captured Confederate territory, such as a number of counties in Mississippi (where the US Army would continue their enslavement in order to erect and maintain defensive works and fortifications).

[ClaytonB]

There will be a civil war over it again, this time the leftists will lose and then we must deport all the survivors.

I know you believe that and I don't like to burst bubbles but, I assure you, it's just a fantasy.

[Invisible Man]

Nope- that is false history; the war was never about slavery- it was about money.

In their own words, the seceding states thought it was about slavery for them.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

[Sonny Tufts]

So according to you secession should only be "permitted" if the entity trying to secede is "right"? You do see the problem there don't you?

I think you're missing the overall point of the right of secession. In general, guaranteeing right of secession helps keeps governments more free. Do you disagree?

My point had nothing to do with secession, but rather with TheTexan's references to Lincoln and the tyrants of today making "the same mistakes of the past". I could easily argue that the tyrants in 1860 were those who wanted to maintain slavery at all costs. Sure, they had other beefs with the North, but the biggest one was slavery. Some would say that the issue was States' Rights, but no government, state or federal, has the right to enslave people. For what it's worth, the only argument that has any teeth at all IMHO is the complaint that the Northern States' refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution and the Fugutive Slave Act of 1850. The failure to abide by the former could be viewed as a breach of the compact made upon the adoption of the Constituition, thereby entitling the Confederate States to secede. A similar argument was made by Madison to view the Articles of Confederation as no longer binding because many States had violated it. See Federalist 43.

It's hard to see how allowing a State to secede makes its citizens more free if the State desires to enforce slavery or implement some other kind of repressive scheme. Suppose Utah were to amend its constitution to eliminate freedom of religion and adding a provision requiring each citizen and noncitizen located within the State to become a member of the Mormon Church and abide by its teachings under penalty of death. When told by the federal goverment that such a law would be unconstitutional, Utah secedes and begins to enforce the provision. Do you see the problem there? Or perhaps the rest of the country should just stand aside, and say "What a pity" or "Sorry your mother got executed Joe, but after all we're in Nevada and what goes on in Utah is none of our business. If they want to have a theocracy that makes Iran look like a libertarian paradise, so be it. After all, they have an inalienable right to secede."

But whatever the theoretical merits of secession, it is extremely impractical unless, as I said earlier, you get a LOT of states to join in.

[Sonny Tufts]

The South was making more money doing business with Europe & was much more productive than the North & the Yankees could not have that. Slavery was about over & approximately 3% of the southern population still had slaves. Many blacks had their own land, farms etc & were part of the growing success of the South.

If the South had been more productive and had been making more money than the North it would have won the war. It certainly grew more cotton but it had far less manufacturing capability. And it really doesn't matter how many people in the South owned slaves but rather what percentage of the South's economy was based on slave labor. One site claims that "In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined." https://www.nps.gov/articles/industr...%20the%20South.

If slavery had been "about over" none of the seceding States would have bitched so much about the North trying to get rid of it.

EDIT: I'm not sure what the site referred to means by "invested value", but elsewhere it claims that the North had a wealth advantage of 73%-27% and an advantage of 68%-32% in the value of exports. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...orth-and-south

[TheTexan]

The failure to abide by the former could be viewed as a breach of the compact made upon the adoption of the Constituition, thereby entitling the Confederate States to secede.

This is where your ethical compass is misaligned. One does not need a reason to secede. The right to self determination is innate and inalienable, and is not subject to any kind of justification.

To use force to keep someone in a relationship they don't want to be in is highly immoral and akin to slavery.

You claim you are against slavery.

Why are you OK with the North enslaving the South to stay in the union?

Even if the North's reasons were about slavery [they weren't], it still would not justify enslaving the South.

But whatever the theoretical merits of secession, it is extremely impractical unless, as I said earlier, you get a LOT of states to join in.

The only reason it is "impractical" is because tyrants in this country would threaten violence, for no reason other than to force them to stay in the union.

[paleocon1]

The Texas GOP got it 100% Correct. Joe got in by fraud and treason. The inactive legislatures in those '5 key states' are parties to the demoRat treason.

[Madison320]

It's hard to see how allowing a State to secede makes its citizens more free if the State desires to enforce slavery or implement some other kind of repressive scheme.

If the south seceded they would have eventually freed the slaves and there would be a much better chance that the federal government wouldn't be enslaving people with 50% tax rates like they are now.