Should Texas secede?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

There are some people who want Texas to secede. In your opinion, should it? People say that the national debt would improve if Texas left the union. What makes this true or untrue?

Who are these "some people" and why should we listen to them? "People" talking about the national debt- are they the same people or different? Let's start a R&P topic with facts rather than idle speculation.

Should they? Depends on your political outlook. I don't know nearly enough about the economy to tell how much debt they contribute.

Can they?


TL;DW: No

Will it be able to support itself? Problem with import/export? All that jazz.
Can they leave the union? Legally? (According to the video), no.
As the video explains, they don't have the manpower to fight the US should they try to enforce the matter of independence anyway.

Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

They should, if only because of how funny it'd be to see them try and fail.

While I'm all for experiments and empirical data and I'd like to see what would happen (nothing good, I'd predict), I think these sorts of social experiments would be awfully unethical.

If Texas were to secede, how would the House be affected? Texas holds 36 seats, the second largest number of Representatives. Would those seats just...vanish? Would they become vacant, and after a bit of ironing out, be given to other states to fill? How would it effect how the number of Representatives is calculated, both by state and as a whole, if at all?

There are some people who want Texas to strap a million zeppelins to itself and become a real-life version of Columbia from Bioshock Infinite. In your opinion, should it? People say that the national happiness would improve if Texas floated in the sky. What makes this true or untrue?

Not all opinions are equally sensible.

wintercoat:
If Texas were to secede, how would the House be affected? Texas holds 36 seats, the second largest number of Representatives. Would those seats just...vanish? Would they become vacant, and after a bit of ironing out, be given to other states to fill? How would it effect how the number of Representatives is calculated, both by state and as a whole, if at all?

shouldn't you kind of know this ? i mean i live thousands of miles away and its not my country and even i know the seats in the house are assigned per head of population and per state in the senate.

so ye the house seats would go as the Texan population would no longer be in the union...and a couple senators would go too...

so would NASA and all the military and military contracting jobs etc, etc, etc...

Mr.Mattress:
Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

as a Scot (soon to be voting on "secession") and a democrat (note the small "d") that's all kinds of disappointing tbh.

If restoring the Republic of Texas actually has some serious public support, I'd say run a referendum, and set the "will secede" threshold at 66%. I wouldn't be comfortable with a simple majority, since we are talking about renouncing citizenship to claim a new one, which would be to big an issue to be decided by 51-49 vote. It also shouldn't just be a legislative decision; it's too fundamental an issue for representatives to be considered adequate substitute for the electorate as a whole.

I don't doubt Texas could probably make it as an independent nation; what its standard of living might be (better, worse, or same) I really couldn't say, but I don't doubt it has the resources, infrastructure, and population to make independence functional at least.

As to "should it?"; that's what the referendum is about. If a supermajority of Texans actually feel they've grown to far apart culturally from the rest of the Union, or if they feel that the Washington government has become a larger hindrance than help to Texas, then they absolutely should leave. The core idea of the United States is that each state has all the machinery to be a self-governing nation, which has surrendered some of its sovereign power to a central authority in exchange for economic and diplomatic advantages provided by being part of a larger whole. If Texas or any other state's citizens come to the conclusion that this is no longer an equitable arrangement (from concerns over Federal overreach, incompetence on the central authorities part whilst losing faith in their ability to remedy the problems, or any other reason), then they ought to have the right to leave, either individually, or as part of a group to form their own federation.

As to the legality; obviously, it's currently illegal via Supreme Court decision. But would the current Court uphold the earlier Court's opinion if a new succession crisis emerged? I kinda doubt it, if my above mentioned requirements were met. There simply wouldn't be enough political will to directly oppose the democratically chosen path those citizens undertook via Civil War style military force. There wouldn't even be and anti-slvaery level moral issue to launch attack at a new Republic of Texas like their was against the old Confederacy. Washington may choose to start trying to Undermine Texas via backdoor trade restrictions and attempts to poison its efforts at forming diplomatic relations, to try and make it fail, but unless Texas went completely crazy and actually tried a land grab on a still-Unionized state, no one in the US electorate would back military intervention; a president who tried would have create huge problems for himself and his party come election time. And that's assuming the UN didn't accept Texas's right to independence, which would create even more diplomatic wrinkles at a time when US diplomatic might is at an extremely low ebb.

If a clear majority of people want to secede they should be allowed to. Although I can't really see why Texas would want to secede, the way I understand the US each individual state already gets a fair amount of freedom to legislate. I can't see why the UK would want to leave the EU either, but if the majority of people want to then remaining in is obviously untenable (even if I think their opinion is stupid).

Quaxar:
There are some people who want Texas to strap a million zeppelins to itself and become a real-life version of Columbia from Bioshock Infinite. In your opinion, should it? People say that the national happiness would improve if Texas floated in the sky. What makes this true or untrue?

Not all opinions are equally sensible.

That reminds me of a silly Croatian (was it Croatian?) movie about Slovenia disappearing one day. Turned out it moved down next to New Zealand overnight. And everyone was happy; we Slovenians got all the coast we wanted so that border dispute with Croatia (now irrelevant since we're both in EU) was handled, and even Austria and Hungary got beaches!

As for Texas seceding, I think the clip posted by Phrozenflame explains it quite well. But I suppose USA can't be indivisible until they reach 53 states. Get it? It's a prime number *snerk snerk*

they wouldn't need "backdoor trade restrictions".

Texas would be outside the USs internal customs union and would be in a weak geopolitical position come trade negotiations with any major world power (the US, The EU, China etc).

it has 12 million people...which places it on par with maybe Belgium in terms of global importance...except Belgium is in the EU...

aside from farming and "oil" US technology, aeronautics & defence companies and the US military make up a sizeable chuck of the Texas economy and all of those would probably move alongside the US-international cargo operations that exist at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and the port of Houston.

that's not to say they couldn't secede...but they'd very quickly discover that they wouldn't be able to keep hold of a hell of a lot of stuff that is basically only there because they are an integral part of the US...

Sleekit:
they wouldn't need "backdoor trade restrictions".

Texas would be outside the USs internal customs union and would be in a weak geopolitical position come trade negotiations with any major world power (the US, The EU, China etc).

it has 12 million people...which places it on par with maybe Belgium in terms of global importance...except Belgium is in the EU...

aside from farming and "oil" US technology, aeronautics & defence companies and the US military make up a sizeable chuck of the Texas economy and all of those would probably move alongside the US-international cargo operations that exist at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and the port of Houston.

that's not to say they couldn't secede...but they'd very quickly discover that they wouldn't be able to keep hold of a hell of a lot of stuff that is basically only there because they are an integral part of the US...

A lot of it would depend on whether an independent Texas would be able to maintain the current economic status qua with the US. Optimally, they would maintain free trade and free movement with the US so basic economics would not change initially. However, they would lose the defense and military spending since that would be a national security issue for the US. NASA would be an interesting case but they would probably move the operations to Florida.

Then you are going to have political and diplomatic issues come into play and affect the economic situation. Anything that would affect free trade and free movement of goods would have significant impact on Texas and the US companies doing business with Texas.

Sleekit:

wintercoat:
If Texas were to secede, how would the House be affected? Texas holds 36 seats, the second largest number of Representatives. Would those seats just...vanish? Would they become vacant, and after a bit of ironing out, be given to other states to fill? How would it effect how the number of Representatives is calculated, both by state and as a whole, if at all?

shouldn't you kind of know this ? i mean i live thousands of miles away and its not my country and even i know the seats in the house are assigned per head of population and per state in the senate.

so ye the house seats would go as the Texan population would no longer be in the union...and a couple senators would go too...

so would NASA and all the military and military contracting jobs etc, etc, etc...

Let me put this simply. My U.S. history class in high school was shit. Pretty much the entire class was fellating Columbus and the Founding Fathers. How much time do you think they put into teaching the workings of our government?

Learning about politics and the way the country works is still a relatively new thing for me. I never cared growing up, but in the past couple of years, I've started to get interested. When I'm curious, I ask questions. Sometimes when I look something up online, it confuses me more because it's usually not written for the layperson, so I ask on a forum, where people are more likely to write it in a way that's easier to understand.

I would appreciate it if, when someone asks a simple question, the answer isn't prefaced with "shouldn't you know this already?", because it makes that person feel like an idiot for not knowing. And someone who is made to feel like an idiot for asking a question is less likely to ask again when they're curious. There's enough people as it is who don't give a shit about politics. Don't create more.

Sleekit:
they wouldn't need "backdoor trade restrictions".

Texas would be outside the USs internal customs union and would be in a weak geopolitical position come trade negotiations with any major world power (the US, The EU, China etc).

it has 12 million people...which places it on par with maybe Belgium in terms of global importance...except Belgium is in the EU...

aside from farming and "oil" US technology, aeronautics & defence companies and the US military make up a sizeable chuck of the Texas economy and all of those would probably move alongside the US-international cargo operations that exist at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and the port of Houston.

that's not to say they couldn't secede...but they'd very quickly discover that they wouldn't be able to keep hold of a hell of a lot of stuff that is basically only there because they are an integral part of the US...

Err, Texas has 26 million people.
So I'd probably put them at having a little less punch than Spain or maybe Poland rather than Belgium (no offence to any Belgians) given size and overall resources.
But yeah, otherwise I basically agree. Secession isn't a trivial thing - there'd be a whole lot of restructuring, and given that Texas hosts (and benefits from) a disproportionate number of federal organisations, there'd be some economic shrinkage.
Plus diplomatically they'd find themselves fairly isolated, especially when the US was far less likely to elect a hardline Republican government because of the loss of Texan representatives.

my mistake. i took the labour force numbers by accident.

I was living in Texas during one of the recent times the governor called for secession; it had something to do with his discovery that the president was black all of a sudden, and had this plan to try to make healthcare more affordable, or something like that. He decided they couldn't have that, and suggested that Texas might secede. Enter the Swine Flu outbreak a week later, and here we see the governor begging for medical help from the federal government.

I lived fairly near the outbreak, and I still wanted to see the federal government tell him "You want to be independent? Then handle your own epidemic, asshole."

Some Texans like to talk big and act like they're too good for us, but it's all a facade. Those people who talk about secession are absolutely craven, and will come running to the federal government for help just as soon as some problem distracts them from talking about how unfairly the federal government is treating them.

wintercoat:
I would appreciate it if, when someone asks a simple question, the answer isn't prefaced with "shouldn't you know this already?", because it makes that person feel like an idiot for not knowing. And someone who is made to feel like an idiot for asking a question is less likely to ask again when they're curious. There's enough people as it is who don't give a shit about politics. Don't create more.

i did not mean to cause any offence. it was only intended as a light conversational "ribbing".

Scots tend to make a lot of use of "confrontational language" in casual, friendly conversation and i guess i forgot both about the lack of potentially helpful inflection in the written word and the fact others maybe don't quite so much... sorry.

Sleekit:

wintercoat:
I would appreciate it if, when someone asks a simple question, the answer isn't prefaced with "shouldn't you know this already?", because it makes that person feel like an idiot for not knowing. And someone who is made to feel like an idiot for asking a question is less likely to ask again when they're curious. There's enough people as it is who don't give a shit about politics. Don't create more.

i did not mean to cause any offence. it was only intended as a light conversational "ribbing".

Scots tend to make a lot of use of "confrontation" in casual, friendly speech and i guess i forgot both about the lack of potentially helpful inflection in the written word and the fact others maybe don't quite so much. sorry.

I'm a bit...sensitive when it comes to how poor my education really was, especially in the areas of history and especially U.S. history and the government. Finding out almost everything you were taught in school was either outright fabricated or heavily skewed and having to practically relearn everything is rather depressing and makes a person a bit defensive. Not to mention the stuff that was outright omitted. I apologize if I came off as a bit...cross.

no apology necessary. and actually i thought the comments you made about your education and wanting to learn largely came off as frank and honest...which i appreciate.

Sleekit:

wintercoat:
If Texas were to secede, how would the House be affected? Texas holds 36 seats, the second largest number of Representatives. Would those seats just...vanish? Would they become vacant, and after a bit of ironing out, be given to other states to fill? How would it effect how the number of Representatives is calculated, both by state and as a whole, if at all?

shouldn't you kind of know this ? i mean i live thousands of miles away and its not my country and even i know the seats in the house are assigned per head of population and per state in the senate.

so ye the house seats would go as the Texan population would no longer be in the union...and a couple senators would go too...

The house of representatives has a constitutionally set number of members. So, there would actually be no less seats. Representation in the house would simply be redistributed among the new US population.

We would have two less senators though as that is dependent upon how many states there are in the union.

Sleekit:
shouldn't you kind of know this ? i mean i live thousands of miles away and its not my country and even i know the seats in the house are assigned per head of population and per state in the senate.

so ye the house seats would go as the Texan population would no longer be in the union...and a couple senators would go too...

Correct on the Senators (2), incorrect on the House seats. House seats have been capped at 435 since 1911. Those seats would likely be held vacant until an act of congress redistributes them or automatically following reapportionment after the 10-year census.

However, It was originally set under Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, for 1 representative for 30,000 minimum (min 1 per state), which, had that not been changed, would make the current legislature the size of a village (10291 Representatives + 100 senators, not counting staff).

wintercoat:
If Texas were to secede, how would the House be affected? Texas holds 36 seats, the second largest number of Representatives. Would those seats just...vanish? Would they become vacant, and after a bit of ironing out, be given to other states to fill? How would it effect how the number of Representatives is calculated, both by state and as a whole, if at all?

Wikipedia:
Each U.S. state is represented in the House in proportion to its population as measured in the census, but every state is entitled to at least one representative. The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives. On the other end of the spectrum, there are seven states with only one representative. The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

This would lead me to believe that the seats would in fact be dissolved. As far as I understand, there is only a ceiling to the amount of representatives, not a floor. Also, it seems that we've been consistently near the ceiling in terms of modern representation so with the loss of something like Texas, there may be a consistent gap unless other states shore up populations to gain more representatives. There's certainly plenty of room in the Midwest.

I'm not political buff and I could be completely wrong, but that's about the sense I can make of it.

Also this has to do with the U.S. house, not state-by-state ones.

VG_Addict:
People say that the national debt would improve if Texas left the union. What makes this true or untrue?

The statement is questionable.

It's been reported a lot of lately that red states are takers more often than not, which is at least partially true. Conservative states tend to take in more federal aid than they produce in tax revenue. Texas seems to be an exception to this, but it's becoming more apparent this depends on how you cook the data. So I don't know.

Additionally, we don't know how the secession would change Texas' situation or the rest of the nation's situation. Federal money might go elsewhere or it might be cut. With Texas no longer part of the union, there are economic repercussions to consider.

Mr.Mattress:
Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

I'm not entirely sure what you say about Puerto Rico is true.

The civil war and Abraham Lincoln firmly established that secession is illegal and the country is well within its rights to stop it from happening or reverse it. Besides, Texas has no good reason to secede. They'd lose FAR more than they'd ever gain.

I'd say in a globalized economy where national barriers are becoming increasingly irrelevant, there is very little to be gained by seceding. You'd still need to trade, you'd still need to work together with other nations if you want to survive. It's easy to blame the instance above you (be it the federal government or the EU), but seceding (or quitting, in case of the EU), only takes away your power to influence that government, you can't really escape their position of power over you. And most of the time, the individual states/member states are quite happy they have someone above them they can use to make the unpleasant decisions they don't want to have to explain to their populace.

I don't want Texas to secede, but not because of anything special about Texas. I'm in general opposed to radical, untested, experimental change and a large state seceding from a modern western nation would be the epitome of that.

But that said, we don't need Texas as much as they need us. They wanna talk big about going on their own? I say don't let the door hit all y'all on the ass on your way out.

Zachary Amaranth:

Mr.Mattress:
Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

I'm not entirely sure what you say about Puerto Rico is true.

It would certainly require an absolute moron in charge to go "Well, we could just tell them we're going but on the other hand they charged me an additional 10$ shipping charges for my last Amazon purchase compared to mainland US so fuck it, let's bomb Florida!"

Quaxar:

Zachary Amaranth:

Mr.Mattress:
Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

I'm not entirely sure what you say about Puerto Rico is true.

It would certainly require an absolute moron in charge to go "Well, we could just tell them we're going but on the other hand they charged me an additional 10$ shipping charges for my last Amazon purchase compared to mainland US so fuck it, let's bomb Florida!"

Somehow, this reminds me of the 'brilliant idea' to 'retake the Falklands'. There's no way the United Kingdoms would care about those islands, right? And they make me look like such a competent and decisive leader!

Realitycrash:
Somehow, this reminds me of the 'brilliant idea' to 'retake the Falklands'. There's no way the United Kingdoms would care about those islands, right? And they make me look like such a competent and decisive leader!

Well...the Falklands War could have gone the over way. The UK fleet was operating very far from home, a few more Exocets in the right places, and the British landings wouldn't have been feasible. If the UK special forces hadn't been so good, or the political situation had been a little different, might not have worked.

Realitycrash:

Quaxar:

Zachary Amaranth:

I'm not entirely sure what you say about Puerto Rico is true.

It would certainly require an absolute moron in charge to go "Well, we could just tell them we're going but on the other hand they charged me an additional 10$ shipping charges for my last Amazon purchase compared to mainland US so fuck it, let's bomb Florida!"

Somehow, this reminds me of the 'brilliant idea' to 'retake the Falklands'. There's no way the United Kingdoms would care about those islands, right? And they make me look like such a competent and decisive leader!

Hey, they were just sitting there and nobody seemed to play with them anymore... you can't blame Galtieri, he missed the Sonic the Hedgehog episode on not taking others' toys without asking!

Quaxar:

It would certainly require an absolute moron in charge to go "Well, we could just tell them we're going but on the other hand they charged me an additional 10$ shipping charges for my last Amazon purchase compared to mainland US so fuck it, let's bomb Florida!"

That wasn't the point. The issue of its status as a commonwealth allowing peaceful secession.

Let me elaborate: 'commonwealth' in itself doesn't have an official meaning to the US Government. The term is used interchangeably with "state" and there are several states officially named "Commonwealth of...." This includes Massachusetts. Puerto Rico's status is one of territory, and I see nothing allowing for the secession of territories, even unincorporated ones. That last line may be moot, as a 2008 decision labeled PR an incorporated territory, though it's still being challenged.

Since I can find no evidence of the right of a "commonwealth" or even a territory to secede, I doubt his claim.

Puerto Rico as a "Commonwealth", Same as Guam and American Samoa, has the right to self determination. With the current situation, "Commonwealth" territories have 1 non-voting member in the House of Representatives, the citizens pay US taxes and are covered by Federal and local laws. As for self determination, they can vote, via referendum, to become independent, or as Puerto Rico just voted to, look into, start or continue the process to become a state of the union.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked