Texas to secede from the union?

[Steve]

To be somewhat more specific, the legal right of secession is considered nonexistent because secession was successfully contested on the battlefield. We say there's no right of secession primarily because of this, but that doesn't mean it's impossible that one day one or more states might appeal the decision of 1861-65 in various ways, including the battlefield.

That said, I don't think that day has come quite yet. We had over a quarter century of forewarning the last time and I suspect we'd get a similar forewarning in a second occurrence.

...of course, it might be within the realm of possibility that when the few of us that are still alive in half a century's time are old and gray, historians will be writing about this Texan gathering as just such an early warning sign....

[Pelranius]

Let's just assume that Perry is serious. Would the Texans try to demand the various sundry pieces of the Republic of Texas which are now part of other states? (Oklahoma would just LOVE that).

[Prannon]

Let's just assume that Perry is serious. Would the Texans try to demand the various sundry pieces of the Republic of Texas which are now part of other states? (Oklahoma would just LOVE that).

It's possible that a vocal fringe would make such demands, although you shouldn't have to worry about it because Perry isn't being serious.

[Darth Wong]

It's possible that a vocal fringe would make such demands, although you shouldn't have to worry about it because Perry isn't being serious.

The problem is not that he's serious, regardless of whether that's true or not. The problem is that there are enough nutjobs in the state for him to calculate that it would be politically beneficial for him to do this.

It's like people who try to dismiss insane bullshit by saying "Mr. Politician just pandering to his base". That may exonerate Mr. Politician from the charge of sincerely believing in the insane bullshit, but it does not exonerate his base.

[Patrick Degan]

It doesn't even exhonerate Mr. Politician in this case. As an elected official, in fact the governor of his state, Rick Perry has the legal obligation to uphold the constitution of the State of Texas and, by extention, the United States constitution as well. As neither recognises the right of secession, Perry is in violation of his oath of office by egging on seccessionist sentiment. That's not the sort of thing he's supposed to be encouraging.

But then, Perry's a Repubikan, and as we've seen through eight long years, laws are only for other people as far as they're concerned.

[Fleet Admiral JD]

A thought that just occurred to me--where are the news anchors shrieking about Anti-Americanism for these morons?

[The Yosemite Bear]

not from Faux, then again the GOP misitry of propaganda is probably more concerned with how anti-american the Obama's are for having a forrin name, and choosing a Portugese water dog as a pet....

[HamsterViking]

We would fail FAST without the federal government constantly taking care of us. Only the mentally retarded and the terribly misinformed think otherwise. I can tell you first hand about just how badly the "no income tax, tra la la la la la la" thing is fucking us over already.

I'm more interested in this supposed power to turn Texas into four smaller states. What if Texas was to exercise this power? Where would the lines be drawn, in modern Texas? What would be some good places to draw the lines, in the interests of taking some of the bite out of Texas's threats (or potential threats)? Like, where would you draw the lines to make Texas less powerful and influential than it is currently?

Also, would this result in a drastic drop in the sales of "Everything is Bigger in Texas" t-shirts?

You have deeply offended my Texasn pride... but now that I think about it, that's not a bad aidea. You make the Rio Grande Vally, San Antonio, and Austin the core of a new smaller state, and it'll be a solidly blue state, and we'll get the education system we desperatly need, instead of having wealthy white Republicans in the north hogging all the education money for their kids who don't need. Also, I'm still bitter about the rich kids in Plano taking 1st place in the Texas academic decathlon compitetion my senior year. 2nd place doesn't get you nearly as many scholorships as 1st, and they didn't need it! We did! Yep, very bitter.

It's weird. in the larger cities of texas, it's downright nice. you get out into the countryside, however, like Waco or out west and man do people get stupid Here in SAT, we're a bastion of liberalism, by comparison, tolerant and even welcoming to alternative lifestyles (especially downtown/in the medical center area), alternative energy, etc. It's weird to see stories like this because I do not experience anything like it ever - I almost want to cry bullshit because it's so backwards from what I know.

I feel your pain. Hanging out at UTSA, I wonder how it's possible I'm in the same state as some of these asshats.

It doesn't even exhonerate Mr. Politician in this case. As an elected official, in fact the governor of his state, Rick Perry has the legal obligation to uphold the constitution of the State of Texas and, by extention, the United States constitution as well. As neither recognises the right of secession, Perry is in violation of his oath of office by egging on seccessionist sentiment. That's not the sort of thing he's supposed to be encouraging.

So can we try him for treason now? Can we at least kick Perry out of the state already? Please?

[Jaepheth]

Texas Pridetm is so prevalent that he really had nothing to lose, politically, by making that speech.

You have the 15 - 20% of people who will actually agree with him, and then the 75 - 80% who'll just chuckle to themselves at the thought and then not care after that. Of the remaining people only a fraction will honestly be pissed off and only a fraction of them will be pissed off enough to actually do anything about it.

In short, a lot of Texans like to pridefully entertain the thought of secession, few seriously think it's a good idea, and fewer know it's a terrible idea.

[Kanastrous]

It's striking, the volume of piss and wind about liberty this and liberty that while conveniently forgetting that Texas' Civil-War-era experience was a direct result of their insistence upon holding people in slavery. I mean, before Texas was even in the union Anglo slaveholders were a pain in the ass for the Spaniards, then the Mexicans. They seceded so that they could hold people in bondage. Advertising themselves as traditional exponents of 'liberty' is just comical.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Now if Texas were to subdivide itself into four smaller states, presumably it would effectively gain six senators for the same population. Since the state is apparently quite divided politically, what would be the net effect on the national legislature? Would someone even consider this as a way to increase political influence in Washington? It would certainly mean a decrease in the power of any politician or office within each of the resulting states relative to their predecessor. Yet if a large political block or party felt confident that they could capture the majority of the newly created representatives, would any politician consider it worth the risk, and how would the rest of the nation respond, since as I understand, they need congressional approval for it?

[starfury]

It's striking, the volume of piss and wind about liberty this and liberty that while conveniently forgetting that Texas' Civil-War-era experience was a direct result of their insistence upon holding people in slavery. I mean, before Texas was even in the union Anglo slaveholders were a pain in the ass for the Spaniards, then the Mexicans. They seceded so that they could hold people in bondage. Advertising themselves as traditional exponents of 'liberty' is just comical.

Not if you like them have the"liberty for my private Fiefdom" Mentality, That way the slaves don't count, there only property anyways, only the rich slaveowners and property owners freedom matters, like a nobility protesting the king forcing them to obey obligations while neglecting to mention the peasants, since they don't count.