Thread: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Centinel

It's early, and I've only had half a pot of coffee, but I'm not sure I follow your question.

Considering the people of Texas have "family, friends, and business" in the US would they really want to secede? Would they want the border check stations built across the freeways and roads? Could they handle there own national defense, since Mexico would, of course, reassert it's claims to at least portions of Texas? Will they be paying for all the military bases and other US government installations in Texas, or do we just destroy those as we leave? Will the Texas OilBuck be backed by oil reserves and who will accept a Texas IOU - because we would have no reason to do so? It doesn't always take a ground war, you know. And if you're going to cite Texas holding oil over our head to me that's just one more very good reason to get off the oil standard.

Originally Posted by haymarket

Patrick Henry was free to listen to anybody he wanted to listen to. So are you and I.

It is funny and not a little bit sad the way the right refers to THE STATES as if they were some actual living breathing entity that is somehow different and distinct and divorced from the actual people - human beings - citizens who live in that man made legal convenience.

Madison knew and expressed clearly what 'we the people' means. We are talking about one who was instrumental in the forming and completion of the Constitution. Its his notes we are indebted to to know what took place there. You can say its just one mans opinion, but it's the one that counts.

States are distinct political bodies from Central or National Government. And in the Unitied States, States have their sovereignty. As Madison says. As proved by the ratification process.

Quantrill

Originally Posted by Quantrill

Madison knew and expressed clearly what 'we the people' means. We are talking about one who was instrumental in the forming and completion of the Constitution. Its his notes we are indebted to to know what took place there. You can say its just one mans opinion, but it's the one that counts.

States are distinct political bodies from Central or National Government. And in the Unitied States, States have their sovereignty. As Madison says. As proved by the ratification process.

Quantrill

Actually, Madison is not the ONE that counts. He is one person with no more legal authority to be the final judge of that issue than any other American who ever lived.

You are free to endow his opinion with whatever traits you see fit to do. But that is only you.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

Considering the people of Texas have "family, friends, and business" in the US would they really want to secede? Would they want the border check stations built across the freeways and roads?

Those are legitimate questions, but the thread was about whether they had the right to secede, and I was simply assuming that, for whatever reason, they had decided to do so. Personally, I see secession as unnecessary and probably undesirable, and a last resort.

Could they handle there own national defense, since Mexico would, of course, reassert it's claims to at least portions of Texas?

That would remain to be seen. However, Texas is the 15th largest economy in the world, so I would assume that it could afford a capable military.

Will they be paying for all the military bases and other US government installations in Texas, or do we just destroy those as we leave?

It sounds reasonable that they would have to buy out any existing federal installations.

Will the Texas OilBuck be backed by oil reserves and

If I had to guess, I don't think they would have an oil buck. More likely a fiat currency like every other country in the world.

who will accept a Texas IOU - because we would have no reason to do so?

Are you asking who would loan money to Texas? I imagine anyone who is in the market for government bonds.

It doesn't always take a ground war. And if you're going to cite Texas holding oil over our head to me that's just one more very good reason to get off the oil standard.

No you've lost me.

Originally Posted by haymarket

Actually, Madison is not the ONE that counts. He is one person with no more legal authority to be the final judge of that issue than any other American who ever lived.

You are free to endow his opinion with whatever traits you see fit to do. But that is only you.

You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.

The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.

So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.

Quantrill

Originally Posted by Quantrill

You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.

The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.

So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.

Quantrill

I see your point. The constitution, ultimately, was enacted by the several states through their ratification of it.

Originally Posted by Centinel

That would remain to be seen. However, Texas is the 15th largest economy in the world, so I would assume that it could afford a capable military.

And pay for it how? You can't grow naval vessels overnight, where would they get them even if they had the money?

Originally Posted by Centinel

It sounds reasonable that they would have to buy out any existing federal installations.

Or we could just blow them as we go, which is a better option.

Originally Posted by Centinel

If I had to guess, I don't think they would have an oil buck. More likely a fiat currency like every other country in the world.

Are you asking who would loan money to Texas? I imagine anyone who is in the market for government bonds.

Like anyone would loan Libya money on a government bond? Those things take time.

Originally Posted by Centinel

No you've lost me.

I've seen you assuming two options (though I admit to not having read the entire thread): let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

Since I've seen nothing else (though I admit to not having read the entire thread) I've seen you assuming two options: let them go quietly OR a ground war. I'm pointing out other options. Label them as traitors, refuse to trade with them, blow the installations as we leave so they have nothing but the Texas National Guard left. Don't honor their money. Stop UN relations, since we're on the Security Council and they wouldn't be, which includes the WTO and the World Bank. Lots of ways to simply be "uncooperative" that would stifle them. And that's just a few things I can think of. I'm sure the real power players in DC could make it much, much worse. Like I said, doesn't take a ground war to help them understand just what they're missing.

Okay, now I see what you are saying. I agree. If it wished to, the US government could certainly make life difficult for a new independent Texas. I would hope it would not go down that road. I'd rather separate as friends than to make a mortal enemy. Having Texas turn out to be another Canada would be the best outcome I could imagine. I guess it all depends on how vindictive the US government would be. (And history has shown that it can be pretty darn vindictive.)

If Texas goes its own way. The resulting shift in electoral votes and congressional districts will make this into a much more liberal country politically. I wonder what the implications of that would be.

Originally Posted by Quantrill

You don't make any sense. You dont believe Madison concerning the preamble. Its history. He as the main player explained what 'we the people' means.

The only reason that it wasn't worded as the Articles of Confederation did, citing every state in the preamble, was because they didin't know if every state would ratify. They neve said 'we the people' to indicate the mass people of the nation of America. 'We the people' always means 'we the people of the states', who ratify.

So, unless you have something to disprove this, just saying one mans opinion is pretty silly.

Quantrill

But it is the opinion of one man. That is undeniable fact.

His opinion does not have the force of law. As such, it accounts for no more legal standing than any other persons views or opinions does.

YOu want to pretend that the Constitution says something that it does not say. That is dishonest.