Does anyone ever want to LEAVE Texas?? (Howe: gas, teachers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Yes Rick Perry is he an idiot but I think he was joking about Texas seceding. Since he's the governor I hope he's smart enough to know that Texas doesn't have the right to secede. The Civil War tells us that nobody has the right to secede.
Truly, there are a lot of Texans who think that so if Perry does as well, I really wouldn't be surprised. Just because he's in office doesn't mean he knows what's legal and what is not.
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 1 day ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,305,754 times
Reputation: 4194
Just to wade in a bit on the question of secession (again! LOL).
While I am not a secessionist -- even while having a lot of sympathy for the rationale for those who are -- there is -- at least IMHO -- a lot of mis-information on both sides. Sooooo, while I will the the first to acknowledge the said opinion along with a dollar can get a draw beer (at least in the joints I used to hang out in! ), I am going to post it, anyway!
First of all, that the original annexation agreement with the United States (when Texas became a member) gave us the specific "right" to secede is, bluntly, an urban legend or myth. It simply isn't true.
It DID allow Texas to divide itself into three to five states, but there is no mention of the specific right to resume its former status as an independent Republic.
With that said though, the "right" to withdraw from the Union never needed be mentioned because, prior to the War Between the States, at least a goodly section/populace of the country took for granted (rightly) that the Constitution was a compact between the soveriegn states and each could resume the powers delegated (operative word) to the central government..
By definition "secede"
Force of arms "settled" the question...but as the old axiom goes. Questions settled by force remain forever unsettled. That is why the outcome of the "Civil War" does not really "settle" the question. It gives the federal government an historic justification to use force if any state -- or group of them -- decide to try it again...but such is really predicated upon the tyrannical basis that "might makes right". .
Far as I am concerned, if -- no matter what -- a state cannot withdraw from the Union..the ultimate check on federal abuse of power...it is no longer a Union in the proper sense. And totally negates the principal of "government derives it powers from the consent of the governed."
The Texas vs. White case is often cited as "proof" a state has no constitutional right to secede. However, there is more to it than that. I am no legal/constitutional scholar, however, it is important to remember that the said case was not about secession per se. Rather, it involved a dispute over bond sales. What emerged as to the rationale for the ultimate decision is that Texas had no right to secede.
BUT...again, secession was not the issue before the court. So anything involving such was just "dicta"...not a ruling/precedent in and of itself.
No doubt Perry was "pandering" a bit. But that is the nature of politics. It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously. At the same time though, there is no doubt it tapped into the very real concern that many Americans have over the ever-grabbing power of the federal government. Personally, I like that many states are passing so-called "9th and 10th Amendment" resolutions. Saying, in effect, enough of this is enough, by damn! We are fed up and not going to take it anymore!
Just to wade in a bit on the question of secession (again! LOL).
While I am not a secessionist -- even while having a lot of sympathy for the rationale for those who are -- there is -- at least IMHO -- a lot of mis-information on both sides. Sooooo, while I will the the first to acknowledge the said opinion along with a dollar can get a draw beer (at least in the joints I used to hang out in! ), I am going to post it, anyway!
First of all, that the original annexation agreement with the United States (when Texas became a member) gave us the specific "right" to secede is, bluntly, an urban legend or myth. It simply isn't true.
It DID allow Texas to divide itself into three to five states, but there is no mention of the specific right to resume its former status as an independent Republic.
With that said though, the "right" to withdraw from the Union never needed be mentioned because, prior to the War Between the States, at least a goodly section/populace of the country took for granted (rightly) that the Constitution was a compact between the soveriegn states and each could resume the powers delegated (operative word) to the central government..
By definition "secede"
Force of arms "settled" the question...but as the old axiom goes. Questions settled by force remain forever unsettled. That is why the outcome of the "Civil War" does not really "settle" the question. It gives the federal government an historic justification to use force if any state -- or group of them -- decide to try it again...but such is really predicated upon the tyrannical basis that "might makes right". .
Far as I am concerned, if -- no matter what -- a state cannot withdraw from the Union..the ultimate check on federal abuse of power...it is no longer a Union in the proper sense. And totally negates the principal of "government derives it powers from the consent of the governed."
The Texas vs. White case is often cited as "proof" a state has no constitutional right to secede. However, there is more to it than that. I am no legal/constitutional scholar, however, it is important to remember that the said case was not about secession per se. Rather, it involved a dispute over bond sales. What emerged as to the rationale for the ultimate decision is that Texas had no right to secede.
BUT...again, secession was not the issue before the court. So anything involving such was just "dicta"...not a ruling/precedent in and of itself.
No doubt Perry was "pandering" a bit. But that is the nature of politics. It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously. At the same time though, there is no doubt it tapped into the very real concern that many Americans have over the ever-grabbing power of the federal government. Personally, I like that many states are passing so-called "9th and 10th Amendment" resolutions. Saying, in effect, enough of this is enough, by damn! We are fed up and not going to take it anymore!
Ok...that is my ramble for now! LOL
Yeah so you agree that Rick Perry was joking or pandering when he was talking about secession. Most people didn't take that seriously. It's the usual lip service that politicians like to give to their potential voters. Also Texas isn't the only state that talks about secession from time to time. 6 months or a year back some people in Vermont were also talking about secession. Some people in Vermont are getting tired of the federal government like some people in Texas are. So there is a secessionist group in Vermont also talking about secession. Basically when people don't like what people in Washington are doing they start waving the secession card to scare the politicians into doing what is right.
^ Exactly. It seems other states don't understand that he wasn't that serious. Most Texans do not want to secede.
Yeah I agree. Texas and other states would best be served by staying part of the U.S. As a whole we make a lot stronger country. That's why the civil war happened. Lincoln wanted the southern states to reunite with the union because without them the U.S. would have been a lot weaker. Almost all the agricultural resources were in the south at that time. The northeast had almost all the industry at that time. All the industry in the world isn't going to do you any good if you're not able to feed the people. Lincoln understood that he needed the southern states. As a whole we're much stronger than if we split into several different countries. If we split into several countries Russia and China will pass us up.
I was born in Alpine and have since lived all over the state... North, South, Central, and West (not East and hopefully never will). Corpus Christi is my hometown (boooooring), and I currently live in North Dallas.
I am SICK of Texas, and I definitely don't envy people who say they will never leave. I am young and single with no children, and I am very independent, so I guess I can afford to be a bit more adventurous.
Although I am a native Texan, I don't share the opinion that Texas is the greatest place to live on the face of the planet... Perhaps I will reach that conclusion once I've experienced living elsewhere, but I feel fortunate that I am not preventing myself from doing so by being closed minded. I have nothing against Texas, and I may end up coming back later in my life. But right now I am bored with it, and need a change of scenery in a BIG way. And the fact that I can't find a job in Dallas to save my life is adding fuel to the fire!
Status:
"Gone to Caddo Lake. Off line a bit!"
(set 1 day ago)
8,921 posts, read 8,305,754 times
Reputation: 4194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo2008
Yeah I agree. Texas and other states would best be served by staying part of the U.S. As a whole we make a lot stronger country. That's why the civil war happened. Lincoln wanted the southern states to reunite with the union because without them the U.S. would have been a lot weaker. Almost all the agricultural resources were in the south at that time. The northeast had almost all the industry at that time. All the industry in the world isn't going to do you any good if you're not able to feed the people. Lincoln understood that he needed the southern states. As a whole we're much stronger than if we split into several different countries. If we split into several countries Russia and China will pass us up.
There are other forums to debate the "Civil War" but regardless of how one may feel about the ultimate outcome and its legacies -- and I am proud to be an American in a united country -- but Lincoln had no constitutional justification to use force against the Southern states. But as I say, that opens up a can of worms that would be better served up in another forum!
Yes Rick Perry is he an idiot but I think he was joking about Texas seceding. Since he's the governor I hope he's smart enough to know that Texas doesn't have the right to secede. The Civil War tells us that nobody has the right to secede.
Im just glad that I was able to sucede from Texas. Whether Texas leaves the union means nothing now. I really hated hearing my son say the pledge to Texas in the morning at school.
That's patently not true. Considering we also spent time in Texas for 18 months when I was 2 and 3 when my father got posted to the Philippines, I was practically born there.
Very few of my friends there ever guessed I was born somewhere else.
–adjective 1. being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being: one's native land.
If you weren't born there, you're not native.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
tɪv/ 
