Thread: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Thrilla

no, it doesn't.

Texas is pretty low on the list of poverty rates ( 46th)lots of work to do there.. but not bad on infant mortality rate (30th)... couldn't find a state by state ranking of HS drop out... but Texas is just a tad below national average ( at 75.5% graduation rate.. which ain't bad)

I don't see the utility is speculating a failure or a success... " no reason Texas would be any different" is a lazy approach and precludes the notion that Texas could, in fact, do it very different and have very different results from whatever group of secessionist countries you are comparing them to..

Actually, yes it does. I really have to laugh at conservatives or libertarians wanting to ignore the good that govt does. There's a good reason the highest life expectancy is in Sweden and Japan, and lowest in places like Somalia, the logical end result of libertarianism.

What you keep ignoring is that over half of texas has never favored secession and would fight it tooth and nail. Among Latinos that opposition is virtually unanimous. Only among white hardline conservatives do you get close (but not quite) a majority favoring secession.

So a seceding Texas would lose at least a third of its land and population and look like the third map I keep pointing to.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/down...d-of-texas.pdf

And that's a formula for civil war, chaos, and a nosediving economy.

Originally Posted by Quantrill

How about you show what it is you think Lincoln was.

Oh yeah, and they promised em 40 acres and a mule. Their still waiting for that. They will wait a lot longer.

The South wasn't traitors. How can you say that?

Quantrill

Again, most southerners were loyal Americans. It was the Confederates, a minority of southerners, who were the traitors.

When you take up arms vs a lawfully elected govt, that makes you a traitor by definition.

As for Lincoln, his own words show him for what he was: a former racist trying to struggle with his conscience. That is what Douglass saw in their many meetings.

Every pres we've had who made great gains in civil rights was a former racist struggling to overcome his own racism, Truman, LBJ, and yes, Lincoln.

BTW, 40 acres was a temporary order by a general in the field, not an official policy. Though it would've been a great one. I always thought Lincoln, had he not been murdered by a Confederate Secret Service agent, might have offered land seized from plantations to all American veterans, Blacks included. And that would have brought many Union vets down south, making it impossible for CSA/KKK terrorism to succeed.

Originally Posted by Quantrill

No, not lesser and probably greater. The North cared not for the negro.

You misunderstand. The South didn't secede to preserve slavery. The South seceded because the North refused to treat them as equals. The North was going to use the slave issue to destroy the Souths economy. And the North had no constitutional grounds to do it. Yet they were continually allowing the constant attacks against the South concerning slavery.

The South legally had nothing to fear. But thats only if all parties were legal abiding parties. And the North now was fortelling the 'irresistable conflict' concerning slavery, as Seward says. And Lincoln was telling how a house divided cannot stand, concerning slavery. Yet it was protected. Nothing the South should fear. The Federal govt. had no say.

Consider, the Dred Scott decision. The South could take its slaves anywhere in the country it wanted.

But the South knew the North would not abide these decisions. They called the Constitution a covenant with hell. They claimed they came under a 'higher law'.

So, you see. The South didn't secede to preserve slavery. The South seceded because they were not offered equal protection under the Constitution.

Quantrill

Are you Jefferson Davis or something? The gymnastics to get around the slavery issue are worthy of his memoirs. Of course they seceded, in part, to preserve slavery. They were afraid of losing their slaves. Your head is so full of revisionist history, you can't even see that it was a major issue. You should read some of this guys books:

David Blight | Department of History | Yale University

Or at least one that has an opposite point of view. If you took all the Civil War books published since the end of the Civil War, there's more than one per day, so no doubt there's plenty of material there.

When Lincoln took office, he was no abolitionist. His "house divided" line was more of a prognostication than a statement of intent.

Originally Posted by Quantrill

How about you show what it is you think Lincoln was.

Oh yeah, and they promised em 40 acres and a mule. Their still waiting for that. They will wait a lot longer.

The South wasn't traitors. How can you say that?

Quantrill

Lincoln was a racist who thought that blacks were not equal to rights. He thought they belonged in Africa and supported their repatriation to that continent.

He also thought that you should not be able to own another person as property.

Instead of telling us about Lincoln's views, maybe you should show us how enlightened Jeff Davis was on the subject.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

yeah, so you said in your paper... still not buying it an an accurate depiction of what happened in Texas, or what will happen in Texas.

You might actually try reading it first...

I said IF there was a secession effort...most Texans have never wanted it, including during the Civil War.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

Where? Near Branson?

Kansas City, Lexington, and then I stopped in St Louis for the night.

Originally Posted by Centinel

Treaty of Paris: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."

I see a list of former British Colonies there. I don't see any State names listed, except as they happen to be the same as the colony name, nor in the territory description do I see anything other than the out-boundary of the United States with no mention of any internal boundaries at all.

Originally Posted by Quantrill

You don't know what your talking about.

The South should have been equal under the law of the land. Correct? Or are you saying they shouldn't have been?

Quantrill

The south does not equal slaveowning elites. A tiny plutocracy does not represent southerners.

Again, most southerners were not Confederates:

Blacks=40% of all Southerners
Mexicans=one third of Texas
Indians=in FL, MS, NC, though admittedly small in numbers
Poor whites opposed to slavery and the Confederacy= eastern TN, western NC, north AL, north GA, southwest MS, northeast TX, central TX, and what became West VA.

Why do ignore what they wanted? For all of them, that meant the Union, and obviously for Blacks that meant an end to slavery. Why do you keep pretending they were not Southern?

Scarlet Ohara or her kind did not represent the south or its views. Frederick Douglass did.

Originally Posted by Lokiate

Kansas City, Lexington, and then I stopped in St Louis for the night.

Secessionists in KC? Not to my knowledge. If they're here they keep themselves well hidden. You mentioned Lexington - are you sure this wasn't some historical reenactment stuff you saw? There is a very big history group here in KC, I've worked with one of them a few times trying to locate the Santa Fe Trail. But there is a big Civil War group, too.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

Secessionists in KC? Not to my knowledge. If they're here they keep themselves well hidden. You mentioned Lexington - are you sure this wasn't some historical reenactment stuff you saw? There is a very big history group here in KC, I've worked with one of them a few times trying to locate the Santa Fe Trail. But there is a big Civil War group, too.

It was just regular people doing stupid regular people things. There's a lot of weirdness in Lexington, and I presume it's due to Missouri being a bastard state that can't decide if it's union, or confederate.