Texas secede? (Howe, Point: standard of living, price, dangerous)

[scarmig]

Originally Posted by ATX Homeboy

The Union is Perpetual. Once your ancestors decided to become a part of it there was no leaving it. The Civil War or War between the States decided all of that. End of Story.

Do you believe it is moral and honorable for us to be slaves to the decisions of our ancestors?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by ATX Homeboy

I am a Son of the South too. I am also a veteran of my country. History has shown that many of us were duped into fighting wars for rich men's wants. I won't be a part of that again and I wouldn't encourage others to follow that path either. In addition, I would not delve into this Purely Hypothetical Nonsense if it wasn't warranted.

As one Son of Texas and the South to another, I respect your service to our country. But others who served equally faithful may take a different view than you. In any event, my own reply was to the same hypothetical question (and it is not necessarily connected to the War Between the States). And while I am not a secessionist, that is not to say there are not certain circumstances in which it would be warranted based on the ideals of our forefathers (whether Colonial, Texian, or Southern) and just plain love of classic freedom. For instance, what if the federal government repealed the Second Amendment? (far as that goes, it could be argued they already have the 9th and 10th...).

This is really my major point on what, yes, I agree, can be a subject which gets the nuts coming out of the woodwork...

The Declaration of Independence is exactly that, just a declaration. It carries no weight in law. Whereas, the constitution was written by representatives from the various states to form a lasting government and thus became a legally binding agreement to support each other not break away whenever things just aren't going our way.

The Declaration of Indendence was based upon the timeless principles which later gave rise to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers would have never ratified the latter if they had believed that by doing so they would be voluntarily giving up the said principles/rights expressed in the former when they seceded from England. That just doesn't compute. Of course, whether or not secession (past or potential future) is wise or not can always be debated, but nothing at all in the Constitution prohibited it.

Finally, The Ironclad Oath had to be taken by every southern state in order to rejoin The Union after the war, so yes the war did end all of the "we can still secede or break away if we want argument."

No, the "ironclad oath" was intended to be administered to individuals, and it's main purpose was a tool by the "Radical Repulicans" to maintain control and power and disenfranchise former Confederates (and how many in the South weren't?) whom they felt might threaten that power. In fact, when it was first introduced even Lincoln opposed it. It was later repealed, anway.

Ironclad oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, again, neither force of arms nor Supreme Court rulings negate the higher principle of that government derives it powers from the consent of the governed. This is the essence of a free government by a free people.

[midwesterner guy]

I would be in favor of Texas succeeding, but only if we joined up with Mexico. And since Texas would be the most significant part of the new nation, we should get naming rights. Since “Texaco” is already taken, we could name our new country Mexas.

[CmonFolks!]

1. Texasreb, NEVER compare or use the American Revolution to give any credence to the radical separatist philosophies of your disparate special interest group of today. Listen, we all like anyone who challenges the laws and rules set by the "establishment". This is how we came into being in the first place as a country. However, given our stance in the world COMPARITIVELY, our established governing system isn't under the “tyranny of an evil oppressor" as you might have been led to believe on your bandwagon. This “tyranny” propaganda is foundational to your perceptions and philosophies. You will maintain these philosophies always – even when you are recipients of good things. You will always downplay the “good” and play up the “bad” to support your subjective beliefs.

2. Your language gives you away. When you separate yourself from others in your own country (e.g. expressing Texas as opposed to the American South, Texas as opposed to the United States, etc.), you draw lines where there are none or should be none. Do you honestly think the Texas state border means anything really? Why don't you distinguish S. Texas from, let's say, N. West Texas? Or, maybe your county from the next? Or, perhaps, draw up additional lines between ethnicities or some other demographic? Are you that small in mind and that thankless to your country? Do you understand what your country means to us as citizens of it? Have you taken any time to understand that your state receives ~30% in Federal expenditure and is rising annually? Have you taken on a populist mentality that hates the American public service because you brand them ALL as "elitists" and not based on performance? Do you maintain these perspectives because those around you expect you to? This blog is about secession. Do you not think that your philosophies are not the precursor to another segregationist movement inclusive of secession? Do you think that seceding will not invoke a level of corruption in itself? Did you know that some level of corruption is inherent in any form of government known to humanity?

3. As a country, we have already fought for our independence. I am sorry if your state was not part of the American Revolution. My theory still stands: A percentage of this country's population attempts to separate themselves, not based on the guiding principles we have established for ourselves in humanity, but ultimately out of pride and selfish ambivalence. Those who attempt to substantiate their beliefs solely on their pride and ambivalence will always perpetuate and reinforce negative stereotypes about themselves.

[awecelot]

I'm going to take the opportunity once again to invite all who are participating in this thread to read Locke's Second Treatise, which is the philosophy that our government is based upon.

The question of secession is a philosophical question, not a legal question, because if you are seceeding, you are in effect saying that you should not be subject to the laws of the body you are seceeding from.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Finally, I would like to again mention that I am NOT in favor of Texas secession.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by CmonFolks!

1. Texasreb, NEVER compare or use the American Revolution to give any credence to the radical separatist philosophies of your disparate special interest group of today. Listen, we all like anyone who challenges the laws and rules set by the "establishment". This is how we came into being in the first place as a country. However, given our stance in the world COMPARITIVELY, our established governing system isn't under the “tyranny of an evil oppressor" as you might have been led to believe on your bandwagon. This “tyranny” propaganda is foundational to your perceptions and philosophies. You will maintain these philosophies always – even when you are recipients of good things. You will always downplay the “good” and play up the “bad” to support your subjective beliefs.

First of all, NEVER presume to instruct me in what I will or will not use to support my position. Also, what is this "your" you speak of when you talk of "philosophies and bandwagons"? As I said initially, I am NOT a secessionist, nor a part of any secessionist movement. If you had read correctly earlier, you would have seen that. My use of the American Revolution was in relevant reply to a question/position concerning the "right" of secession. If you took it as something else, then that is not my problem.

Your language gives you away. When you separate yourself from others in your own country (e.g. expressing Texas as opposed to the American South, Texas as opposed to the United States, etc.), you draw lines where there are none or should be none. Do you honestly think the Texas state border means anything really? Why don't you distinguish S. Texas from, let's say, N. West Texas? Or, maybe your county from the next? Or, perhaps, draw up additional lines between ethnicities or some other demographic? Are you that small in mind and that thankless to your country? Do you understand what your country means to us as citizens of it? Have you taken any time to understand that your state receives ~30% in Federal expenditure and is rising annually? Have you taken on a populist mentality that hates the American public service because you brand them ALL as "elitists" and not based on performance? Do you maintain these perspectives because those around you expect you to? This blog is about secession. Do you not think that your philosophies are not the precursor to another segregationist movement inclusive of secession? Do you think that seceding will not invoke a level of corruption in itself? Did you know that some level of corruption is inherent in any form of government known to humanity?

[color=black][font=Verdana]

What in the hell are you ranting about? You need to slow down and make some sense and definitely get over yourself. You ramble on so that it is virtually impossible to reply to your manic "points"...which are little connected to anything I have said or advanced. The only thing I will say is that if you think the soveriegn states are nothing more than lines on a map, then you are definitely at odds with what the Founding Fathers intended this nation to be. Or what the Constitution says.

[SaladoSam]

Should a state of affairs reach a point where Texas or any other state would actually consider seceding then there probly wouldn't be many who would give a rats patoot.

The classic 57 states of the union today do work in harmony. Affairs would need to sink to an abyssmal low before Texas would even consider to legislate a departure from the union. Should those conditions exist, I'm on board.

[txstate]

I am the new Sam Houston welcome to the republic, remember California isn't a state without us.

[CmonFolks!]

Relax there 'reb, didn't mean to upset you. I was just posing some questions to those who, in theory, maintain subjective viewpoints about their state. However, no one has yet taken the time to answer any of them, really. And, if you truly aren't even remotely promoting the idea of political/social separation or secession, then I am wondering what you are debating or defending in a blog about state secession. I would surmise you are defending texas only because you are proud of your state and are following the traditional home-grown thinking of your predecessors. There is nothing wrong with this, but it seems your beliefs are based on empirically unsound views and that you stand AGAINST your country instead of WITH your country. Your language really does give you away. It shows your ideas are founded on ambivalence toward others living in the very country that grants you the freedom to speak out against it. I doubt you are truly anti-secessionist, sorry.

Americans need to remember, they live in a free country comparatively in this world, not a regime, dictatorship, elitist movement as some of us may have been told to think by the personally malcontent few around us. These malcontent views spawn backwards thinking that reject all that we have learned through recorded time, notwithstanding this country’s evolution. The basic model of civilization where humans collect and organize into orders such as families, alliances, and empires (this now in the form of a nation, country or union) is (and has been) the basis of order for thousands of years. In this way, special interest groups’ philosophies that stand against or outside their very own country’s code of law are empirically backward and show ignorance about perpetuating their very own existence.

I don’t mean to sound derogatory, but, ‘reb, you seem to only concern yourself with minutia and are blind to common sense. This is the ROOT of a problem with some in the U.S. and is why I am blogging. Whether you are an ambivalent Texan or the Unibomber, you have the same sympathies and motivations that afflict those who are isolated in thought. And, of course, I feel strongly about the misguided, unpatriotic, and baseless few. It is these people who add to corruption in general instead of actively standing against it in places that hold the seats of power. These people tend to resort to isolating themselves since they are too lazy or incompetent to make a true positive difference themselves for their country.

[scarmig]

Originally Posted by CmonFolks!

... The basic model of civilization where humans collect and organize into orders such as families, alliances, and empires (this now in the form of a nation, country or union) is (and has been) the basis of order for thousands of years. In this way, special interest groups’ philosophies that stand against or outside their very own country’s code of law are empirically backward and show ignorance about perpetuating their very own existence.

Waitaminute. Did you just say that anyone who thinks that an empire built on force may not be the best thing to promote a free society is scientifically and measurably "backward" and therefore too ignorant to procreate?

So, people who like freedom *from* government are too dumb to reproduce?

... you have the same sympathies and motivations that afflict those who are isolated in thought. And, of course, I feel strongly about the misguided, unpatriotic, and baseless few. It is these people who add to corruption in general instead of actively standing against it in places that hold the seats of power. These people tend to resort to isolating themselves since they are too lazy or incompetent to make a true positive difference themselves for their country.

And in addition, you imply that people who refuse to embrace a system that has shown its corruption and refuse to vote for politicians they feel are corrupt and do not represent them are, "misguided, unpatriotic, baseless, lazy, and incompetent"? Right?

I just want to make sure I understand exactly the meaning you couched in all that pretty prose.