150 years ago today Texas seceded from the union

[Strike For The South]

And Sam Houston refused to take the oath to the confederacy :smoking:



We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.


I love the smell of "states rights" in the morning

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sometimes I get the impression that the 'states rights' debate is just a silly semantics game.


'States wanted to protect their right of slavery against the federal government'. What does this mean? Is the issue slavery or the right of the state?

[Vuk]

And Sam Houston refused to take the oath to the confederacy :smoking:



I love the smell of "states rights" in the morning

lol, you cannot equate the two. Yes, the issue of States Rights was raised over slavery/racism, but could be raised for just about any cause. The issue of States Rights is completely and wholely separate from the issue of slavery.
In fact, just before the civil war States Rights and Secession were being used and threatened by the North to COMBAT slavery and racism. Quit trying to blur the issues into one. That does you no credit.

[PanzerJaeger]

And if you were a Confederate commander, it was a good thing that they did. Texas fielded some of the best units in the Confederate forces.

[Strike For The South]

And if you were a Confederate commander, it was a good thing that they did. Texas fielded some of the best units in the Confederate forces.

Thank you sir you are to kind


lol, you cannot equate the two. Yes, the issue of States Rights was raised over slavery/racism, but could be raised for just about any cause. The issue of States Rights is completely and wholely separate from the issue of slavery.
In fact, just before the civil war States Rights and Secession were being used and threatened by the North to COMBAT slavery and racism. Quit trying to blur the issues into one. That does you no credit.

Every single Ordanince of secession extolls the white man and villifies the black man. States rights is nothing more than a guise used by the southern elite to drum support from the poor yeoman farmer. The elite planters in the south felt there way of life was being threatned by the changing times and the saw the north as the tangiable enboidment of this. Of course when your way of life depends on human subjugation it deserves to be extereminated.

And I would enjoy a link about this so called Northern secession, I am however not holding my breath

It is not a states right to deny the human rights that make a republic possible. It isn't even until 1964 that America can be considerd a republic in the truest sense


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world,"
Mississippi





Sometimes I get the impression that the 'states rights' debate is just a silly semantics game.


'States wanted to protect their right of slavery against the federal government'. What does this mean? Is the issue slavery or the right of the state?

The issue is slavery

[Vuk]

Thank you sir you are to kind



Every single Ordanince of secession extolls the white man and villifies the black man. States rights is nothing more than a guise used by the southern elite to drum support from the poor yeoman farmer. The elite planters in the south felt there way of life was being threatned by the changing times and the saw the north as the tangiable enboidment of this. Of course when your way of life depends on human subjugation it deserves to be extereminated.

And I would enjoy a link about this so called Northern secession, I am however not holding my breath

It is not a states right to deny the human rights that make a republic possible. It isn't even until 1964 that America can be considerd a republic in the truest sense



The issue is slavery

Ok, let me spell this out for you. States Rights is simply a tool if you will - a tool that can be used for any cause. During the civil war it was used for slavery, but during any part of time could be used for any issue. In our current day for instance, people are talking States Rights again, this time about the Health Care Bill. Let me guess, that has to do with Racial Supremacy and slavery, right?

Pardon me that I cannot provide you with a link, but it was in a college lecture that I learned about it (which means that you must take it as the gospel, as college professors can never be wrong).
I did find this on wiki though.
Note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession#United_States) that it says that secession was often threatened.

[Strike For The South]

Ok, let me spell this out for you. States Rights is simply a tool if you will - a tool that can be used for any cause. During the civil war it was used for slavery, but during any part of time could be used for any issue. In our current day for instance, people are talking States Rights again, this time about the Health Care Bill. Let me guess, that has to do with Racial Supremacy and slavery, right?




I realize that, but many people buy into the fact that the Souths sovrigenty was being threatend and that was the main reason for the war.



Pardon me that I cannot provide you with a link, but it was in a college lecture that I learned about it (which means that you must take it as the gospel, as college professors can never be wrong).
I did find this on wiki though.
Note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession#United_States) that it says that secession was often threatened.


By whom the abolishonits? You mean the crazies who wanted equal rights?

[Vuk]

I realize that, but many people buy into the fact that the Souths sovrigenty was being threatend and that was the main reason for the war.



By whom the abolishonits? You mean the crazies who wanted equal rights?
States Rights work like this Strike.
Federal Government does something that some States don't want to abide by.
They say that it is their Right to not abide by it.
What that something is has changed many times over history, and during that particular time in History was what States Rights were defined by.
What I am saying is do not attack the issue of States Rights, because the proper balance between Federal and State power is a matter of much good debate, and should not be written off so easily.

The question of slavery and racial superiority is a moral one. The question of who decides is a States Rights issue. You know what I mean?

EDIT: And yes actually, it was the abolishinists who were threatening to seceed. Honestly, I think that it is a State's right, but that there has never been and probably will never be a reason to act so rashely, as problems are best solved by working with the Federal Government for the good of all states. Nonetheless though, I believe that it is a right garunteed by the Constitution. Tying that belief to racism is not ethical or honest.

[Strike For The South]

States Rights work like this Strike.
Federal Government does something that some States don't want to abide by.
They say that it is their Right to not abide by it.
What that something is has changed many times over history, and during that particular time in History was what States Rights were defined by.
What I am saying is do not attack the issue of States Rights, because the proper balance between Federal and State power is a matter of much good debate, and should not be written off so easily.

The question of slavery and racial superiority is a moral one. The question of who decides is a States Rights issue. You know what I mean?


I know the delicate balancing act between fed and state power has been a lightning rod for many years but it has been misconstrued by the revisonists as something the south had to do because it was being harrunged by the north. When in reality South Carolina would demand rights on the congressional floor and then turn right around and complain that New York had nullified the fugitive slave act. Blatant hypocricsy.

Slavery is incompatible with a republic. The Federal goverment has every right to crack Mississippis head when they are denying human beings there rights clearly and excplicitly stated in the constitution

[PanzerJaeger]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_American_Civil_War) is a thorough and well written wiki on the subject of the thread. It is probably old information to Strike, but I found some of it pretty interesting, such as the several failed Union invasions of Texas - amazing, considering their best troops were in Virginia.

[Strike For The South]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_American_Civil_War) is a thorough and well written wiki on the subject of the thread. It is probably old information to Strike, but I found some of it pretty interesting, such as the several failed Union invasions of Texas - amazing, considering their best troops were in Virginia.


I have personally always been fascinated with the German/Czech unwillingness to support secession I am unware of the social structure in Europe at the time and am always left to wonder wether they did that out of loyalty to the USA or because of a moral rejection of slavery

As per the failed invasions. We were awesome ~:)

[Strike For The South]

I know they had abolishinest sentiements but I wonder if that was because of Europe or because of them being immagrants?

[Louis VI the Fat]

As per the failed invasions. We were awesome ~:)Yeah, aren't we? Few things in life are as cool as being able to brag about your country always succesfully fighting of foreign invasions. :2thumbsup:



u k c f :shame:

[Vuk]

I know the delicate balancing act between fed and state power has been a lightning rod for many years but it has been misconstrued by the revisonists as something the south had to do because it was being harrunged by the north. When in reality South Carolina would demand rights on the congressional floor and then turn right around and complain that New York had nullified the fugitive slave act. Blatant hypocricsy.

Slavery is incompatible with a republic. The Federal goverment has every right to crack Mississippis head when they are denying human beings there rights clearly and excplicitly stated in the constitution

I agree that it is the right of the Federal government to protect the liberty or those it governs, however I still think that a state has the right to seceed. After that happens, the people in that state are no longer the responsibility of the Federal government. Does that mean that I agree with the South? No, it does not. I think they used their right to do something wrong and stupid, but that it is nonetheless important that states have that right. Would countless lives enslaved have been better than countless lost? Both are dark outcomes, but despite the fact that I think states have the right to leave the Union. I am happy that it ended the way it did. Hypocrisy? Yeah, but it was not my choice.

[Subotan]

Ok, let me spell this out for you. States Rights is simply a tool if you will - a tool that can be used for any cause. During the civil war it was used for slavery, but during any part of time could be used for any issue. In our current day for instance, people are talking States Rights again, this time about the Health Care Bill. Let me guess, that has to do with Racial Supremacy and slavery, right?
States rights are not such when those alleged rights are used to keep human beings in chains on the basis of the colour of their skin.

EDIT
: I still think that a state has the right to seceed.

What you think is irrelevant. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that secession is illegal.

[Vuk]

States rights are not such when those alleged rights are used to keep human beings in chains on the basis of the colour of their skin.

EDIT

What you think is irrelevant. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that secession is illegal.
Yes, well the Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was legal, so pardon me for not bowing down. They have changed their minds many times before. The ruling was done to preserve the Union more than it was to stay true to the Constitution. Whether or not a state SHOULD be able to leave the Union, the Constitution protects their freedom to do so.


You are right, that a State does not have the power to keep someone enslaved, but when it leaves the Union the Constitution no longer applies to it. I was referring to a State's right to seceed. Something that I think was used wrongly, but nonetheless a right.

[PanzerJaeger]

I have personally always been fascinated with the German/Czech unwillingness to support secession I am unware of the social structure in Europe at the time and am always left to wonder wether they did that out of loyalty to the USA or because of a moral rejection of slavery


I thought it was because they were relatively new to Texas from the North and still had ties to the region.

The vicious racism and genocidal tendancies of the Texans towards their German population probably didn't help either.:smartass2:

[Strike For The South]

I thought it was because they were relatively new to Texas from the North and still had ties to the region.

The vicious racism and genocidal tendancies of the Texans towards their German population probably didn't help either.:smartass2:

Directly from beerland homie

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't even know what that means. :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

I don't even know what that means. :laugh4:

They came directly from what is today Germany (mostly from Saxony) my friend

[PanzerJaeger]

Are you sure? I believe German immigration in North Texas was mainly through Northern states, not through Galveston directly from Germany as was most German immigration in the Southern regions of the state.

[Strike For The South]

Are you sure? I believe German immigration in North Texas was mainly through Northern states, not through Galveston directly from Germany as was most German immigration in the Southern regions of the state.

There was allot of Central Euro immagration directly to Texas, German, Polish, Czech.

[Strike For The South]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Texan

[Subotan]

Yes, well the Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was legal, so pardon me for not bowing down. They have changed their minds many times before. The ruling was done to preserve the Union more than it was to stay true to the Constitution. Whether or not a state SHOULD be able to leave the Union, the Constitution protects their freedom to do so.
The Supreme Court does not like reversing precedent, unless it is clear that the original judgement was wrong. In the case of whether secession is legal, the Court is clearly right, since to rule otherwise would be treasonous.


You are right, that a State does not have the power to keep someone enslaved, but when it leaves the Union the Constitution no longer applies to it. I was referring to a State's right to seceed. Something that I think was used wrongly, but nonetheless a right.
That right does not exist under any reading of the Constitution of the United States. That was confirmed by the precedent, if not of Texas vs. White, then by the entire American Civil War.

[Vuk]

The Supreme Court does not like reversing precedent, unless it is clear that the original judgement was wrong. In the case of whether secession is legal, the Court is clearly right, since to rule otherwise would be treasonous.


That right does not exist under any reading of the Constitution of the United States. That was confirmed by the precedent, if not of Texas vs. White, then by the entire American Civil War.

No, the precedent and the Civil War made sure that it would not be tolerated, but that does not mean that it was not the founders' intent. It is a double-edged sword really. If the Federal Gov is right (as in the case of the Civil War), the Right to Sec (RtS) could mean bad things for many people, and the destruction of the Union (ei, a loss of security and stability for everyone). At the same time though, if the States are right and the Federal government oversteps its bounds (which has happened many times before, but the courts were there to strike laws down), BUT the courts side with the Fed Gov, then individual State's RtS would be the only chance people have of escaping absolute tyranny in a broken and corrupt system. As you can see, giving or denying States the RtS could end up taking away the freedom of and enslaving millions of people, depending on the circumstances. As such, I really do not know where I stand on what is right (as they could both be great wrongs), but from my reading of the constitution, I do think that it was the intent of the Founders to give individual states the RtS...no matter what we decided after that.

[PanzerJaeger]

There was allot of Central Euro immagration directly to Texas, German, Polish, Czech.

Indeed there was, but the Unionism was only strong in North Texas, where the Germans had ties to the Northern states.


The largest concentration of anti-secession sentiment was among the German population in the Texas Hill Country, and in some of the counties of North Texas. In the latter region, most of the residents were originally from states of the Upper South, where secession was rejected until the incident at Ft. Sumter forced a choosing of sides. Likewise, in Texas, many of those initially against secession accepted the verdict and, when hostilities commenced, fought for the Confederacy.

I won't attempt to question your knowledge on anything related to Texas though!

[Brandy Blue]

I have personally always been fascinated with the German/Czech unwillingness to support secession

Common sense suggests that anti-secession feeling among Germans would be strongest among the Mennonites, who were pacifist and abolitionist.

Personally, I'm glad that states are not allowed to seceed and that this has been (hopefully) settled forever. If they could, there's no reason in principal why seceeded states should not go to war with each other. Personally, I don't fancy going to war with fellow Americans. We've been there, done that, not again please.

Especially if Texas is not on my side :)

I originally typed "Moravians." I meant Mennonites. Error fixed

[Subotan]

No, the precedent and the Civil War made sure that it would not be tolerated, but that does not mean that it was not the founders' intent.
Again, what the Founders think is pretty much irrelevant since they never wrote anything regarding secession into the constitution. Using the opinion of dudes who have been dead for 200 years is not a way to set legal precedent on a matter as important as this.


If the Federal Gov is right (as in the case of the Civil War), the Right to Sec (RtS) could mean bad things for many people, and the destruction of the Union (ei, a loss of security and stability for everyone). At the same time though, if the States are right and the Federal government oversteps its bounds (which has happened many times before, but the courts were there to strike laws down), BUT the courts side with the Fed Gov, then individual State's RtS would be the only chance people have of escaping absolute tyranny in a broken and corrupt system.
Such a scenario would be far better resolved with constitutional reform than secession.


As you can see, giving or denying States the RtS could end up taking away the freedom of and enslaving millions of people, depending on the circumstances.
Do you honestly think that that is a possibility in the modern United States? Get real.


As such, I really do not know where I stand on what is right (as they could both be great wrongs), but from my reading of the constitution, I do think that it was the intent of the Founders to give individual states the RtS...no matter what we decided after that.
If they had they would have put it in. They didn't, therefore they didn't.

[Fisherking]

While to the North slavery was the main issue to Southerners it was much more complex.

They saw their power slipping away with the might going away form the agricultural regions and going to the industrial.

Slavery was a litmus test to some as to whether a state would favor agriculture or the more industrial orientation of the North East.

Trade laws and customs fees were as big a part of States Rights at the time as slavery.

To the planters, being able to sell goods to England for higher prices was a big motivation. Something the North Eastern mill owners wanted stopped.

Slavery may have been a defining issue for some but not most of those who served. People of the time felt more patriotism for their State than the Federal Government. Preserving the Union was a stronger issue than slavery. States Rights drew recruits to the Southern cause from California to New Jersey.

Racism was no issue at all. Most whites felt that blacks were inferior by nature and hatred of blacks was more common in the North than in the South.

We find atrocities committed against blacks by both sides. CSA forces against Black Union Regiments, and Union Forces against contraband, meaning unarmed slaves. There was also violence in the North against Free or Freed blacks as they saw them as the cause of the war.


It was fought for the same reasons of most wars. Richmen on both sides manipulating the populations to achieve their ends.

Slavery is just the most popular excuse of the time.


wikiquote:
Sam Houston was probably the premier "Unionist" in Texas. Like most of the same in the South, he strongly believed in the doctrine of states rights, and even assured his fellow Texans he would personally lead the state out of the Union should matters justify such. However, he thought secession at the moment in time was "rash action," and certain to lead to a conflict sure to favor– in the long run– the industrial and populated North. He predicted: "Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. The North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery impulsive people as we are...but once they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum of a mighty avalanche, and what I fear is that they will overwhelm the South with ignoble defeat."
Houston accepted the result of the secession convention, but, believing, along with his strong attachment to the old Union, it had overstepped its authority in becoming a member state of the newly formed Confederacy, refused to take an oath of allegiance, and was deposed from office.
Houston's later feelings are hard to gauge. He retired from public life, although his son and namesake distinguished himself in Confederate service. Houston later wrote a friend: "There comes a time a man's section is his country...I stand with mine. I was a conservative citizen of the United States...I am now a conservative citizen of the Southern Confederacy.

If you want to be a modern day dupe of propaganda then yes...you can say it was about slavery.


edit:Subotan:


I think your interpretation of the Constitutions is flawed

It sets limits on federal power not on the power of the States. Those things left out are within the power of the States to determine.

The first amendment listing the bill of rights was only an enumeration of the rights the States could not take from their people.

All of it was intentionally vague.

[Fisherking]

Here are some of the points on secession brought up earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

In part:


Secession in the United States
From Wikipedia,

Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

New England Federalists and Hartford Convention

The election of 1800 saw Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party on the rise with the Federalists in decline. Federalists became alarmed at what they saw as threats from the Democratic-Republicans. The Louisiana Purchase was viewed as a violation of the original agreement between the original thirteen states since it created the potential for numerous new states that would be dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The impeachment of John Pickering, a Federalist district judge, by the Democratic-Republican dominated Congress and similar attacks by the Democratic-Republican Pennsylvania legislature against that state's judiciary further alarmed Federalists. By 1804, the viable base of the Federalist Party had been reduced to the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware.
A few Federalists, led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, considered the creation of a separate New England confederation, possibly combining with lower Canada to form a pro-British nation. Historian Richard Buell, Jr., characterizes these separatist musings:
Most participants in the explorations — it can hardly be called a plot since it never took concrete form — focused on the domestic obstacles to consummating their fantasy. These included lack of popular support for such a scheme in the region. ... The secessionist movement of 1804 was more of a confession of despair about the future than a realistic proposal for action.
The Embargo Act of 1807 was seen as a threat to the economy of Massachusetts and in late May 1808 the state legislature debated how the state should respond. Once again these debates generated isolated references to secession, but no clear cut plot ever materialized.
Spurred on by some Federalist party members, the Hartford Convention was convened on December 15, 1814, to address both the opposition to the War of 1812 (which lasted until 1815) and the domination of the federal government by the Virginia political dynasty. Twenty six delegates attended—Massachusetts sent 12 delegates, Connecticut seven, and Rhode Island four. New Hampshire and Vermont decided not to send delegates although two counties from each state did send delegates. Historian Donald R. Hickey noted:
Despite pleas in the New England press for secession and a separate peace, most of the delegates taking part in the Hartford Convention were determined to pursue a moderate course. Only Timoth Bigelow of Massachusetts apparently favored extreme measures, and he did not play a major role in the proceedings.
The final report addressed issues related to the war and state defense and recommended seven constitutional amendments dealing with "the overrepresentation of white southerners in Congress, the growing power of the West, the trade restrictions and the war, the influence of foreigners (like Albert Gallatin), and the Virginia dynasty's domination of national politics."
Massachusetts and Connecticut endorsed the report, but the war ended as the states' delegates were on their way to Washington, effectively ending any impact the report might have had. Generally the convention was a "victory for moderation", but the timing led to the convention being identified as "a synonym for disloyalty and treason" and was a major factor in the sharp decline of the Federalist Party.

Abolitionists

Sectional tensions, with the North and New England pictured as the victims of a slaveholders’ conspiracy, arose again in the late 1830s and 1840s over the related issues of Texas Annexation, the Mexican–American War, and the expansion of slavery. Isolated voices of separation from the South were again heard. Historian Joel Sibley writes of the beliefs held by some leaders in New England:
Texas annexation, the abolitionist Benjamin Lundy argued when the issue first arose in 1836, was “a long premeditated crusade — set on foot by slaveholders, land speculators, etc., with the view of reestablishing, extending, and perpetuating the system of slavery and the slave trade,” John Quincy Adams had made a similar argument on the floor of the House of Representatives then. Other expressions of the same theme — or accusation — had been heard throughout the decade that followed, whenever Texas was mentioned.
In the May 1844 edition of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison wrote "Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States." In this strongly disunionist editorial, Garrison wrote that the Constitution had been created “at the expense of the colored population of the country”. With southerners continuing to dominate the nation because of the Three-fifths compromise, it was time “to set the captive free by the potency of truth” and “secede from the government.”[33] on the same day that this issue was published, the New England Anti-Slavery Convention endorsed the principles of disunion from slaveholders by a vote of 250–24.



## States' Rights# "Powers Reserved To The States"

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights.

The 10th Amendment states: "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." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.


The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.


Rather than a war about slavery I see the issue as one where the power elites of two regions sought to impose their will upon the other, using everyone and anyone in the accomplishment of their goals.

The South lost, ending a bad institution, namely Slavery.

Still, it took almost another century before the issues of racism began to be addressed.

What is your take on why that might have been? :embarassed: