If Texas were to threaten to secede from the Union...

I thank mongeese for a quick response. 1. Intent "The Union can act, compromise, and push forwards peacefully through compromise, if it chooses to. Hence, freedom." This is a statement that is inherently incorrect. What my opponent has essentially described is this: because the threat exposes issues, the federal government has the ability to compromise, or not, and that is freedom. Well, that is not freedom. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."[1] By purposely limiting the federal government's choices to either "my way" or "the highway," the threat of secession on the part of Texas takes away the freedom of the US government to choose its own compromises and its own actions according to its own wishes. If my opponent believes this is conducive to 'freedom,' then my opponent should consider a change in ideology. "if the Union were to continue to excursive powers over Texas without consent, it would be violating the basic freedom of the Texans," But the Union does have this consent until the act of secession occurs. Remember, once again - we're talking about the *threat* of secession, not the *act* secession of the state. If the voters of Texas so chose to secede, that is different; but as I noted, the threat of secession does not come from the individual citizens, but from the official and elected representatives of those citizens, also known as the Texas state government. This is an argument about politics and political entities, and to bring in the whims of individual Texans is to ignore the fundamental facts about this case, and play to populism. "... so this threat is used to preserve the basic freedoms of Texas." The powers of the state of Texas are as mandated within the Constitution and with negotiations with the federal government. While Texas may feel entitled to its own decisions in certain aspects of policy, it doesn't actually have any power in certain regards. So to say that the "basic freedoms of Texas" are preserved by using the threat of secession over policies that Texas has no control over in the first place, you're committing something akin to squatting[2]. And of course, when you squat, you are not attempting to preserve your own legal property - you're attempting to control another's. By using the threat of secession to veto legislation created by the White House which has full legal and property rights over it, Texas is trying to bind the federal government's exercise of freedom over its own property. "Actually, given that the threat itself is justified, as if the people of Texas no longer consent to the Union's power over Texas, then the Union has no rightful power over Texas, the Union is in the corner that it has always been in." The threat being justified is not any more conducive to peace and freedom than if it weren't justified. A threat is a threat is a threat - justified or not, the intent is clear, and that intent is to bind the other party in a way as to limit the choices to "my way" or "the highway." And precedent against freedom is not an argument for freedom, so my opponent saying that the federal government being in "the corner that it always has been in," is pointless. "Note that the Union, in this case, would never have had the freedom to both keep Texas and enact legislation against Texas, as that would not be basic freedom in the slightest." Incorrect. The Union has every power as mandated in the Constitution to enact legislation *over* - not against, as the US enacting legislation against Texas is an odd suggestion - the stated of Texas. The federal government would simply be exercising its right over its property. "The federal government's exercise of its freedom would conflict with the Texan's basic freedom. Additionally, any "freedom" held by the Union would be transferred to the Texas government or the Texans themselves, therefore granting just as much as violating." Here my opponent again forgets that we are talking about the *threat* of secession, and not the *act* of secession. And so long as the federal government does not step over clear boundaries with regards to federal power vs. state power, then there is no reason for Texas to secede. As my opponent admitted, the federal government does have supreme authority over the land - authority which includes enacting legislation with or without a state opt-out clause. So yeah, sure, the *act* of secession may give Texas - note 'may' - more freedom in regards to its own political power. But, the *threat* of secession is meant to bind the federal government in such a way as to force the federal government to cede its mandated powers - its 'property'. That isn't freedom. 2. Result "It would be a huge violation of basic freedom for the Union to enslave an entire state." Once again, we come back to this point - this is about the *threat* of secession, not the *act*. I don't know why my opponent keeps falling into this trap, since he himself earlier stated that secession was a "... different story for now." Now, my opponent tries to explain away my example of the quagmire of Quebec by explaining that indeed, Canada should b grateful that they had the ability to choose (a) and (b) as options. But as I noted earlier, this is not really 'freedom' in any sense of the word; freedom is the ability for self-decision, and not the ability to choose (a) or (b) from your opponent's hand. In all honesty, this is proof of my argument anyways. My opponent has noted that the options are binding (by limiting it to (a) or (b), he has noted that the threat of secession is the cause of this, and he freely (real freedom, since this choice was of his own making, and not mine) admits this while in contradiction to earlier ("The threat doesn't limit the Union's options at all") and later ("The Union has the freedom to make the better choice as deemed by the Union") statements. So, there is no more reason to dwell on this. "My opponent describes Quebec's actions as "holding hostage the federal government." However, no definition of "hostage" [3] could fulfill this statement. It would be more fitting to use 1a and say that Quebec is holding itself hostage, saying that it will secede itself if demands are not met. Holding one's self hostage in no way violates basic freedom." My opponent is partially correct; Quebec, or in this case Texas, are holding 'themselves' hostage. And indeed, holding yourself hostage is an act of your own making, and of real freedom. You will get no argument from me there. But what my opponent fails to take into account is *why* someone would hold themselves hostage. It indeed is the same reason why someone would hold another person hostage - for demands to be met. As evident by this video[3], a person can indeed hold themselves hostage, and others will attempt to stop them. In this specific case, I do not know if this man had demands in order for him to put down the knife - but this case did[4]. A student at a culinary school in Britain failed a test, and threatened to kill himself if he were not allowed to retake it. Police were called in, and it ended peacefully, but the point is clear - individuals can hold themselves hostage in order for demands to be made. Similarly, political entities can do the same. By threatening secession, Texas would "hold itself hostage," in order for demands to be met from the federal government. There is no difference in this situation, as there is with the culinary school situation. __________________ I thank mongeese for this debate so far, and I look forward to Round 3! Sources in comments.