Texas can divide into as many as five states. Would you support this ? (San Antonio: houses, safe)

[Two4damoney]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Tell us that when you freeze in the dark because you no longer have access to our natural gas and oil!

Yep we'll be nice and warm in our well lit and heated Texas homes.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by loves2read

Texas was CONQUERED by the USA and taken into the Union again under the US rules/regs--no future sucession is "allowed"....if it tried then that is act of treason/aggression and would not happen peacefully...

This quote needs a seperate reply, in addition to the earlier one concerning the defnition of "conquering".

What you have just described, loves2read, by seemingly accepting/agreeing with labeling a peaceful withdrawl from a voluntary union, as being an act of treason/agression and subject to force to "restore" it...simply confirms that -- whatever our ancestors faults -- the Southern position -- clearly foresaw how a northern victory would ultimately lead to all power being concentrated into a central authority, and the founding principle of that "government derives its just powers by the consent of the governed" is meaningless.

As Jefferson Davis put it (paraphrase): "The principle for which we contend is bound to re-assert itself...even if it be in another time and another form."

Although, I repeat, I am not advocating secession at this point in time? There are a few things to keep in mind as per your own position. To wit:

If, god forbid, it ever came to that and another war? Then it might not turn out like the last one. For several reasons:

1. This is really not so much a South/North issue, anymore. Rather, a division between Red and Blue states.

2. The former mostly consist of Southern and Plains Midwest states, and the libertarian Western states. The latter being of Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast states. The former (Red) are the ones who provide the energy and feed the latter. We know how to farm and ranch, shoot guns, and be self-reliant.

3. A disproportionate number of the men and women who make up the modern-day military come from the red states. They are generally "home-boys and girls" who would not just blindly go down -- upon orders from Obama and Washington -- and fire upon their own kinfolk and people.

3(a) -- Back during the days of the "Civil War", contact with the real goings on were limited by lack of communications. There was no real standing army. All most of the Southern boys knew was that their land was being invaded, all that most of the northern boys knew was that some rebels down south had supposedly opened fire on the U.S. flag. It is not the same today. That is, those in the military now have better information, however interpretted. And again, the modern day military is very much dominated by volunteers from the red states.

4. The South and western Midwest are no longer a region of limited resources. On a backtracking tangent, that was the major reason the North won the war at all. Today, the situation has, if not reversed, at least much different. NASA is in Houston, Texas. The breadbasket of the country is in the Plains states. The natural resources for energy are almost exclusively in the South Central states and along the Gulf, and lots of untapped resources in the West...which the "blue states" object to using.

Bottom line? The Red states would easily win. With that said, however? I don't think there are many who would want it to come to anything remotely like that. But it is definitely something the Blues need to keep in mind when they display the smug reliance they often do...

[marcopolo2000]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Tell us that when you freeze in the dark because you no longer have access to our natural gas and oil!

Well I was born in Texas and I currently reside in Texas so I'll be just find. Perhaps I should have said that "Texans" are a running joke to the rest of the country. You can pretend that this isn't true but traveling around the country, you get a sense of the image others have of Texans. People like Rick Perry and Bush fit the stereotypical image of Texans and thats not a good thing.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by marcopolo2000

Well I was born in Texas and I currently reside in Texas so I'll be just find. Perhaps I should have said that "Texans" are a running joke to the rest of the country. You can pretend that this isn't true but traveling around the country, you get a sense of the image others have of Texans. People like Rick Perry and Bush fit the stereotypical image of Texans and thats not a good thing.

Ok, fair enough. But what states are you talking about when you say "rest of the country"? I mean, you gotta answer that, wouldn't you say? I am not saying the sentiment is not true in some states. It likely is. But I'd still bet the cotton crop that -- as my friend Two4D alluded to -- they are mostly the same states where people fleeing in hordes to Texas, to find a job (Or good BBQ).

[Trainwreck20]

I suspect that the VAST majority of people, in or out of Texas, find secession talk too silly to spend the time to read much about it, much less to type anything. I am a Texan and an American, and I will be damned if I am going to even imply that the rest of my fellow Americans can go to hell just because of a presidential election. It is just WEAK. Cowardly, at best, and that is putting it nicely.

[Willsson]

I would think that '"Texans" are a running joke to the rest of the country', might depend on what part of which state. I wouldn't be surprised if the joke - or lack thereof- were more evenly distributed among red and blue attitudes within any given state. Just reading through the forum of people busting their butts to get out of their current state and head to Texas. Or reading through the Texas Nationalist Movement facebook page, there's plenty of people not laughing about the Texas attitude.

And when that gas does hit eight bucks a gallon, the joke won't be quite so amusing. Especially within Texas itself.

[marcopolo2000]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Ok, fair enough. But what states are you talking about when you say "rest of the country"? I mean, you gotta answer that, wouldn't you say?

most states outside of the South plus Florida.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I suspect that the VAST majority of people, in or out of Texas, find secession talk too silly to spend the time to read much about it, much less to type anything. I am a Texan and an American, and I will be damned if I am going to even imply that the rest of my fellow Americans can go to hell just because of a presidential election. It is just WEAK. Cowardly, at best, and that is putting it nicely.

As I said earlier, TW, I am not a committed secessionist either...but I respectfully suggest you are interpreting certain trends too lightly at best, or too arrogantly at most.

Texan and American? I relate totally to that. I am proud to be an American and citizen of the United States. BUT...when it comes down to brass tacks? I am a Texas first (and Southerner). Simple as that.

And -- let me explain this one carefully -- IF being an American means owing a first loyalty to an abstract notion of a "united states" in the sense I would just as easily and comfortably embrace Iowa or Idaho or New York as I do Texas? Then the very notion is unfathomable. Uncomprehensible. It ranks along the lines of having a greater sense of loyalty to the United Nations than to the United States...

Hell no, I couldn't. Could you (or anyone else) honestly say they owe a greater loyalty and obligation to anything higher than their own homeland and people and the customs and traditions and affections and sense of place. The alternative being a commitement to another part of the country whose values may not not be shared at all, nor even ever visited...?

I guess I don't understand it...

[Craziaskowboi]

Only if one of the states is named Steve.

[DitsyD]

No!