Texas secession?

MoSurveyor · May 20, 2012

megaprogman said:
My bigger fear is that those people would become "the other" and there would be some popularized brutality since it involves the homeland.

A lot would depend on the sentiment of the people in Texas. Just because some majority of the people that voted decided it was a good idea doesn't mean that's representative of the State as a whole. Only 45% turned out to vote in the last presidential election and only 71% are registered at all. So if 51% of the registered voters OK'ed it, that would only be about 36% of the voting age population.

In any event there will be some large percent who don't want to secede who would also be with US, so it wouldn't be just "US" and "them".

Turnout and Voter Registration Figures (1970-current)

Centinel · May 20, 2012

haymarket said:
Do you mean still be in North America or North and South America or the United States of America?

They would still be in North America. If they quit the union, then of course they would not longer a member of the USA, but they would remain our fellow Americans.

Slartibartfast · May 20, 2012

I would probably support succession if both the state of texas and the rest of the country both approved by popular vote, either directly or through their representatives.

MoSurveyor · May 20, 2012

Centinel said:
Of course they'd still be fellow Americans, since they would still be in America.

Then Mexicans are "fellow Americans" as well? I'll be sure to remember that the next political speech I hear out of Texas complaining about the immigration problem.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

rocket88 said:
Did any states secede in 1814? Don't think so.

It was said that no one had considered secession before. The Hartford convention proves otherwise.

Quantrill

mac · May 20, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Then Mexicans are "fellow Americans" as well? I'll be sure to remember that the next political speech I hear out of Texas complaining about the immigration problem.

You mean the illegal immigration problem?

Centinel · May 20, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Then Mexicans are "fellow Americans" as well?

Correct. Although I think that images of a US invasion force occupying Texas might be all the more disturbing due to the tight integration between the people of Texas and the people of the remaining states. A lot of people have family, friends, and business contacts in Texas. To think that US forces are firing upon and killing those people would probably be extremely upsetting.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

rocket88 said:
You're not paying attention. According to Article VI of the Constitution, engagements entered into under the Articles are still in force, unless specifically contradicted in the Constitution. Under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," the states entered into a perpetual union that was not rescinded by the Constitution.

It sucks when history and reality don't jive with the voices in your head, doesn't it?

Sorry, your not paying attention. Your under a different Constitution. Ariticle 6 speaks to debts and engagements entered before the Constitution of 1787 will be as valid as they were under the Cofederation. This doesn't speak to any perpetual union. Note how that language was left out of the Constitution of 1787. Why? Because they threw that perpetual union out the window.

Quantrill

MoSurveyor · May 20, 2012

mac said:
You mean the illegal immigration problem?

Americans bitch about both.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

rocket88 said:
Apparently, it was a big help. It worked. The white American residents of Texas wanted to be part of the United States, independence was never meant as a permanent solution for Texas, just a step on the way.

BTW, your declartations of "Bull****" and "you don't know what your [sic] talking about" don't make it so.

The US gave Texas no help in its fight for independence.

The white Americans were Mexican citizens of Mexico not Texas.

More bull.

Quantrill

MoSurveyor · May 20, 2012

Centinel said:
Correct. Although I think that images of a US invasion force occupying Texas might be all the more disturbing due to the tight integration between the people of Texas and the people of the remaining states. A lot of people have family, friends, and business contacts in Texas. To think that US forces are firing upon and killing those people would probably be extremely upsetting.

And you don't think the people in Texas will have the same issues in mind when they cast this hypothetical vote to secede?

haymarket · May 20, 2012

Henrin said:
Sigh..wonderful dodge.

Because I will not indulge your whim and point out the factual reason why, you deem it a dodge because it serves your own agenda.

Amazing.

mac · May 20, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Americans bitch about both.

Pretty much every nation "bitches" about illegal immigration. Mexico, for example, has some of the strictest immigration law there is.

haymarket · May 20, 2012

Centinel said:
They would still be in North America. If they quit the union, then of course they would not longer a member of the USA, but they would remain our fellow Americans.

And when people in the USA use the term "fellow Americans" do you think that is what they are talking about for them most part?

Centinel · May 20, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
And you don't think the people in Texas will have the same issues in mind when they cast this hypothetical vote to secede?

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

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

haymarket said:
He is one man. One man of 55. One man of 39. We do NOT hold the opinion of any one man above the entire document.

We know that people from the states ratified the Constitution. Is there some dispute about this?

One man who explained to Patrick Henry and others what 'we the people' means. ' We the people of the soverign states' That is what it means. You can't get around it.

No, no dispute at all. The states had to ratify the Constitution in order for it to be implemented as law over them. The States have the sovereignty. As the 10th ammendment says, certain powers were 'delegated'. Not surrendered. Delegated. All others remain to the States.

Quantrill

Centinel · May 20, 2012

haymarket said:
And when people in the USA use the term "fellow Americans" do you think that is what they are talking about for them most part?

No, I don't think so. But I do think that they would consider Texans as their fellow Americans. Well, I guess I can only speak for myself. I have friends and relatives there, so I would continue to consider them friend and fellow Americans. The thought of them being invaded by US forces would be horrible.

haymarket · May 20, 2012

Centinel said:
No, I don't think so. But I do think that they would consider Texans as their fellow Americans. Well, I guess I can only speak for myself. I have friends and relatives there, so I would continue to consider them friend and fellow Americans. The thought of them being invaded by US forces would be horrible.

They day they turn tail and quit being part of the USA is the day they cease to being my fellow Americans.

Screw em.

haymarket · May 20, 2012

Quantrill said:
One man who explained to Patrick Henry and others what 'we the people' means. ' We the people of the soverign states' That is what it means. You can't get around it.

No, no dispute at all. The states had to ratify the Constitution in order for it to be implemented as law over them. The States have the sovereignty. As the 10th ammendment says, certain powers were 'delegated'. Not surrendered. Delegated. All others remain to the States.

Quantrill

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.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

rocket88 said:
So what part of the Constitution declares that part of the Articles invalid? If it had ever been meant for a state to be allowed to leave, that would have likely been written in the same way becoming a state was.

Yes, it's talking about engagements that were made before the Constitution. Among them, the engagement of the 13 states into a Union.

All of the Ariticles are done away with because a unanamous vote to change them was required. Which couldn't be gotten because N. Carolina and Rhode Island wouldn't show up. Thus no change could be made. Soloution? Chunk em out the window and make another. And so they did.

Quantrill

MoSurveyor · May 20, 2012

Centinel said:
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.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

haymarket said:
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

haymarket · May 20, 2012

Quantrill said:
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.

Centinel · May 20, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
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.

Quantrill · May 20, 2012

haymarket said:
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

Texas secession?

Texas secession?

Anytime they want

Bad times only

No way

I don't know

Other

Jesus loves you.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member