Republic of Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a problem there, Texans don't want to secede and it'd be ASB for them to want to
It could happen, but it requires such huge and dystopic changes that the focus won't be on Texas secession. And even then Texas secession faces a host of problems (not the least being the dystopic, totalitarian government they just seceded from).
 
Texas as a Republic? No way.

The majority of Texans want to remain part of the United States. 200,000 people is a minority compared to over 24 million people.
 
There wouldn't be any way* for the USA to let Texas secede? Even if there was a referendum and the people of Texas voted to secede?

Or is it that the USA would not allow such a vote to take place in the first place?

If I remember correctly this was settled in 1865. Yea, Texas (and a few other states) tried it but were convinced to stay in the Union.
 
Single biggest problem is there is no LEGAL way for Texas to secede. The last time they did they actually had a legal right to do so, (the only state in the Union with that specifically written in the agreement that they joined the Union under) HOWEVER they were specifically forbidden from engaging in or supporting armed conflict with the United States which would abrogate the a fore mentioned agreement. Then they went and LOST that conflict which meant they had and have no legal rights to any of the a fore mentioned agreement as they themselves had broken the agreement.

I post it primary as a speculation not as a fact. Do you thing it is so unlikely?

Horribly unlikely as they would and do have far to many reasons to stay rather than go, rhetoric aside :)

Since when is being part of bigger union means better economy.

People like to point to Texas' economy but the truth is that get a LOT of Federal subsidies and benefits from being a "state" rather than a "nation" and to even have a chance at plausibility you have to come up with a valid reason why they would leave the Union and why the Union would allow it.
Not easy.

Most of the roads and highways are supported by Federal not state money, the National Guards are pretty much paid for and by more Federal than state money, (and the States WANT it that way) infrastructure costs are subsidized more by Federal that state and local money except in the most basic circumstances. And how does Texas go about paying back the Federal government for things like lands and past investments? Frankly most ""secessionists" don't bother to even consider such "trifles" for a very good reason :)

There wouldn't be any way* for the USA to let Texas secede? Even if there was a referendum and the people of Texas voted to secede?

Or is it that the USA would not allow such a vote to take place in the first place?

The (and there have been several over the years) petitions over the years have never come close to being "worrying" to the US government. The majority of Texans (and other states) residents don't buy into the rhetoric and fully understand they are better on in rather than out of the Union. (Fun fact: On most petitions that are NOT exclusively segregated to Texas residents people who are NOT Texan are the majority signatory's. Seems the idea of Texas leaving the Union is more popular OUTSIDE of Texas than within :) )

Bottom line though is there is no legal way for such a referendum to be brought to a vote. Texas violated an agreement with the United States and as a result they lost the ability and right to leave the Union on any terms. The US for its part has no mechanism in place or suggested to be able to allow secession. It's a nice fantasy but short of dissolution of the Union itself, (which technically COULD happen but Texas would have to be one among many and really what's your "mechanism" to bring that about in any realistic sense?) Texas has no way to bring this about.

Randy
 
Single biggest problem is there is no LEGAL way for Texas to secede. The last time they did they actually had a legal right to do so, (the only state in the Union with that specifically written in the agreement that they joined the Union under)

Randy

Please cite your source. Biggest myth in US history. They were given the right to break into 5 separate states without Congressional permission but it never said they had the right to secede.
 
Picture the USa as the sort of failed State the USSR was in the early 1990's. Breaking up then comes natural.

I think you need to research this topic a bit more.

It was only by a personal decision that the USSR broke up at all, an order was signed officially dissolving the soviet union. if that hadn't happened then whatever came out of that mess would still own central Asia and much of eastern Europe. that is, if the areas wouldn't have tried to break away. the European republics could have but Turkestan couldn't. It didn't break away as so much was kicked out.

Even if the u.s. turned out to be a failed state, which is far less likely due to less ingrained corruption, a strong national identity that transcends any state identities (even Texas), and difficulty for the landlocked states to access materials, the sheer economic collapse of the u.s.a. breaking up in any way would prevent ANY notion of succession except from radical groups. Except for possibly native american nations, THERE IS NO minority ethnic identities that could want independence from a failed U.S., the normal "American Identity" is too strong.
 
Picture the USa as the sort of failed State the USSR was in the early 1990's. Breaking up then comes natural.

Err... 1) getting the US to become the failed state equivalent of the USSR is a non trivial task, in and of itself
2) and more importantly, the USSR was the descendant of the Tsarist Russian Empire. You notice that it was the NON RUSSIAN republics that split off, and no RUSSIAN area broke away. You don't have that situation with the US.
 
Horribly unlikely as they would and do have far to many reasons to stay rather than go, rhetoric aside :)

Not so sure



People like to point to Texas' economy but the truth is that get a LOT of Federal subsidies and benefits from being a "state" rather than a "nation" and to even have a chance at plausibility you have to come up with a valid reason why they would leave the Union and why the Union would allow it.
Not easy.

Most of the roads and highways are supported by Federal not state money, the National Guards are pretty much paid for and by more Federal than state money, (and the States WANT it that way) infrastructure costs are subsidized more by Federal that state and local money except in the most basic circumstances. And how does Texas go about paying back the Federal government for things like lands and past investments? Frankly most ""secessionists" don't bother to even consider such "trifles" for a very good reason :)

There are undoubted benefits of union.

At some point disunion, if our culture remains different, will make it more profitable to separate



The (and there have been several over the years) petitions over the years have never come close to being "worrying" to the US government. The majority of Texans (and other states) residents don't buy into the rhetoric and fully understand they are better on in rather than out of the Union. (Fun fact: On most petitions that are NOT exclusively segregated to Texas residents people who are NOT Texan are the majority signatory's. Seems the idea of Texas leaving the Union is more popular OUTSIDE of Texas than within :) )

Bottom line though is there is no legal way for such a referendum to be brought to a vote. Texas violated an agreement with the United States and as a result they lost the ability and right to leave the Union on any terms. The US for its part has no mechanism in place or suggested to be able to allow secession. It's a nice fantasy but short of dissolution of the Union itself, (which technically COULD happen but Texas would have to be one among many and really what's your "mechanism" to bring that about in any realistic sense?) Texas has no way to bring this about.

Randy

Legality is meaningless when it comes to separation. It is ultimately the will of the majority willing to separate versus the will of the majority of the union.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top