Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What would happen if a State really did try to secede from the union? The blow-hard in Texas,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 02:57 AM
Original message
What would happen if a State really did try to secede from the union? The blow-hard in Texas,
Perry, has been advocating this.

In these modern times, what would happen? Would the army go to Texas and make them stay? Since the Civil War, this has not really been a problem, and I was just wondering how it would be handled now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Over 3.5 MILLION Texans voted for Obama. We are not going anywhere.

Besides Perry knows that it is illegal for 'any' state to secede from the union.

The only thing that Texas can do legally is break up into four smaller states and remain part of the USA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sometimes I almost wish the federal government would
Edited on Sun Jun-19-11 03:13 AM by Raine
give some of these states that keep threatening to secede the option to do it. I bet that they would quickly change their minds when they realize they would be on their own without any "big" government help.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. The next F-5 storm that draws a bead on the Texas coast, Rick
will be glad that he has the United States of America to reach out to.

If this guy hates the government so bad, why is he asking for the job? So he will be in a position to steal and loot like Bush and Cheney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. It would be an illegal action. At the minimum it would go to the Supreme Court /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. The SC already ruled. Oddly enough, it was over Texas. There are ways for
a state to legally secede from the union. One way is through the consent of the states. Put to a vote, many Americans might be willing to let Texas go - if it really wanted secede.

The other legal way is by revolution. Not quite sure how that is legal, but that is what Chief Justice Chase declared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. interesting. The fact is they won't secede. They need too much federal dollars /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. I only have a limited understanding of this
Edited on Sun Jun-19-11 04:31 AM by dipsydoodle
but a US friend told me years ago that when Texas joined the Union it was conditional on them being able to susseed / secede ? without issue at any future date.

True or not ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I found this
The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States" ... not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.

Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_uni...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Texas already tried to secede once with a bunch of other states and we kicked their asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Not. They have already tried that in 1860. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. and some were added on the notion that they could keep slaves
this was settled 150 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Not. They did have an option to break into 4 smaller states
Edited on Sun Jun-19-11 07:21 AM by CanonRay
but that is all. Texas primarily joined the union because 1) they were broke and 2) they wanted military proteciton from Mexico. ON EDIT 3) Mexico had eliminated slavery, and they wanted to keep their slaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
24. not, they had the option of breaking into smaller states. not to leave
and even if they did that ended after they seceded during the civil war and were forced back into the union at gunpoint


from then on they have no such option
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Let them go.
They would become a tiny weak nation sitting in the shadow of the most powerful country on earth.
And that powerful nation would be pretty peeved at the little punk which wouldn't make their life.any easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. We should probably let them go.
The US is too big anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. wow
you clearly have no grasp of the complexities of our economic system

Also, do you think our military might would be anything like what it is if we split it into 50 (or more) separate little militias with different priorities?

































Oh, Yea... you like that military one, don't ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's a shocking question
You ask: "The real question is what is the advantage of remaining united anymore?"

What is shocking about it is I don't recall hearing it before, and I am unable to think of any immediate compelling reason for the U.S to stay together.

I also agree the grand experiment is so over. Building a nation based on democracy and free enterprise was a noble and fine experiment, but in today/s America, neither of these exist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. you have it all backward



States simply can't deal with the complexities of modern life the way a strong federal government can


Texas can't possibly set up the type of programs needed to insure the health and well being of their citizens the way our federal government can. From environmental protection to food safety to defense, bigger is better.

The Republican ideas of states rights and and letting the locals make the big decisions were not insane when a stagecoach and telegraph were the best we could do. In this age of wireless internet and jet aircraft it simply makes more sense to get the best people on any decision making, not the most convenient ones. Maybe some people believe that all politics is local but none of the important governance is.


The European Union has proven that moving toward larger more centralized control is more efficient. Just look at what the Euro has been doing when compared to the U.S. Dollar.

Centralized control and spreading costs out to as many individuals as possible to help reduce the burden on any one person is the way of the future. It is the only way that makes sense.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bragi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. You wrote:
Edited on Sun Jun-19-11 08:15 AM by Bragi
"Texas can't possibly set up the type of programs needed to insure the health and well being of their citizens the way our federal government can. From environmental protection to food safety to defense, bigger is better."

Really? Well on Friday, the GOP majority in the House cut off funding for the new food safety system enacted by the previous congress, no doubt with the support of Texas conservatives.

So why should people from parts of the country not populated by right-wing fools not want to escape being dictated to by right wing fools?

As for unity to support a stronger military, you have to be joking. If busting up the country is the best path to stop the further militarization of American society, politics and culture, then bring it on.

(To be clear, I don't think I actually support busting up the country, but the way things are headed, I could see worse outcomes, such as a very united truly fascist state.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. proof that I was right
Edited on Sun Jun-19-11 09:00 AM by Motown_Johnny
At least the old food safety programs are still in place, in Texas they clearly would not be. I will admit that this is a set back but if we can pick up a majority in 2012 then we need only fund the program, the law is already in place.

The EPA still exists (for the moment).


As for my using defense as an example, I was speaking to someone who just joined DU today and I thought that using our military as an example might be something he/she would support. I am all for military cuts but I was trying to speak to a specific audience.



So why should people from parts of the country not populated by right-wing fools not want to escape being dictated to by right wing fools? Because we are financially interdependent. Breaking up the union just isn't an option.




Edit To Add.... the person who I was speaking to has been tombstoned. I suspected this was going to be the case but I was trying to make sense to him/her before it happened. My posts were slanted in that direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flying Dream Blues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Where do you live that you don't have right wing fools? Just curious. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. the profile says Canada
but nothing more specific than that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. What advantage does Alabama have over Haiti?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. number or public universities
that have won bcs ncaa football national championships.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Would they have any of those things if they were an independent nation separate from the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. well, if Alabama was a independent country
then I'm sure that either Auburn or Alabama would win the "national" championship every year. But I'm also pretty sure that Auburn and Alabama would eventually be just football clubs and not universities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
15. It isn't very likely. Economic interdependence of both the private and public sectors
make it nearly impossible to even consider such a move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. The banks and China wouldn't let us
the point at which we still carved out our own destiny is long since over and done.

the term "service worker" has been replaced by "servile worker".

the term "leader" has been replaced by "quizling".

the "USA" has been replaced by .... what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
End Of The Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
23. Perry does not advocate secession.
At least not openly.

His secession remark was from a tea-party rally in the spring of 2009, and it was pretty equivocal.

Nevertheless, I'm GLAD he made the remark. We're a nation with a very short political memory, and this one seems to have staying power. Anything that makes him look bad is just fine by me.

Texas does have a small group of nationalists, who are totally powerless. But so do a bunch of other states. And other states have also passed resolutions on secession. It seems to be a way to express frustration with Washington, but little else.

Here's a link that shows what is going on in some other states...

http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/secession-moveme... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
25. Slow news day? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwixVoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
33. The state would collapse
Texas ranks near dead last on number of people with college education, numbers of people with jobs that can actually support a person, and civil rights protections.

Texas ranks near the top on high school drop out rates, people in poverty, etc.

The republicans keep the population of Texas stupid and in poverty, and their big secret is that the federal government subsidizes this disaster.

If Texas were leave the union you would suddenly find a new nation in which the vast majority of people would literally suddenly be unable to feed themselves. It would result in an all out insurrection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. In the event of secession, don't forget that 3.5 million educated, liberal
folks would leave the state.

They'd be MUCH worse off for it. Brain drain on steroids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC