Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’

[Sonny Tufts]

If the tyrants of today want to make the same mistakes of the past, and bring violence onto those who want only peace, then that's on them.

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:

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association... But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States...

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...

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.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

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

 

[Madison320]

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?

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?

 

[Madison320]

Texas contends that the manner in which some other states tallied up their votes was illegitimate (or even fraudulent). Regardless of whether one agrees with that contention, if no reconciliation that is sufficiently satisfactory to both Texas and those other states can be found, then Texas is under no obligation to accept the validity of those other states' tallies, any more than those other states are obliged to conduct their tallies in a manner that pleases Texas.

If you disagree, and think that Texas should be obliged to accept their validity, then:
(1) how do you propose to impose this obligation upon Texas in manner that is not in some way "federalized"?
(2) why should the burden be on Texas to accept other states' tallies, but not also on other states to conduct their tallies in a way that is acceptable to Texas? (Is it not the case that "what touches all should be approved by all"?)

There's not going to be a perfect system but allowing one state to protest the results of another state seems way worse to me than just accepting the results unconditionally. I can see all kinds of bad things happening.

For example suppose Trump barely wins in 2024 and then California protests that Texas was suppressing votes of minorities. So the federal government overturns Texas election results and Biden wins.

It sounds like you're suggesting that all 50 states should approve of the results? Ok, what if Trumps wins then California, NY, and NJ protest the Texas results. So by default until everyone agrees Biden stays in power.

The only way that you can give a state the power to overturn another state's results is to involve the federal government. I don't think it's Texas's business how California votes or vice versa.


Of course even better would be to just allow Texas to secede ...

 

[TheTexan]

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?

Lincoln was the real tyrant. He did not invade the South to free the slaves.

Lincoln invaded the South to keep the South in the "indivisible" union.

An indefensible action.

People like to pretend nowadays that the North were noble liberators of equality. In truth they were almost as racist as the South.

The emancipation proclamation was almost entirely a political gambit to prevent Europe from entering the war on the side of the South.

The North was not noble, and neither was the South.

But it was the North who wanted the war. The South wanted peace.

 

[RJB]

I am tempted to move to Texas so that I can vote to elect TheTexan as the president of the new country of Texas.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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

This question embodies a rather bizarre false dichotomy, given that Lincoln was a willing abettor and would-be protector of human-chattel slavers, as clearly demonstrated by the following:

• In his (in)famous letter to newspaper publisher Horace Greeley, Lincoln made it clear that he would willingly consign every single slave to continued enslavement as long as it meant that he got to be President of all the former Union, instead of just part of it.
• In his first inaugural, Lincoln offered his support for (and later endorsed) the so-called "Corwin Amendment", which would have become the 13th Amendment to Constitution of the United States (had not the later secession of South Carolina, et al. effectively rendered the issue moot). The amendment would have guaranteed federal protection for the practice of human chattel slavery in perpetuo.
• After South Carolina, et al. seceded, four slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) remained in the Union, and one slave state was admitted (West Virginia) - about which Lincoln did nothing, and was not inclined to do anything.
• 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).

In light of all this (and more that has not been mentioned), the question is not, "Who was the real tyrant - Lincoln, or the slaveowner?"

The question is, "Who were the real tyrants - Lincoln and the Union slaveowners, or the Confederate slaveowners?"

And of course, the correct answer to that question is: "both".

But at least the latter did not come attached to Lincoln, who heartily and hypocritically endorsed secessionism to Congress in 1848. (Not that it really made much difference, I suppose - the Confederate politicians turned out to be just as hypocritical when it came to abrogating "states' rights" in the name of the "war effort".)

 

[ClaytonB]

Feds: If Texas secedes, we'll go to war.

Texas:

 

[Swordsmyth]

Feds: If Texas secedes, we'll go to war.

Texas:

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

 

[Swordsmyth]

There's not going to be a perfect system but allowing one state to protest the results of another state seems way worse to me than just accepting the results unconditionally. I can see all kinds of bad things happening.

For example suppose Trump barely wins in 2024 and then California protests that Texas was suppressing votes of minorities. So the federal government overturns Texas election results and Biden wins.

It sounds like you're suggesting that all 50 states should approve of the results? Ok, what if Trumps wins then California, NY, and NJ protest the Texas results. So by default until everyone agrees Biden stays in power.

The only way that you can give a state the power to overturn another state's results is to involve the federal government. I don't think it's Texas's business how California votes or vice versa.


Of course even better would be to just allow Texas to secede ...

Don't be ridiculous.
Someone has to have standing to contest election theft on a national scale.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That could be 2% believe he has accomplished the part of destroying our country. Which is exactly the goals of the demoncrats.

This.
THEIR economy is stealing more wealth than ever.

 

[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 [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] 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/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-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/indust...1860, 90 percent of,100 produced in the South.

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/articles/north-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.

 

[Ender]

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

False history- it was always about money. Most the South knew that the slavery issue was being pushed to get the Northern abolitionists involved.

 

[Ender]

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.

Exactly- slavery was on the way out- the "Civil" War turned everyone into a slave.