Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What do you want Texas?
Sovereign State 16 40.00%
Union 24 60.00%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Sacramento Mtns of NM
4,280 posts, read 9,107,332 times
Reputation: 3737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
I think Texas would probably secede (or try to) if the 2nd Amendment were taken away....
I presume you meant to add the "tongue in cheek" smiley to that post.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,007 posts, read 15,358,065 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
I think Texas would probably secede (or try to) if the 2nd Amendment were taken away.

That's already been tried.

Unsuccessfully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 11:49 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,516,642 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
That's already been tried.

Unsuccessfully.
Well, to try a little lame one-liner?

If at first you don't secede...?

Seriously, I want to get my own worthless 2cents into all this. Here are several random thoughts on the matter:

1. I am NOT a secessionist (at least at this point in time)...but I DO sympathize/empathize with the motivations and rationale of some who are. There is no doubt (IMHO) the federal government is totally out of control and that, in an earlier day and age, our forefathers would have been the first to resist it.

2. Strangely enough, much as I am an unapolgetic, unreconstructed, Texan/Southerner when it comes to the WBTS? In modern day circumstances, if such could be transposed, I would side with Sam Houston when he said secession would be "rash action" and that those who advocated it do not truly understand all its implications and what it would/will entail.

Old Sam said he would personally lead Texas out of the Union should circumstances warrant it...but he also predicted the war that would follow and that it was sure to favor the industrial and populated North in the long run. That Southern bravery and courage would not comensate for the overwhelming odds sure to oppose us. (abbreviated and paraphrased) "While I stand with you on the doctrine of states rights...what I fear is that the our beloved South will be overwhelmed with ignoble defeat."

Much as I hate to say it, he was right. So, any talk of secession nowdays, I think, must also take into account those prophetic words. I would still, without hesitation for an instant -- then or now -- side with my people and my state. I would have been a Confederate soldier in a Texas unit. And should it happen today, I will still side with my people and state. They are my first loyalty and I make no bones about it. Nor apologies for it.

BUT...given that talk of secession is becoming more and more rampant, I am also now tempered with the prudence of looking at it in a more immediate light. It is one thing to talk all this stuff...it is another to actually take the "rash action" Houston warned against. His words seem more immediate now than they did back then...even if I would have opposed him back then.

With that said though? If another secession movement were to occur, it would not be in the old way of 1861. Rather, it would be the natural extent of states making their own way -- and forming natural alliances -- after a total financial collapse of the federal government. Or else, a truly catatrophic incident. Both of which are a very real possibility.

I am thinking that the poll question as it was left out a middle ground answer. Or, rather, it didn't take into account that a state can be soveriegn yet still be part of the Union as it is. This is what I would like to see us return to. Soveriegn states within a federated Union; a constitutional republic. One that the Constitution mandated.

If we can return to that? Then no need to secede. We simply take back what is ours to begin with. We can do it by constitutional convention of the soveriegn states...South, North, West and East (ok, yeah, that last might be a stretch! LOL). Re-affirm the Bill of Rights (particularly the 9th and 10th amendments) and declare that these states no longer recognize the authority of the federal government to pass any law which is not specifically delegated to them by the Constitution as within their specified right to do so. Otherwise, they are null and void and will not be adhered to. Further, that taxes are not to be doled out by the feds, but the rightful monies of the people and states.

OK...just my speel here. I need another beer! God Bless Texas and God Bless the United States of America. Let's keep both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 11:13 AM
 
Location: In Phoenix by way of San Antonio
1,692 posts, read 3,112,083 times
Reputation: 1257
I think if any of that came about, Texas would lose 60-70% of its population, and Mexico would try and invade!! That would be a nightmare!! Texas and the Union are married F OOOORRREEEEVVVVVVEEEERRRRR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 11:18 AM
 
972 posts, read 3,914,373 times
Reputation: 461
for me it is more likely that the northern states of Mexico to Texas to join and form a country apart from USA and Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Axixic, Jalisco, MX
1,285 posts, read 3,328,154 times
Reputation: 779
I'm assuming that you are not admitting that you believe in slavery and that you must think the Civil War was fought for loftier reasons. It wasn't. The Civil War was all about slavery. Many areas of Southern slavery states were against joining the Confederate states upon secession. My well known Texas great-grandfather, A.W. Meredith, fought as a Confederate in the Civil War and all I can say is, "Shame, shame on him."

The top 5 myths of why the Civil War was fought, and please read the whole article at the link:

Five myths about why the South seceded

Quote:
1. The South seceded over states' rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
Quote:
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations - the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white "sundown towns" and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting - "anything but slavery" explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States.
Quote:
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.

Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.....

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: "It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians." Given this belief, most white Southerners -- and many Northerners, too -- could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains.
Quote:
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.

Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.
Quote:
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.

Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them - or forced them to abandon slavery?
All states are sovereign as well as is the U.S. A state claims sovereignty when it is sued. "The King cannot be sued." Texas has laws that allow it to be sued, otherwise, it can't be sued.

If the U.S. goes broke, Texas will be broke long before and breaking away from the U.S. will be the last thing on anyone's mind. If the U.S. goes broke, most of the world will also and you cannot imagine the chaos that will occur.

I don't understand why so few Texans can ever think through this issue. Is it the bad education the Republicans have been pushing and in favor of in Texas or is it that Texans are not as bright as they once were?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 12:15 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,516,642 times
Reputation: 5943
I assume this post is directed at my earlier one, so...

Quote:
Originally Posted by axixic2 View Post
I'm assuming that you are not admitting that you believe in slavery and that you must think the Civil War was fought for loftier reasons.
Oh gawd, please cease with the silly and transparent attempts to steer all this into the ditch. Yeah, I believe in slavery. Yeah, right. Geez, does that righteously confirm your pre-concieved opinion of me? If so, groovy. Anyway, I am not going to spend one minute attempting to refute such a ludicrous assertion.

Quote:
It wasn't. The Civil War was all about slavery. Many areas of Southern slavery states were against joining the Confederate states upon secession.
Unfortunately, some people cannot accept that while slavery was undoubtably a major issue, it was not an isolated reason, and was bound up with other larger issues and principles and points of disagreement between the North and South, and men of letters on both sides, which had existed from the formation of this nation.

Yes, you are right. The Upper-South Confederate states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee) initially voted down secession, and cast their lot with the Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) only when the war actually commenced and the choice became either/or. In fact, this actually contradicts your own position that slavery was the sole issue. To wit, none of these states, upon later secession, listed slavery as a reason for doing so. On the contrary, they declared their reasons were because Lincoln was violating the principles of the DOC and Constitution by using military force to coerce a people who only wanted to peacefully go their own way.

Quote:
My well known Texas great-grandfather, A.W. Meredith, fought as a Confederate in the Civil War and all I can say is, "Shame, shame on him."
I am sure if he were alive today, he would be very proud of you as well. I suppose you believe your great-grandfather should have taken part in an invasion of his home state and be commited to suppresing and killing his own kinfolk?

Anyway, I prefer to quote this man:

"I hope the day will never come that my grandsons will be ashamed to own that I was a Confederate Soldier." -- Pvt. A.Y. Handy, 32nd Texas Cavalry, C.S.A.

Quote:
The top 5 myths of why the Civil War was fought, and please read the whole article at the link:

Five myths about why the South seceded
Yeah, I have seen that site and read it. So? This is just one persons' opinion and outlook. Which is fine. And actually, I agree with at least a small facet of it. To wit: That abolishing slavery was not the goal of Lincoln. Regardless, do you not think there are not literally hundreds if not thousands that do not agree? I could enumerate the said reasons, but well...

...this thread topic is not meant -- nor was my post -- to debate the causes and issues and consequences of the War Between the States. There are other forums/threads for that one. And I will be more than happy -- even eager -- to engage you on the topic. This one though, is not the place. I hope you agree.

Last edited by TexasReb; 01-15-2011 at 01:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Greenville, Delaware
4,726 posts, read 11,921,473 times
Reputation: 2650
Newsflash: all fifty states are sovereign entities. They possess limited sovereignty, however, as specified in the federal Constitution. In actuality this is not unlike the limitations in sovereignty that apply to many nation-states by virtue of international treaties, membership of international organisations such as the UN and the EU, and through the mechanisms of international law. It's not an either-or situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 01:48 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,516,642 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjef View Post
Newsflash: all fifty states are sovereign entities. They possess limited sovereignty, however, as specified in the federal Constitution. In actuality this is not unlike the limitations in sovereignty that apply to many nation-states by virtue of international treaties, membership of international organisations such as the UN and the EU, and through the mechanisms of international law. It's not an either-or situation.
While I see what you are saying, DocJ, you know as well as I do that this is where the points of contention/disagreement come in. That is, as refers to the states of the U.S., just what are the limits on that soveriegnty? We part company with our resepctive visions of the Constitution (I think) and a comparisson with the EU.

That is to say, our Founding Fathers never intended the individual states to become little more than provinces ruled by a central authority. On the other hand, regardless of what the actual terms might say, it is clear that the EU intended/intends just that. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed as well.

I cannot emphasize enough (not that I am saying you disagree) that our Constitution was intended and written to assure that the soveriegn states were only limited in the said soveriegnty (did I mis-spell that? Probably! LOL) by those powers specifically and clearly delegated to the federal government. The limits were clearly meant to be on the central government, not the states. Thus, the clearly written 9th and 10th ammendments (of blessed memory).

I can't remember which case it was before the SCOTUS when activist Judge William Brennan opined that, in response to the other sides case that the feds had overstepped their authority in regulating inter-state commerce by violating the 10th. He wrote, in unbelievable, contemptuous, dismissal, something along the lines of:

"The tenth amendment states but a truism, that all powers not delegated the federal government, belong to the states and people."

Translation? We on this un-elected Supreme Court now have the power to determine which powers now belong to the federal government. The states can keep the rest...at least for now. Later, well, we will let you know when we grab those as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Greenville, Delaware
4,726 posts, read 11,921,473 times
Reputation: 2650
Yes, this gets into one's view of the Constitution itself and the history of that document. Controvery over its interpretation started almost as soon as the ink was dry. The semi-deified "Founding Fathers" themsevles held divergent views about the nature of a federal union. There's a tendency these days to lionize Jefferson, with his anti-Federalist views; yet the Federalists initially held much greater power in the new Union and essentially their philosophy has almost always been in the ascendency.

It's interesting that the British North America Act, the founding document of the Dominion of Canada, gives all powers not specifically enumerated for the provinces to the federal government; yet the Canadian provinces are overall considerably more politically vigorous and muscular than the US states. Thus, there are aspects of social-political evolution at work in the respective nations that go beyond their constitutional provisions per se. I'd argue that things have developed as they have in the US because the people themselves and their elected representatives at the state government level have implicitly preferred to defer authority to the federal government. I say "implicitly" in the sense of "unreflectively" or "duplicitously". Notwithstanding all the anti-federal rhetoric and kvetching, people have preferred the federal government to take care of the big problems. This has come about through the sheer inertia and passivity of self-governance at the state level.

It's interesting, however, to contemplate that in Canada each province itself has a direct relationship with the Crown, represented by its Lt. Governour in each province (in addition to the Governour General for the whole Dominion). Perhaps that and the nature of a parliamentary-ministerial system at the provincial level rather than the US style separation of the legislative and executive branches at the state level have contributed to more effective Canadian provincial governance, relative to the situation in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top