• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
You're right in one sense, the majority of Texans do not want to secede. I have seen polls ranging from 20-40 percent, depending on how the question is asked.

You are wrong if you think you can boil Texas secessionist sentiments , which have been fairly constant since before the Civil War, down to fad issues of the day like public religion and gay rights. One has to keep in mind Texas' unique history and situation.

Texas is the only state that was once it's own Republic. We fought and won our own war of independence against Mexico. Today, the state of Texas maintains a sense of independence. We are far from just another rinkydink state....we are the largest in the lower 48 in land mass, we have a population and economy comparable to that of Canada, we have access to two bodies of water, 2 of the top 5 metro areas in the United States, and over 1/10th of the workd's Fortune 500 companies are headquartered here.

Yet we have the same representation in the Senate as New Hampshire or Delaware.

To characterize the question of secession as something limited to "nutters" does it a disservice, in my opinion. In a larger sense, there is some credence to the argument that a government which is closer to home is better able to service the needs of said population, and one can rightly question at what point a nation of 300+ million that encompasses an entire continent becomes too large to govern in a way that protects the interests of each of those 300 million dwellers.

We're a diverse country with diverse histories and divergent ideals. Perhaps rather than continue on our present course of infighting and polarization, it would be wise to consider alternative ways to divide up governance in such a way that all parties can have their interests fairly represented.

I'm saying that only because there have been rumblings among the ultra-religious that if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, there may be a civil war by the religious reich. It most certainly is a "threat" today, but as you point out, it's been going on since the Civil War and nothing has happened yet. A threat that is never going to happen isn't much of a threat and nobody takes these people seriously. The fact is, they have neither the will, nor the ability, nor the balls to actually do anything. They'd get stomped on like the irrational bugs they are if they ever made a half-hearted attempt. They know that. The best they can do is flap their lips a lot and certainly, that is their right, just like it's my right to be able to point and laugh at their stupidity.
 
If there is a legal mechanism for any state to cede from the union and the required number of citizens desire succession, I support the right.
 
You can move it to California if you want. Was just offering to let you keep it running in Houston free of charge if that's more attractive to you than building a whole new set of facilities somewhere else, as scientific advancement benefits us all.

No need for any potential split to be hostile, that's a point I think many here are missing

That is just one part of my post , but I do find the part that you had refute was reasonable . We are talking about he government though which isn't actually reasonable . Hat we did to get that land in the first place was more than just hostile. The resources that you already mentioned is not something America is going to just let go.
 
If the people of Texas or any state, or city for that matter, want to be autonomous then they should have that right.
 
I think Texas should be responsible for its fair share, sure, but what that "fair share" is would likely be a point of contention.

No doubt at all. I had the impression you were denying any liability. My mistake. Sorry.
 
Yes.

I'd even support fortification of the Mason-Dixon line but that's another story ;)
 
If the people of Texas or any state, or city for that matter, want to be autonomous then they should have that right.

I believe that fits with the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Those who wished to join the Union could do so if those already in it consented. And this nation was founded on the concept that when a government breaks faith with the people and oppresses them against their will, that the people are justified in dissolving or removing themselves from that government.

Our Declaration of Independence from England started with these famous words:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . .​

The opening statement was followed with acknowledgment that a people should not withdraw from a government without just and extreme cause. And then it went on to list the grievances the Colonists had with King George that provided the justification for dismissing the English government.

Certainly Texas could compile a long list of grievances of how the federal government has abused, misused, misapplied, and mischaracterized the letter and law of the Constitution. If they left, I want New Mexico to go with them.

The difficulty comes in the many many major federal installations in Texas not the least of which are NASA, 25 military installations and bases, et al that belong to us all. What could we do about that?
 
I believe that fits with the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Those who wished to join the Union could do so if those already in it consented. And this nation was founded on the concept that when a government breaks faith with the people and oppresses them against their will, that the people are justified in dissolving or removing themselves from that government.

Our Declaration of Independence from England started with these famous words:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . .​

The opening statement was followed with acknowledgment that a people should not withdraw from a government without just and extreme cause. And then it went on to list the grievances the Colonists had with King George that provided the justification for dismissing the English government.

Certainly Texas could compile a long list of grievances of how the federal government has abused, misused, misapplied, and mischaracterized the letter and law of the Constitution. If they left, I want New Mexico to go with them.

The difficulty comes in the many many major federal installations in Texas not the least of which are NASA, 25 military installations and bases, et al that belong to us all. What could we do about that?
:2razz:
 
I believe that fits with the intent of the U.S. Constitution. Those who wished to join the Union could do so if those already in it consented. And this nation was founded on the concept that when a government breaks faith with the people and oppresses them against their will, that the people are justified in dissolving or removing themselves from that government.

Our Declaration of Independence from England started with these famous words:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . .​

The opening statement was followed with acknowledgment that a people should not withdraw from a government without just and extreme cause. And then it went on to list the grievances the Colonists had with King George that provided the justification for dismissing the English government.

Certainly Texas could compile a long list of grievances of how the federal government has abused, misused, misapplied, and mischaracterized the letter and law of the Constitution. If they left, I want New Mexico to go with them.

The difficulty comes in the many many major federal installations in Texas not the least of which are NASA, 25 military installations and bases, et al that belong to us all. What could we do about that?

In the case of NASA, I could envision a scenario where it could remain in Houston under United States control, similar to how CERN operates in Switzerland - owned by the EU but physically located outside the EU.

Being a peaceful, scientific endevour, I think it benefits us all and I'm certain there's room to cooperate there.

In the case of the military bases, it gets trickier. If the separation were amicable, I see no issue with allowing the bases to continue to operate, similar to how the U.S. has bases in many other peaceful nations around the world. I would even envision Texas being part of the North Anerican Defense Treaty that includes Canada.

I think Canada is a good model to keep in mind when trying to envision what an independent Texas would look like. A friendly partner with close ties to the USA, but at the same time an independent nation with the right to self-determination and governance.
 
That's moral ground. You said you had legal ground, what is it?

We have the legal right to split in to 5 states.. That's 10 new senators from Texas. Would you be OK with 1/5th of the senators in the U.S. being from Texas?

They would kick us out before they ever allowed that to finalize
 
If voted on by who? Just Texans or the whole country.
 
Actually, that splitting into multiple states and thus getting more senators is sounding pretty good.
 
We have the legal right to split in to 5 states.. That's 10 new senators from Texas. Would you be OK with 1/5th of the senators in the U.S. being from Texas?

They would kick us out before they ever allowed that to finalize

You didn't answer my question.
 
Wanting to leave the union by a vote of the state government is not an insurrection.

The state government doesn't have the authority to secede. Texas V White made it clear the only avenues to independence are with the consent of the rest of the union, or open insurrection.
 
The state government doesn't have the authority to secede. Texas V White made it clear the only avenues to independence are with the consent of the rest of the union, or open insurrection.

state governments put the question to the people of the southern states and they decided...by state convention and referendum.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

Yes I would support their right to secede assuming they will be responsible for their own defense,and we won't have to give them any forign or military aid.
 
While unlikely anytime too soon, it's not unthinkable that one day, Texas might vote to secede from the United States and re-establish itself as an independent nation.

If done in a peaceful and democratic manner...that is, if the people of Texas overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the U.S. In a referendum similar to the one recently held in Scotland, would you support the right of Texas to go her own way?

"Right" to secede... no.
Let it secede anyway, yes let's.
 
If the people of Texas or any state, or city for that matter, want to be autonomous then they should have that right.

And they can, they can get up, pack their stuff and leave the United States. They are welcome to live anywhere else they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom