If those states had seceded in 1857, nothing would have happened since Buchanan wouldn't have allowed it.

footwedge wrote:Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.

This is the same inane argument I hear down here all the time....see above reference to Federalism....if a State constitution is in conflict with the Federal Government....Federal wins.

If the statement is no "inane", then maybe you should review these FAQ's regarding Texas.

And bear in mind, Texas would win a civil war all be herself with the Union this time...with all the military force embedded in her back yard.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

First of all, the Texas Constitution is a pile of mess. I can get an amendment by submitting it on a used tissue....too many amendments mean to easy to change.

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.


Texas government is a joke.


And btw, a radical website is not the greatest source or interpretation.

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.

This is a good response to this post.

I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

georgemc80 wrote: First of all, the Texas Constitution is a pile of mess. I can get an amendment by submitting it on a used tissue....too many amendments mean to easy to change.

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.


Texas government is a joke.


And btw, a radical website is not the greatest source or interpretation.

What exactly constitutes a radical website? Apparently you didn't read the article. Good for you. As far as the illegality of sucession from the US, this "radical website" agrees that it would be illegal. 99% of all secessions are deemed "illegal". Do you think the founding fathers broke any British laws when we as a country seceeded?

The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...


From The People of Texas

We Texans love y'all, but we'll have to take action if Obama wins
president over McCain. We'll miss you too.

Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the campaign route, the folks from Texas are considering taking matters into our hands.

Here is our solution:

#1: Elect Barak Obama President of the United States. (All 49 states.)

#2: George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic Of Texas.

So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. (We will control the space industry.)

2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.

3. Defense Industry. (We have over 65% of it) The term "Don’t mess with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.

4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.

5. Natural Gas - Again we have all we need and it's too bad about those northern states. John Kerry will figure a way to keep them warm....

6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, Etc, Etc. The list goes on and on.

7. Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for Cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world and other large health planning centers.

8. We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University, Ivy grows better in the south anyway

9. We have a ready supply of workers. (Just open the border when we need some)

10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.

12. We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and lets not forget seafood from the gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic Of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only Mr. Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes but since Mr. Kerry has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.

Signed, The People in Texas

Have a nice day!

So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?

LJ wrote: So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?

They would do a lot of things that don't follow the rule of law. That's what happens when a secession takes place.

Personally, I don't give 2 craps what Texas does. One (or maybe 2) less teams Ohio State has to worry about in winning a championship.

The Big 12 and the Mountain West Conference would be in shambles.

Footwedge wrote:

LJ wrote: So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?

They would do a lot of things that don't follow the rule of law. That's what happens when a secession takes place.

Personally, I don't give 2 craps what Texas does. One (or maybe 2) less teams Ohio State has to worry about in winning a championship.

The Big 12 and the Mountain West Conference would be in shambles.

I just find it funny that Texans think they own the oil supply when they would have to deal with people much scarier than investors in the U.S. (aka the middle easterners who like to diversify).

For what it's worth, I'd consider moving to the Republic of Vermont -- went to Killington last year, great skiing, beer and pancakes!

For 12 virtual dollars, what is the logical fallacy in regards to Texas' wealth, ability to fight off the union, etc.? The argument is fatally flawed - why?

What would make you think that everyone in Texas would agree to fight with them?

Look at the big brain on rmolin73.

Well done.

I don't know.

I think if states started dropping off like flies (or attempted to secede), it would be a wakeup call in DC.

Or not.

footwedge wrote:The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...

The fact that you would use the word "easily" in that sentence tells me that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you.

As a parting gift though I leave you this.

"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men."

Sam Houston
Governor, Texas

We all know that the federal government can prevent states from seceding by military force. That does not make it legal.

The original question was "serious or rhetoric?". Clearly the practical answers this without regard for legal, altough legally I'd side with the union.

georgemc80 wrote:

footwedge wrote:The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...

The fact that you would use the word "easily" in that sentence tells me that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you.

As a parting gift though I leave you this.

"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men."

Sam Houston
Governor, Texas

Sam Houston was correct. At that point in history. Long before industrialization and mass use of fossil fuels. In 1860 the free
population of Texas was around 425,000.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

Today Texas is quite different. As noted by Footwedge.

queencitybuckeye wrote: The original question was "serious or rhetoric?". Clearly the practical answers this without regard for legal, altough legally I'd side with the union.

Right now it is just rhetoric. For the most part they are just subtle hints to the federal government that there is threshold that can be crossed.

If the federal government continues to abuse its power to tax and spend, and plunges itself further and further into debt, to the point that the debt burden becomes so great the average American can no longer bear it. At this point you will see states take action to protect their treasure and rescources.

georgemc80 wrote:
We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

Membership in the United States under the Constitution wasn't forced so the states entered one at a time forming a confederation (I'm not referring to the first government of the country). That's why the country was referred to as these united States or the united States are a great country prior to the Civil War. Membership, according to the Constitution, is in the hands of the states through the 10th amendment and they can come and go - a confederation type of setup but with a stronger national government. A Federation, as the federal government claims through their actions in the Civil War, is permanent.

bman618 wrote:

georgemc80 wrote:
We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

Membership in the United States under the Constitution wasn't forced so the states entered one at a time forming a confederation (I'm not referring to the first government of the country). That's why the country was referred to as these united States or the united States are a great country prior to the Civil War. Membership, according to the Constitution, is in the hands of the states through the 10th amendment and they can come and go - a confederation type of setup but with a stronger national government. A Federation, as the federal government claims through their actions in the Civil War, is permanent.

The funny thing is that the Articles of Confederation guaranteed a "perpetual union"...and yet it only lasted a few short years before being dissolved and replaced by the Constitutional government.