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.
I think there is a chance that the states would implode if the Federal USA goes kaput, but it isn't a forgone conclusion. The governmental infrastructure is there with each state to make the transition to an independent nation - if (Lord forbid) the USA fell apart. Those that will successfully do so, will be the one with better resources, ports, business/economical infrastructure. This will spell doom for states like The Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Utah and the like - unless they form together. The fact the the USA will not last forever is a statistical certainty. What comes from that - and something will (or several "somethings" - is anybody's guess.
The state governments would also go Kaput, since their legal authority is defined in relation to the Federal government. If the Federal/State system collapsed or was severely reduced in size, then the freed territories would form their own national governments, in my opinion. Or... they might be ruled by various warlords for a time, like 1930s China or current day Somalia, until a national government formed itself.
I'd agree with you that the successor national states would consist of units that had enough strength to constitute a defensible region with a sustainable economy, not individual provinces such as Montana and Idaho. Since the existing territory of Texas is (said to be) the 8th largest economy in the world, it would most likely survive intact.
I'd agree with you that "The fact the the USA will not last forever is a statistical certainty", since no other national government has lasted more than a few hundred years at most. Some posters in this thread claim that the United States will never die, will live forever, and manage to posess Texas for the next Billion years, I suppose. Sounds like they are horrified, angry, ready to do violence, and in denial.
The Roman Republic lasted 600 years, and then was succeded by the Roman Empire, with no change in daily life for Roman citizens, for another five hundred. Its successor state, the Byzantine Empire, lasted for another thousand years after that.
Yes, the United States may fall at some point, but the chances of it happening in our lifetimes are slim to none. The only real possibility is nuclear war, and the chances of Texas being spared that while the rest of the nation falls are low.
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll bomb Houston and leave Dallas alone.
The Roman Republic lasted 600 years, and then was succeded by the Roman Empire, with no change in daily life for Roman citizens, for another five hundred. Its successor state, the Byzantine Empire, lasted for another thousand years after that.
No, you're mistaken on the length of the Roman state... 1500 years? That's absurd.
The Roman and Byzantine empires are the longer lived examples, and they had a lot of additions and subtractions of territory. To extend your analogy, the United States would also have many additions and subtractions of territory, such as USA withdrawal from an independence-minded Texas.
You also have very transient states, such as the Soviet Union (76 years), most European kingdoms in the second millenium, the various colonies of Africa and Asia, Oliver Cromwell's England...
Quote:
Yes, the United States may fall at some point, but the chances of it happening in our lifetimes are slim to none.
By no way, shape or form are you even remotely qualified to calculate the statistical probability of the fall of the United States.
Quote:
The only real possibility is nuclear war, and the chances of Texas being spared that while the rest of the nation falls are low.
Or perhaps you have no historical or geopolitical imagination... are unacquainted with the various ways that nation states rise, fall, lose territory, change...
No, you're mistaken on the length of the Roman state... 1500 years? That's absurd.
The Roman and Byzantine empires are the longer lived examples, and they had a lot of additions and subtractions of territory. To extend your analogy, the United States would also have many additions and subtractions of territory, such as USA withdrawal from an independence-minded Texas.
You also have very transient states, such as the Soviet Union (76 years), most European kingdoms in the second millenium, the various colonies of Africa and Asia, Oliver Cromwell's England...
By no way, shape or form are you even remotely qualified to calculate the statistical probability of the fall of the United States.
Or perhaps you have no historical or geopolitical imagination... are unacquainted with the various ways that nation states rise, fall, lose territory, change...
The Roman state in one incarnation or another lasted from 753 BC until 1453 AD. The City of Rome itself fell in 476 AD but the empire continued on in Byzantium. First as a Kingdom, then as a Republic, then as an Empire, then split into Eastern and Western Empires. The Sublime Porte could also be considered a successor to Rome by some, and if that's the case Rome lasted until 1920.
They did face additions and subtractions of territory. Most territory was initially gained by conquering poor nomadic tribes, then it was gained and lost countless times in battle with other large empire. I cannot think of a single successful secessionist movement in the Roman Empire's history. The most notable rebellion of "independence-minded" people was probably the Jewish rebellion in 70 AD, and it was completely and totally squashed. Jerusalem and the Temple were burnt, and the rebels were crucified in large numbers by the sides of Judean roads.
I would put large amounts of money on the fact that I at least as well qualified as you to calculate whether the US will fall. Statistics are not really possible to calculate for such a scenario, but if I were a bookie I wouldn't even take the bet. If I did, the odds would be gigantic.
I don't need to have imagination as to how the US could fall--I could be imaginitive, but that would be an utter waste of my time. I have better things to do, like figuring out how to get better politicians in the Lege in 2010.
I do know what the fate of an armed Texas secessionist movement would be though: prompt and utter destruction.
The Roman state in one incarnation or another lasted from 753 BC until 1453 AD. The City of Rome itself fell in 476 AD but the empire continued on in Byzantium. First as a Kingdom, then as a Republic, then as an Empire, then split into Eastern and Western Empires. The Sublime Porte could also be considered a successor to Rome by some, and if that's the case Rome lasted until 1920.
What you mean is that the City of Rome lasted from somewhere in the BC era to the year 2009, at present. It has been ruled by many political entities thru the centuries, from Romulus and Remus, to the Etruscans, to the Senate of the Roman Republic, to Caesar, to Nero, to the Popes, to the Count of Savoy who became a king, to Benito Mussolini and his Fascisti, to the Nazis, to the US Army, to whoever has it now. I expect the City of Dallas will also be ruled by many political entities over the centuries.
In fact, the split of Byzantium from the original Roman Empire might b a good model for a similar split in the current United States.
Quote:
They did face additions and subtractions of territory. Most territory was initially gained by conquering poor nomadic tribes, then it was gained and lost countless times in battle with other large empire. I cannot think of a single successful secessionist movement in the Roman Empire's history.
I can think of many political entities that endured successful secessionist movements, and many entities that voluntarily gave up territory. For example, the Franks basically were awarded an autonomous kingdom in what had been Roman Gaul, the Roman Empire withdrew from Roman Britain on its own. I can see a possible situation where the United States voluntarily withdraws from the territory of places like Texas, not inevitable, just possible.
Quote:
I would put large amounts of money on the fact that I at least as well qualified as you to calculate whether the US will fall.
Since it is impossible, I'd agree that we are both equally qualified to do the impossible... zero probability for both of us. At least I don't pretend otherwise. I'm not calculating as to how it will fail, I just accept it as inevitable that it will, sooner or later.
Quote:
I do know what the fate of an armed Texas secessionist movement would be though: prompt and utter destruction.
You know nothing. Unless you think you can predict the future. Then you would know less than nothing, not even know that you are deluded. Fortunately for the sake of peace and harmony, my scenario calls for a peaceful resolution of an independent Texas. You may, however, continue with the fantasy that you know what historical events are impossible.
What you mean is that the City of Rome lasted from somewhere in the BC era to the year 2009, at present. It has been ruled by many political entities thru the centuries, from Romulus and Remus, to the Etruscans, to the Senate of the Roman Republic, to Caesar, to Nero, to the Popes, to the Count of Savoy who became a king, to Benito Mussolini and his Fascisti, to the Nazis, to the US Army, to whoever has it now. I expect the City of Dallas will also be ruled by many political entities over the centuries.
In fact, the split of Byzantium from the original Roman Empire might b a good model for a similar split in the current United States.
I can think of many political entities that endured successful secessionist movements, and many entities that voluntarily gave up territory. For example, the Franks basically were awarded an autonomous kingdom in what had been Roman Gaul, the Roman Empire withdrew from Roman Britain on its own. I can see a possible situation where the United States voluntarily withdraws from the territory of places like Texas, not inevitable, just possible.
Since it is impossible, I'd agree that we are both equally qualified to do the impossible... zero probability for both of us. At least I don't pretend otherwise. I'm not calculating as to how it will fail, I just accept it as inevitable that it will, sooner or later.
You know nothing. Unless you think you can predict the future. Then you would know less than nothing, not even know that you are deluded. Fortunately for the sake of peace and harmony, my scenario calls for a peaceful resolution of an independent Texas. You may, however, continue with the fantasy that you know what historical events are impossible.
No I am talking about the Roman State. The City of Rome was largely the center of power of the Roman State, though after 476 this shifted east toward Byzantium.
The city of Rome has been ruled by many political entities, but a state called "Rome" which was continuously derived from itself rather than being conquered was in continuous existence from 753 BC to 1453 AD. The first time there ceased to be a Roman state was in 1453, when the Ottomans laid waste to Byzantium and ended the Roman empire.
You are the one who is postulating the future--the fall of the United States is so far in the future it is likely to be in a world drastically different from the one we are in now (and largely in a heavily Hispanic-majority Texas) that it is impossible to conjecture with anything resembling accuracy what it would resemble. The United States has only once come close to losing large swathes of its territory, and that rebellion was met with prompt and utter destruction. That world was entirely different than the one we live in now, and our world will be entirely different than any world in which the United States is torn asunder.
Texas shall never leave the United States, at least not in the form of the United States as we know it today. Crackpots might talk about it, some really crazy ones might try to lead a rebellion, but all it's going to get them is a short drop and a sudden stop.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Ranger. I can see several evolutionary paths by which a severely weakened Federal Washington government would come into existence as such and be forced to negotiate with major outlying regions such as Texas.
But however it got to that point, the real question is what effect this independence would have... on migration into Texas and Texas future position in the world.
Well your scenario really isn't about an independent Texas. It's about what would happen if people in Texas stopped having to pay taxes but happen to continue to enjoy services of federal government for free.
Well your scenario really isn't about an independent Texas. It's about what would happen if people in Texas stopped having to pay taxes but happen to continue to enjoy services of federal government for free.
Not if it were independent.
An independent Texas would have a government that would be a combination of the current Federal-state system, but would not be a continuation of the old state government. The current state government would go out of existence since it is subordinate to the Federal.
What about the tax burden? Texans are basically anti-tax, or favor a low level of taxes, and its government would continue that tradition. Many tax-devouring Federal programs would not exist in the new Texas. Its military, for example, would be relatively small, purely defensive in nature, with no international commitments. It would be much less costly than Texas current per-capita share of the US military budget.
To be specific, Texas would not have a cap-and-trade "tax" on energy, nor would it have an extensive publicly funded health care system.
Texans dislike taxes on income... that's why the current state government has no income tax. Well, how would a national government be funded? By a mechanism similar to what European countries have, a VAT, or value-added tax. It may be possible to replace current property and sales taxes as well, by replacing them with VAT revenue.
Technically, a VAT is a sales tax, except that it is applied to every transaction, every increment of added value, not just at the final point of sale. US citizens returning to the US after a shopping spree would be able to apply for a VAT rebate at the point of exit, just as you can do in Europe today.
Texas would have less business regulation than most US states, just as today, it has much less regulation than states like California and New York. This would ensure a flow of business and capital into Texas, at the expense of the now-separate United States. The lack of an income tax would likewise attract people and capital to Texas. The nation would have an ever-increasing standard of living in comparison to the United States.
I started this thread basically as a thought experiment, and to explore the question of whether Texas is suffering by its association with the United States. Would Texas be better off independent, would it have a form of government and law that was more condusive to the will of its people?
Is an independent Texas likely to happen in the immediate future? No, I don't think so.
It is, however, a good idea to be aware of what its US association is costing its people. If Texans are being made poorer, and its political preferences are being thwarted, the people of Texas have a right to know about it.
Interestingly enough, Dallas seems to be the capital city. Sorry, Houston.
Last edited by aceplace; 09-04-2009 at 08:39 AM..
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.
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.
