Secession

[Sherman123]

Going beyond the Constitution, and the year 1861, what if a Texas just started saying no to federal laws, and just pulled the plug and said they were leaving? What are the options of the federal government in the year 2012?

I imagine the attempted secession would be suppressed.

 

[Sherman123]

The question I posed about a state, such as Texas, leaving the union. But there is a marked difference between 1861 and 2012 regarding military compelled force to stay in the union. The ideal situation, hypothetically, would be Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida for obvious geographic and military reasons. Any military action would be out of the question if it was a serious break. Just in for the sake of MAD, there are around 4000 nuclear weapons between the states listed, and the only assembly plant is in Texas with an unknown number of weapons. Hypothetically, if just Texas were to secede by itself, it would be far better off economically, and by leaving would cripple a fragile U.S. economy. This is just for argument's sake, I am not a secessionist, just find the dynamics much different than 1861, and interesting to kick around.

Just an example:

There is a pretty compelling argument for Texas seceding, it is a self-sufficient state, and actually the only drag on the state is the money sent to the federal government, and the increasing onerous federal laws. There are many more reasons for Texas to secede than not. Texas would be one of the military powers of the world on its own right.
• It is the second largest economy in the U.S. and losing that revenue would cripple the U.S. economy, especially with the debt it has.
• Texas had a gross state product of $1.332 trillion.
• Texas has three of the ten largest ports in the U.S., with 1150 in total.
• Texas is totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, lumber, natural gas, and seafood from the Gulf.
• Texas is a major developer in the U.S. of computer components and systems, as well as software.
• Texas has 4.6 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, and 29 refineries.
• The Texas electric grid is independent of the national grid.
• Texas has 57 Fortune 500 companies.
• Texas has nine medical schools.
• Texas has five international airports.
• The defense/military industry is the second largest sector of the Texas economy, trailing behind the petroleum and gas industry
• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, the center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is in Houston. It is a leading hub for the Aeronautics industry. The National Space and Biomedical Research Institute is headquartered in Houston.

Energy The known oil deposits of Texas are about 8 billion barrels, which is approximately 1/3 of the U.S. oil supply. Texas is home to ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Exxon-Mobil, Tesoro, and Valero. Houston is the energy capital of the world Texas is a leader in alternative energy sources, producing the most wind power of any state. The cost of fuel would drop dramatically, which would attract airlines. Texas refines 85% of the gasoline in the United States.There are 29 oil refineries in Texas.

Military

Texas is home of The Pantex, the only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility in the U.S. The Pantex is charged with maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. It sits on 16,000 acres. It is unknown how many nuclear weapons are at The Pantex, but estimates are in the 1000s.
Army
Fort Bliss
Red River Army Depot
Fort Hood
Sam Houston/Camp Bullis
Ingleside Army Depot

Navy
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Fort Worth
United States Navy in Corpus Christi
United States Navy in Kingsville.
Air Force
Brooks City Air Force Base
Lackland Air Force Base
Sheppard Air Force Base
Air Force Air Force Base
Dyess Air Force Base
Goodfellow Air Force Base
Laughlin Air Force Base
Randolph Air Force Base

Coast Guard
Corpus Christi
Houston/Galveston
VTS Houston/Galveston
Air Station Corpus Christi
Air Station Houston
Search and Rescue Station Freeport
Search and Rescue Station Port Aransas

Marines
Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur
VTS Port Arthur
Marine Safety Unit Texas City
Personnel Totals
Army 60,945
Navy & Marine Corps 6,909
Air Force 40,981
Coast Guard 1,409
Active Duty Military 108,835
Reserve and National Guard 84,721

Total Personnel 194,965

Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth (where the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the largest Western fighter program, is manufactured, as well as its successor, the F-35 Lightning II and the F-22 Raptor).
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Grand Prairie.
Bell Helicopter Textron in Fort Worth. The V-22 and the H-1.
Three major defense service contractors DynCorp, AECOM, and Computer Sciences Corporation in Fort Worth.
Texas has 65% of the Defense Industry in the U.S.
Texas has the largest National Guard unit in the U.S.

Manufacturing contributed $180 billion in economic development, that's nearly 13% of the total economic output of Texas

You understand that most troops stationed in Texas are not in fact Texan, and furthermore its not as though Washington would be stunned by a sudden split second secession, so much so that nuclear weapons and military assets would be left loose and exposed for seizure. An attempted secession out of Texas would be telegraphed far ahead of time, and barring truly catastrophic circumstances would afford the Federal government plenty of time to prepare for a military response.

 

[Henrin]

21 pages of this drivel and Lincoln explained it perfectly. "A nation divided against itself cannot stand". And nothing has changed about that.

We are nation divided now though. :2razz:

The problem with his statement is that keeping it together by force doesn't actually solve the underlining problems that exist. When people or states are unhappy and want to leave keeping them by force has a tendency to make the problem worse, not better. When countries get to the point of splitting up something is already fundamentally broken that won't be fixed by war and death and Lincoln wasn't really wise enough to figure any of this out. Instead he just acted like any other country would act throughout history and go out and kill his own people to keep them in line. Not exactly what I would call a sign of what the country stood for.

 

[Tennyson]

You understand that most troops stationed in Texas are not in fact Texan, and furthermore its not as though Washington would be stunned by a sudden split second secession, so much so that nuclear weapons and military assets would be left loose and exposed for seizure. An attempted secession out of Texas would be telegraphed far ahead of time, and barring truly catastrophic circumstances would afford the Federal government plenty of time to prepare for a military response.

You also understand that a lot of military from Texas are not stationed in Texas as well. I mentioned it would not be a sudden split. Weapons, nuclear weapons, conventional weapons are already here, no need to seize them. I don't think there would be any military action on either side. I don't think in this day and age federal troops are going to march into Texas, and just the ability the control of Pantex is enough of a deterrent.

Remember this is all just a what if on paper for fun to kick around. But the reason I have researched it is we are not that far from the start of some sort of semi-secession.

There are several indicators evolving. When there is a systematic trend of the federal government usurping state’s rights in violation of the Constitution, there will always be a push-back. That push back has generally been in the courts. But when the states start losing to bad court decisions, or are subjected to more and more onerous federal laws, then other methods of push-backs will take place. There will come a point when a state will just say no to either a law or Supreme Court ruling. This is dangerous, as once is starts and gains momentum, it is impossible to stop. This is applicable to the states as well. Texas just said no to the use of Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood. They court just last week ruled in Texas’ favor. After the Obamacare Supreme Court ruling, several states said no to portions of it. That could get bolder and increase in resistance. The EPA just lost a case against Texas as well by the 5th Circuit which was anticipated by other states as an affirmation of the protection of the 10th Amendment.

There are 32 states that have passed or have pending legislation regarding some form of state sovereignty under the10th Amendment.
With all this in consideration, it is trending to happen in the near future; a state will just flat out say no to a federal law or a Supreme Court ruling. Texas may well be the first as they have flirted with it. Then what happens? There is actually not that much the federal government can do about it. They are not sending in troops. They are pretty much powerless, especially if other states start joining in as well. What are their options? Once it happens, then the momentum starts. Once the momentum starts, there is no stopping it. It just seems that we are getting to a point where there is going to be a showdown. It will probably never go much further than just a no, and see what the fall out is. But I think we are already a divided country that is not reconcilable ideology. There is such a gulf between the progressives and the conservatives.

This premise goes back as far as Andrew Jackson in the 1832 in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. This does not involve a state pushing back, but rather the President pushing back. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees in Georgia from being moved to a reservation in Oklahoma. John Marshall wrote the opinion. After the ruling, Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it... the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

In 1861, after Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Taney, ruled that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln arrested 13,000 people under martial law, and one was John Merryman. Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding the military to bring Merryman in front of him. They refused. Then in Ex Parte Merryman, Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the ruling and continued with the suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln also issued an arrest warrant for Taney.

And Obama just pushed the detaining of American citizens to the 2nd Circuit with an emergency stay last week to suspend habeas corpus and he got his stay of the injunction. In reality, it would just take a few states to say no, and hopefully there would be an attitude change on how far the federal government is willing to push the states.

 

[Gawain]

Im still waiting for anyone to show me in the constitution where this is prohibited. Its not mentioned. Its therefore a right kept by the States under the 10th amendment. Again what state would agree to join an organization where the only way out was to fight your way out?

 

[iguanaman]

We are nation divided now though. :2razz:

The problem with his statement is that keeping it together by force doesn't actually solve the underlining problems that exist. When people or states are unhappy and want to leave keeping them by force has a tendency to make the problem worse, not better. When countries get to the point of splitting up something is already fundamentally broken that won't be fixed by war and death and Lincoln wasn't really wise enough to figure any of this out. Instead he just acted like any other country would act throughout history and go out and kill his own people to keep them in line. Not exactly what I would call a sign of what the country stood for.

Lincoln was smart enough to realize that the USA is more important than the needs of a minority. Let's face it, everyone is not going to be happy no matter what we do. Those dissenters are lucky that today there is no problem LEAVING. and setting up shop in some other country if this one is so abhorrent to them. That's my advice to you too.

 

[Tennyson]

Im still waiting for anyone to show me in the constitution where this is prohibited. Its not mentioned. Its therefore a right kept by the States under the 10th amendment. Again what state would agree to join an organization where the only way out was to fight your way out?

Just a few things to kick around:

The Congress in 1868 was an extraordinarily corrupt Congress. The ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments was very suspect. They did not have the votes in the Congress or the states to pass either amendment. There were 37 states in the Union at this time; they needed 28 votes for ratification, but it was ratified with 21 states voting. The Congress had denied the Southern States of their respective seats in the Senate. Article 5 of the Constitution reads: and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Texas v. White was an issue about bonds, but ended up with this opinion from the court: Texas had never been outside the Union and any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession were null and void. The rights of the state itself, as well as the rights of Texans as citizens of the United States remained unimpaired. In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. Which would invalidate the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendment as well.

The 10th Amendment applied to all the powers the states had prior to the enumerated powers they gave to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. The states retained all power not enumerate in Section 8. The powers kept by the states are quite immense, as it included immigration among other things.

 

[Henrin]

Lincoln was smart enough to realize that the USA is more important than the needs of a minority. Let's face it, everyone is not going to be happy no matter what we do. Those dissenters are lucky that today there is no problem LEAVING. and setting up shop in some other country if this one is so abhorrent to them. That's my advice to you too.

There is a difference between being unhappy and being willing to leave. If the people voted today for their state to leave the union would the federal government allow it? No, they would declare the vote was unconstitutional and the results of it are therefore null and void. There is nothing wrong with a country that has unhappy pieces being allowed to leave. Its works out best for both parties and since we all know the state will have trouble making it on their own it gives the federal government a nice place to start working to get them to join back up peacefully.

 

[Henrin]

Im still waiting for anyone to show me in the constitution where this is prohibited. Its not mentioned. Its therefore a right kept by the States under the 10th amendment. Again what state would agree to join an organization where the only way out was to fight your way out?

That is what I don't understand either. Who would join a union where if you join you are a slave from there on. It makes no sense to do such a thing.

 

[rocket88]

That is what I don't understand either. Who would join a union where if you join you are a slave from there on. It makes no sense to do such a thing.

Let's just say that the states that actually have tried to secede don't exactly have a good record when it comes to "slavery."

 

[Running_Riot]

We are nation divided now though. :2razz:

The problem with his statement is that keeping it together by force doesn't actually solve the underlining problems that exist. When people or states are unhappy and want to leave keeping them by force has a tendency to make the problem worse, not better. When countries get to the point of splitting up something is already fundamentally broken that won't be fixed by war and death and Lincoln wasn't really wise enough to figure any of this out. Instead he just acted like any other country would act throughout history and go out and kill his own people to keep them in line. Not exactly what I would call a sign of what the country stood for.

No, because the only thing that would fix the underlying problems would be sold out by the politicians that you support. Like Reconstruction and Denazification.

 

[haymarket]

There is no constitutional provision for the federal government to prevent any of the states from leaving the union. We must stand against any enemy, foreign or domestic, who would invade any of the united states on illegal grounds, and deprive the people of any state of their liberty and sovereignty.

That does not even make any sense. The USA cannot invade the USA.

 

[iguanaman]

There is a difference between being unhappy and being willing to leave. If the people voted today for their state to leave the union would the federal government allow it? No, they would declare the vote was unconstitutional and the results of it are therefore null and void. There is nothing wrong with a country that has unhappy pieces being allowed to leave. Its works out best for both parties and since we all know the state will have trouble making it on their own it gives the federal government a nice place to start working to get them to join back up peacefully.

Once you set the precedent the nation would be swarming with malcontents. We are all in this together and that is where our strength lies. Not in petty individual preferences or States jockeying for favors.
Any State that leaves will be carved up by ajoining States when their stupidity becomes fatal. That would be the ultimatum I would pose.

 

[Tennyson]

Once you set the precedent the nation would be swarming with malcontents. We are all in this together and that is where our strength lies. Not in petty individual preferences or States jockeying for favors.
Any State that leaves will be carved up by ajoining States when their stupidity becomes fatal. That would be the ultimatum I would pose.

You do realize that Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world, would be a military superpower, has ports, and the U.S. would have to continue to trade with Texas to survive? Texas also has a balanced budget with no state income tax, add to that an income tax which would keep billions in the state that are going to the federal government. Houston is the ranked 25th in the world economy. And that does not take into consideration if other states joined in. I think it is disingenuous to believe Texas would be hanging out in the wind weak and vulnerable.

 

[haymarket]

We are nation divided now though. :2razz:

The problem with his statement is that keeping it together by force doesn't actually solve the underlining problems that exist. When people or states are unhappy and want to leave keeping them by force has a tendency to make the problem worse, not better. When countries get to the point of splitting up something is already fundamentally broken that won't be fixed by war and death and Lincoln wasn't really wise enough to figure any of this out. Instead he just acted like any other country would act throughout history and go out and kill his own people to keep them in line. Not exactly what I would call a sign of what the country stood for.

The USA has gone through periods of bleak and seemingly hopeless division and then a short time later we are happily wedded together in national unity once again. That is the nature of the nation.

 

[Sherman123]

You also understand that a lot of military from Texas are not stationed in Texas as well. I mentioned it would not be a sudden split. Weapons, nuclear weapons, conventional weapons are already here, no need to seize them. I don't think there would be any military action on either side. I don't think in this day and age federal troops are going to march into Texas, and just the ability the control of Pantex is enough of a deterrent.

Remember this is all just a what if on paper for fun to kick around. But the reason I have researched it is we are not that far from the start of some sort of semi-secession.

There are several indicators evolving. When there is a systematic trend of the federal government usurping state’s rights in violation of the Constitution, there will always be a push-back. That push back has generally been in the courts. But when the states start losing to bad court decisions, or are subjected to more and more onerous federal laws, then other methods of push-backs will take place. There will come a point when a state will just say no to either a law or Supreme Court ruling. This is dangerous, as once is starts and gains momentum, it is impossible to stop. This is applicable to the states as well. Texas just said no to the use of Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood. They court just last week ruled in Texas’ favor. After the Obamacare Supreme Court ruling, several states said no to portions of it. That could get bolder and increase in resistance. The EPA just lost a case against Texas as well by the 5th Circuit which was anticipated by other states as an affirmation of the protection of the 10th Amendment.

There are 32 states that have passed or have pending legislation regarding some form of state sovereignty under the10th Amendment.
With all this in consideration, it is trending to happen in the near future; a state will just flat out say no to a federal law or a Supreme Court ruling. Texas may well be the first as they have flirted with it. Then what happens? There is actually not that much the federal government can do about it. They are not sending in troops. They are pretty much powerless, especially if other states start joining in as well. What are their options? Once it happens, then the momentum starts. Once the momentum starts, there is no stopping it. It just seems that we are getting to a point where there is going to be a showdown. It will probably never go much further than just a no, and see what the fall out is. But I think we are already a divided country that is not reconcilable ideology. There is such a gulf between the progressives and the conservatives.

This premise goes back as far as Andrew Jackson in the 1832 in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. This does not involve a state pushing back, but rather the President pushing back. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees in Georgia from being moved to a reservation in Oklahoma. John Marshall wrote the opinion. After the ruling, Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it... the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

In 1861, after Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Taney, ruled that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln arrested 13,000 people under martial law, and one was John Merryman. Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding the military to bring Merryman in front of him. They refused. Then in Ex Parte Merryman, Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored the ruling and continued with the suspension of habeas corpus. Lincoln also issued an arrest warrant for Taney.

And Obama just pushed the detaining of American citizens to the 2nd Circuit with an emergency stay last week to suspend habeas corpus and he got his stay of the injunction. In reality, it would just take a few states to say no, and hopefully there would be an attitude change on how far the federal government is willing to push the states.

I don't understand your basic premise and I think you are obfuscating. Why would Federal troops not march into Texas in 2012 as you say "in this day and age" but they were in 1861? You mention deterrent but I don't really see it. It seems fairly simple. If Texas began to push and ruminate openly about secession the Federal government and the rest of the country could take steps to prepare to crush it. Removing critical pieces of military infrastructure, weaponry, etc, and moving federal contingents of troops to the state at will. They wouldn't just be let go.

 

[Tennyson]

I don't understand your basic premise and I think you are obfuscating. Why would Federal troops not march into Texas in 2012 as you say "in this day and age" but they were in 1861? You mention deterrent but I don't really see it. It seems fairly simple. If Texas began to push and ruminate openly about secession the Federal government and the rest of the country could take steps to prepare to crush it. Removing critical pieces of military infrastructure, weaponry, etc, and moving federal contingents of troops to the state at will. They wouldn't just be let go.

How about a couple of thousand nuclear weapons, a formadable military, air force, army, marines, national guard? Just marching in is not really a viable option, nor one either side would choose. And the rest of the country is very speculative, as there would be support as well.

 

[Sherman123]

How about a couple of thousand nuclear weapons, a formadable military, air force, army, marines, national guard? Just marching in is not really a viable option, nor one either side would choose. And the rest of the country is very speculative, as there would be support as well.

Why would Texas have several thousand nuclear warheads, let alone delivery systems? I do not understand how in the months preceding a Texan Secession the Federal government would not secure these facilities. The Pantex Plant is a DoE facility, and I don't see why it would be very difficult to secure it. Nor am I seeing a truly formidable Texas military when compared to the might of national military forces. You seem to be including at will most assets that are based in Texas as part of the Texas military. That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[iguanaman]

You do realize that Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world, would be a military superpower, has ports, and the U.S. would have to continue to trade with Texas to survive? Texas also has a balanced budget with no state income tax, add to that an income tax which would keep billions in the state that are going to the federal government. Houston is the ranked 25th in the world economy. And that does not take into consideration if other states joined in. I think it is disingenuous to believe Texas would be hanging out in the wind weak and vulnerable.

Texas is one of the "moocher States" that receives considerably more from Washington than it sends. So your bragging about it's finances is quite amusing. Texas has oil that is going ot run out and it is turning into a desert from global warming. Perhaps they can start selling sand?
How would it be a "super power" when we close all it's bases and take away all the armaments that belong to the US govt.?

 

[iguanaman]

How about a couple of thousand nuclear weapons, a formadable military, air force, army, marines, national guard? Just marching in is not really a viable option, nor one either side would choose. And the rest of the country is very speculative, as there would be support as well.

Those weapons don't belong to Texas. They are Govt. property guarded by the US military. The same troops that will put down any insurrection.

 

[Henrin]

The USA has gone through periods of bleak and seemingly hopeless division and then a short time later we are happily wedded together in national unity once again. That is the nature of the nation.

The fact is this state we are in has been only getting worse since the progressive movement began and even before this current growing division the division was high between two major regions of the country on much more easily solvable issues. You really can't find a period in our history when division wasn't high and regardless of what people think about this a big part of that is forcing acceptance on people, forcing ideas down their throats, and setting up a political system that you can win with very little support from the people in. When you add that up to how states have been treated since the 1830's its not exactly a pretty picture of the government working with people or people liking others in this country.

 

[Henrin]

Once you set the precedent the nation would be swarming with malcontents. We are all in this together and that is where our strength lies.

Nothing but hearsay and fallacies.

Not in petty individual preferences or States jockeying for favors.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or what that has to do with anything.

Any State that leaves will be carved up by ajoining States when their stupidity becomes fatal. That would be the ultimatum I would pose.

Hey, if you support war, have war. Nothing like fighting over nothing, eh?

 

[iguanaman]

Nothing but hearsay and fallacies.



I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or what that has to do with anything.

Hey, if you support war, have war. Nothing like fighting over nothing, eh?

Speak for yourself. I do not think of my country as nothing. Are you sure you don't want to just leave?
I will tell you, this countrys values are never going to be what you desire. Ir is against our basic principles of freedom and equality..
E pluribus unim to you.

 

[Henrin]

Speak for yourself. I do not think of my country as nothing. Are you sure you don't want to just leave?

You make the error in putting connections between people of country and the connection between the people and the country that are not there. You are using a liberal fallacy that they created for the support of their collective mindset.

 

[haymarket]

The fact is this state we are in has been only getting worse since the progressive movement began and even before this current growing division the division was high between two major regions of the country on much more easily solvable issues. You really can't find a period in our history when division wasn't high and regardless of what people think about this a big part of that is forcing acceptance on people, forcing ideas down their throats, and setting up a political system that you can win with very little support from the people in. When you add that up to how states have been treated since the 1830's its not exactly a pretty picture of the government working with people or people liking others in this country.

The Progressive movement dates back to the early days of the 20th century over 100 years ago. Since then we have had our ups and downs as far as unity and divisions go. The Forties and Fifties were high in national unity compared to today or the 1850's. .