Thread: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Canell

Wouldn't a share of $16 trillion national debt hurt Texas as well?

Not as much as not making the money to pay on it. Interstate commerce is the way things work. Heck, it's even more now, it's globalization. Interdepence means that Texas' economy is far better within the United States than outside of it. Exiting the United States would have great consequences globally. Our trading partners know the United States, they know we're good for the money. An independent Texas not so much.

Greece leaving the Euro zone would be nothing by comparison

Originally Posted by phattonez

So Texas, a very prosperous state, would suddenly become a third-world nation if it was to secede? This is pretty ridiculous. They have many times more capital than Haiti, and enacting policies that encouraged capital accumulation would make it a very rich nation indeed.

Apparently you've never put a pen to all of the things that a country has to financially manage. Just upgrading the military to one that could provide adequate protection (against the next American President)...a ton of money The education system alone would bankrupt Texas. Then there is those things in place such as Medicaid and Medicare. I can continue to list all of the things necessary, but not worth the time or finger energy. You'll have to put on your thinking cap.

Originally Posted by rocket88

Saying it would be 3rd World may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's no question that it would hurt Texas economically.

Doubtful. The inflation of the Fed sucking away their capital takes away much of the states' productive capacity.

Originally Posted by Removable Mind

Apparently you've never put a pen to all of the things that a country has to financially manage. Just upgrading the military to one that could provide adequate protection (against the next American President)...a ton of money

We should let Texas go peacefully.

The education system alone would bankrupt Texas. Then there is those things in place such as Medicaid and Medicare. I can continue to list all of the things necessary, but not worth the time or finger energy. You'll have to put on your thinking cap.

These things aren't necessary. All can be provided privately.

Originally Posted by haymarket

APPEALS TO AUTHORITY!?!?!?!?!?

This is at least the third time you have used this phrase in the last few weeks. Each time you employ it, you do so wrongly.

No, I don't think I'm using it wrong at all. You are placing more authority than they deserve on them so you don't need to debate. While they surely have authority you can't very well trump authority of the founders with them. What the founders said the clauses mean is still the factor that will decide if the courts got it right and everything here points them NOT getting it right.

Originally Posted by Canell

Howdy,

Let's assume times get tough, the US dollar crashes or something of that magnitude. Would you mind Texas secession if they choose to?

I have always said that I am a Texan first, and an American second. Texas has done far more for me than my country ever has or will. I remember back in the Army I used to talk with other Texans about this same issue. The general opinion of the majority of us was that if Texas seceded, we'd all rip the American flag off our shoulders and head back to the fatherland.

Without trying to sound like an extremist, I'd actually like to see this happen. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the Independent Republic of Texas.

Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca

I have always said that I am a Texan first, and an American second. Texas has done far more for me than my country ever has or will. I remember back in the Army I used to talk with other Texans about this same issue. The general opinion of the majority of us was that if Texas seceded, we'd all rip the American flag off our shoulders and head back to the fatherland.

Without trying to sound like an extremist, I'd actually like to see this happen. Nothing would make me happier than seeing the Independent Republic of Texas.

I would love it, too! Guys, seriously, get a petition going and I'll sign the top of it. Call me John Mother****ing Hancock. I'll send it to my local Congressman. Nothing would make me happier as well.

Originally Posted by rocket88

Not as much as not making the money to pay on it. ... Our trading partners know the United States, they know we're good for the money. An independent Texas not so much.

I generally try to use the term "ignorant" since so many people are... well... ignorant of its definition, but I must make an exception here. This statement does much to show your ignorance of basic economic principles.

The numbers of consumers globally who take the time to determine the point-of-origin of the products they purchase is so miniscule it almost doesn't exist. This means that qualitative aspects such as construction, material, and price are infinitely more important to most consumers than the "Made in..." tag. So immediately it makes no difference whatsoever whether a product comes from a Texas, subsidiary of the United States or from a Texas, subsidiary of the planet Earth.

Furthermore, you will find that a great many individuals, companies, and nations around the globe are/becoming wary of U.S. Dollars. Based on the current state of affairs within Texas, I would surmise that an independent Texas would either allow private coinage or use "real" money (and demand the same in exchange). This would have the exact opposite effect you believe would occur.

Originally Posted by TNAR

I generally try to use the term "ignorant" since so many people are... well... ignorant of its definition, but I must make an exception here. This statement does much to show your ignorance of basic economic principles.

The numbers of consumers globally who take the time to determine the point-of-origin of the products they purchase is so miniscule it almost doesn't exist. This means that qualitative aspects such as construction, material, and price are infinitely more important to most consumers than the "Made in..." tag. So immediately it makes no difference whatsoever whether a product comes from a Texas, subsidiary of the United States or from a Texas, subsidiary of the planet Earth.

Furthermore, you will find that a great many individuals, companies, and nations around the globe are/becoming wary of U.S. Dollars. Based on the current state of affairs within Texas, I would surmise that an independent Texas would either allow private coinage or use "real" money (and demand the same in exchange). This would have the exact opposite effect you believe would occur.

Pardon my harsh language, but the idea of a currency called "the Texan" gets my d*** hard.

- "How much is that TV?"
- "199 Texans"

Originally Posted by rocket88

It was one of the reasons, though. I don't necessarily blame them for wanting to divorce themselves from a government that may one day wish to remove their livelihood. Slavery was a big part of how the economic system of the South worked.



I have never once heard anyone say that Northerners went into the war hoping to destroy the South's economy. With the exception of Sherman's march, but that was a war measure during the war. Nobody wanted to destroy slavery because it was Southern that I have heard or read. There was definitely abolitionist sentiment in Union armies, but that was based on the idea that slavery was wrong. They weren't necessarily believers that blacks were equal either (so don't start with that), but definitely thought it was wrong to own other people.

Do you have a source for this claim that the North entered the war to destroy the South?

I didn't really say the North entered the war to destroy the South. I suggested that the North was against slavery due to it fueling the Souths economy and were against it for that reason. On the surface, the reason the North went to war was to bring the Southern States back into the Union. But since you have brought it up, I am of the opinion that the North had already made its mind up that they were going to go to war against the South and destroy it. Why? Because of the extreme differences in culture and way of life and interests.

Such differences go all the way back to the Constitution we have been discussing. Not just due to the slavery issue either. Due to culture and different ways of life. With the westward expansion still in the process, you had many states that would be carved out of it. To allow the Southernor his way of life in those territtories let them distance themeselves both geogrpahically and culturally and politically from the North. And the new states would outnumber the North. And the North feared their interests would no longer be represented. The North feared the loss of money and power. The South didn't need the North. We had miles and miles of coast for trade. we had the Mississipi River. Which is why the 'tarriff' issue was so volatile. It affected the South not the North. The North gave it only to hinder the South.

I don't have all the references at hand at the moment but I will find them and show them.

Slavery was but an issue at the time. The North hated slavery because for one it didn't care for the negroe. Two, because it helped the Southern economy. Proof of this can be seen for one, in the New York riots following Lincolns emancipation proclamation. New York yankees new they were not going to go down and get killed for the black man. So they rioted and hung about 75 blacks to prove it. And, the Emancipation proclamation didn't free anyone. It was only for those slaves that were in Southern held territory. The ones still slaves in Yankee territory, remained slaves. It was a war measure given in hopes to encourage the negroes to revolt and kill their white slave masters families. Because the men were gone to war.

Quantrill