48 votes

Texas secessionists win GOP backing for independence vote: 'Major step'

105 comments

  1. [30]
    arrza
    Link
    I'm not really sure the people pushing for this really understand the full implications of this. It would be disastrous for the state, even as one of the biggest economies in the country. Not that...

    I'm not really sure the people pushing for this really understand the full implications of this. It would be disastrous for the state, even as one of the biggest economies in the country.

    Not that that's ever stopped conservatives from going forward with an ill conceived plan before.

    81 votes
    1. [12]
      redbearsam
      Link Parent
      Wasn't the whole point in brexit to do a nice generous cautionary tale? If people learn nothing what was it all for smh

      Wasn't the whole point in brexit to do a nice generous cautionary tale? If people learn nothing what was it all for smh

      47 votes
      1. arrza
        Link Parent
        I guess if conservatives should be known for anything, it's ignoring history. This, in spite of the fact that they long for a return to the way things used to be.* This concept is performative, as...

        I guess if conservatives should be known for anything, it's ignoring history. This, in spite of the fact that they long for a return to the way things used to be.*

        This concept is performative, as most of conservatism is. The trouble is, their base doesn't fully grasp that, and they wind up implementing these things that materially hurt them while their rulers get away enriched and unscathed.

        • their cherrypicked version of it
        54 votes
      2. [10]
        Carighan
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        That's what I was thinking, too. With Brexit, everyone told them it'd be a shit idea. The very politicians who campaigned for it as a divisive measure to push for campaign reasons immediately...

        That's what I was thinking, too. With Brexit, everyone told them it'd be a shit idea. The very politicians who campaigned for it as a divisive measure to push for campaign reasons immediately jumped ship when people actually voted in favor of it, knowing full well how bad an idea it is.

        It happened. Things went to shit in the UK over the past few years, and quite a few directly linked to Brexit.

        And even then people still think they ought to vote for these politicians, or now do something like this here. Despite the clear sign that it is as bad an idea as everyone says it is.

        28 votes
        1. [8]
          Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          Not to mention that the UK was at least already a sovereign nation, on an island. And so was in some ways already disconnected from it's fellow EU countries. TX succeeding is next level insanity...

          Not to mention that the UK was at least already a sovereign nation, on an island. And so was in some ways already disconnected from it's fellow EU countries. TX succeeding is next level insanity from an economic and infrastructure perspective.

          18 votes
          1. [7]
            arch
            Link Parent
            It would most likely result in war. We have a single example of a succession attempt by U.S. states and that was the outcome. This isn't like Brexit at all. There is no way to legally leave the...

            It would most likely result in war. We have a single example of a succession attempt by U.S. states and that was the outcome. This isn't like Brexit at all. There is no way to legally leave the U.S. The Federal government will not willingly give up Texas.

            15 votes
            1. [3]
              Promonk
              Link Parent
              This isn't an abstract thing, or a matter of "no precedent" either. It's been the stated policy of the U.S. government since 1861 that there is no legal path for secession from the Union. Prior to...

              There is no way to legally leave the U.S.

              This isn't an abstract thing, or a matter of "no precedent" either. It's been the stated policy of the U.S. government since 1861 that there is no legal path for secession from the Union. Prior to that, it was merely the unstated policy.

              A plebiscite would be ignored by the U.S. as legally invalid, and it's doubtful whether any other nations would press the issue. Hypothetically, the Republic of Texas might receive material support from China or Russia, but I doubt it would be enough, if Texas even accepted it.

              This is all utter performative nonsense.

              14 votes
              1. [2]
                trobertson
                Link Parent
                So was Brexit, until it wasn't.

                This is all utter performative nonsense.

                So was Brexit, until it wasn't.

                1. Promonk
                  Link Parent
                  Big difference is, the EU wasn't going to fight a war to hold onto the UK as a member state. The U.S.A. would to keep Texas.

                  Big difference is, the EU wasn't going to fight a war to hold onto the UK as a member state. The U.S.A. would to keep Texas.

                  2 votes
            2. [3]
              updawg
              Link Parent
              As much as I hate it, I do love the thought of Texas seceding and starting a war and the Texas Guard immediately being annihilated by all the US military forces in the state.

              As much as I hate it, I do love the thought of Texas seceding and starting a war and the Texas Guard immediately being annihilated by all the US military forces in the state.

              9 votes
              1. [2]
                arch
                Link Parent
                It's really entertaining to think about in the abstract, but the actual bloodshed and misery it would create would be truly awful.

                It's really entertaining to think about in the abstract, but the actual bloodshed and misery it would create would be truly awful.

                27 votes
                1. vord
                  Link Parent
                  While I think it would be well and truly awful, I think it may well be necessary as a reality check for the current hyperpartisan insanity. Like a wakeup call from all the fantasy glorified vision...

                  While I think it would be well and truly awful, I think it may well be necessary as a reality check for the current hyperpartisan insanity. Like a wakeup call from all the fantasy glorified vision of succeeding from the union and/or "winning the culture war against the libs."

                  8 votes
        2. Fiachra
          Link Parent
          With political movements like that any highly-foreseeable consequences tend to get labelled as retaliation from whatever "them" didn't want them to leave. Still costs them a lot of support of...

          With political movements like that any highly-foreseeable consequences tend to get labelled as retaliation from whatever "them" didn't want them to leave. Still costs them a lot of support of course, but the core group of true believers can pivot from "it'll be great" to "we always knew it'd be tough" completely seamlessly.

          6 votes
    2. [5]
      hobbes64
      Link Parent
      Ok are republicans getting stupider every year, or is everything just rage bait now? I remember a time when I would agree with some things from both parties. Since Obama was president I can’t...

      Ok are republicans getting stupider every year, or is everything just rage bait now? I remember a time when I would agree with some things from both parties. Since Obama was president I can’t remember any republican position that isn’t just completely ridiculous or self-harming.

      36 votes
      1. [2]
        blivet
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I realized the other day that I’m kind of getting numb to it. I keep forgetting that it should be astonishing that the Republican presidential nominee, on top of all his other faults, is so...

        Yeah, I realized the other day that I’m kind of getting numb to it. I keep forgetting that it should be astonishing that the Republican presidential nominee, on top of all his other faults, is so mentally deficient that he can’t string a coherent sentence together.

        27 votes
        1. post_below
          Link Parent
          We're nearing the singularity where Idiocracy is no longer hyperbolic.

          We're nearing the singularity where Idiocracy is no longer hyperbolic.

          9 votes
      2. Eji1700
        Link Parent
        Little of both. Basically anyone halfway reasonable who called themselves republican even 10 or so years ago has mostly abandoned the party because they're tired of all the lunatics.

        Ok are republicans getting stupider every year, or is everything just rage bait now?

        Little of both. Basically anyone halfway reasonable who called themselves republican even 10 or so years ago has mostly abandoned the party because they're tired of all the lunatics.

        10 votes
      3. arrza
        Link Parent
        Porque no los both?

        Porque no los both?

        3 votes
    3. [12]
      Tigress
      Link Parent
      As some one not in texas I'm all for them seceding. Take their stupidity with them. It sucks for the non stupid texans though :(.

      As some one not in texas I'm all for them seceding. Take their stupidity with them. It sucks for the non stupid texans though :(.

      8 votes
      1. redwall_hp
        Link Parent
        Texas can secede, and Mexico can annex most of the land back. Nice and symmetrical.

        Texas can secede, and Mexico can annex most of the land back. Nice and symmetrical.

        9 votes
      2. [5]
        arrza
        Link Parent
        I mean, on one hand it's basically handing the democratic party a permanent majority in the house and senate. They'd lose 38(!) house seats and 2 senate seats, and a whole bunch of electoral...

        I mean, on one hand it's basically handing the democratic party a permanent majority in the house and senate. They'd lose 38(!) house seats and 2 senate seats, and a whole bunch of electoral votes.

        On the other hand, the average Texan would suffer greatly.

        7 votes
        1. Tigress
          Link Parent
          I don't think it's an actual realistic solution. It's more a dream to let them do what they want away from the rest of us because at this point I don't care if they suffer from their own choices...

          I don't think it's an actual realistic solution. It's more a dream to let them do what they want away from the rest of us because at this point I don't care if they suffer from their own choices cause I am just so sick of them trying to drag the rest of us with them.

          But yeah, in real life if it actually happened it would drag reasonable people who had the misfortune of being born in the same geography with them. And there would really be no reasonable way to relocate everyone so that they could have their own country without dragging any others with them (though if you can't tell I am not skeptical they would create a really shitty country).

          5 votes
        2. [3]
          updawg
          Link Parent
          So you're saying there's no downside?!

          So you're saying there's no downside?!

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            arrza
            Link Parent
            Aw, come on man, surely they don't all deserve to suffer! ;)

            Aw, come on man, surely they don't all deserve to suffer! ;)

            1 vote
            1. updawg
              Link Parent
              Perhaps some of the children have not yet been indoctrinated by their Texas history classes.

              Perhaps some of the children have not yet been indoctrinated by their Texas history classes.

              1 vote
      3. [5]
        MimicSquid
        Link Parent
        Current polling has about 1/3 of Texans supporting the idea of secession in the abstract. If the state tried to secede tomorrow, it would be dragging a significant majority of the state with them...

        Current polling has about 1/3 of Texans supporting the idea of secession in the abstract. If the state tried to secede tomorrow, it would be dragging a significant majority of the state with them against the will of the people.

        5 votes
        1. ignorabimus
          Link Parent
          Amazing that 1/3 of Texans support the idea in the abstract, although I suppose that when push comes to shove (i.e. if they actually had to concretely vote for it) they might have a revealed...

          Amazing that 1/3 of Texans support the idea in the abstract, although I suppose that when push comes to shove (i.e. if they actually had to concretely vote for it) they might have a revealed preference for the union.

          11 votes
        2. [3]
          Tigress
          Link Parent
          When has that ever stopped republicans? And yeah, I know realistically it isn't fair to the ones who don't want to secede... but from a selfish and non serious POV (I'm not being that serious when...

          When has that ever stopped republicans? And yeah, I know realistically it isn't fair to the ones who don't want to secede... but from a selfish and non serious POV (I'm not being that serious when I say let them, I know it's a lot more complicated and IRL it would fuck over a lot of people who don't deserve it) it would be nice to have at least one state that is controlled by these fuckwads who don't care about what everyone else wants (especially a big one that tends to influence a lot of thigns like our educational materials) not have influence over the rest of the country.

          I mean can we just move out the reasonable people out of that state and all the republicans into that state? They can have their little hellhole that they thought they wanted and not drag the rest of us with them.

          1 vote
          1. [2]
            MimicSquid
            Link Parent
            It's a lovely dream. We can just round up all the people we disagree with and put them in a single place where they can't hurt us anymore... wait, hang on. I'm entirely with you on the frustration...

            It's a lovely dream. We can just round up all the people we disagree with and put them in a single place where they can't hurt us anymore... wait, hang on.

            I'm entirely with you on the frustration of the political system as it exists and the Republicans having such a swath of power due to gerrymandering and a balance of power that supports smaller states. I really don't know how to get from how we are to anything more equitable, but I definitely wish for that future.

            But maybe without rounding up our opposition, no matter how nice it would be to have an "easy" solution.

            6 votes
            1. Tigress
              Link Parent
              Well I’m not proposing they be put in a prison. Just given their own piece of land to govern however the hell they want as long as they stop trying to force their shit on the rest of us. I just...

              Well I’m not proposing they be put in a prison. Just given their own piece of land to govern however the hell they want as long as they stop trying to force their shit on the rest of us. I just want them to have their own country and they can deal with their own shit (I just think it will not end well for them to allow them to be ruled how they wish to be. I just don’t want them dragging the rest of us with them).

              1 vote
  2. [14]
    CannibalisticApple
    Link
    So worth noting that Texas actually can't secede. There are many sources explaining why Texas doesn't actually have the right to secede due to the Constitution and federal government superceding...

    So worth noting that Texas actually can't secede. There are many sources explaining why Texas doesn't actually have the right to secede due to the Constitution and federal government superceding Texas's own documents. So even if the vote DOES go through and gets approved by the Texas legislature, the rest of the US isn't likely to agree.

    49 votes
    1. [13]
      bl4kers
      Link Parent
      The agreement of the rest of the country can't meaningfully stop secession. If anything, that's liable to raise tensions higher, fueling the opposition

      the rest of the US isn't likely to agree.

      The agreement of the rest of the country can't meaningfully stop secession. If anything, that's liable to raise tensions higher, fueling the opposition

      11 votes
      1. [9]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        Pretty sure "isn't likely to agree" is in this case, a euphemism for "goes to war".

        Pretty sure "isn't likely to agree" is in this case, a euphemism for "goes to war".

        39 votes
        1. [8]
          bl4kers
          Link Parent
          Ah, I missed that. Well, I think my statement still stands regardless

          Ah, I missed that. Well, I think my statement still stands regardless

          4 votes
          1. [7]
            Eric_the_Cerise
            Link Parent
            It does, kind of ... as I understand it, currently, even if they had a nationwide vote on the matter, and the majority of all Americans voted to let Texas leave ... secession is still not allowed.

            It does, kind of ... as I understand it, currently, even if they had a nationwide vote on the matter, and the majority of all Americans voted to let Texas leave ... secession is still not allowed.

            16 votes
            1. [6]
              bl4kers
              Link Parent
              As I see it, "not allowed" doesn't matter to a seceded state if others (particularly the UN) recognizes their sovereignty

              As I see it, "not allowed" doesn't matter to a seceded state if others (particularly the UN) recognizes their sovereignty

              3 votes
              1. [5]
                ackables
                Link Parent
                The US has veto power in the UN. No resolution recognizing seceded US states would ever pass.

                The US has veto power in the UN. No resolution recognizing seceded US states would ever pass.

                6 votes
                1. [4]
                  bl4kers
                  Link Parent
                  Are you referring to the veto power of the UN Security Council? It would come before the UN General Assembly which cannot be vetoed by the Security Council. Presumably if states starting seceding...

                  Are you referring to the veto power of the UN Security Council? It would come before the UN General Assembly which cannot be vetoed by the Security Council.

                  Presumably if states starting seceding that would all but mark the end of its status as a superpower and they'd probably lose vetoes anyway

                  1 vote
                  1. [3]
                    MimicSquid
                    Link Parent
                    Much like Russia lost its veto after having much of its land split off from it during the dissolution of the USSR.

                    Much like Russia lost its veto after having much of its land split off from it during the dissolution of the USSR.

                    3 votes
                    1. [2]
                      updawg
                      Link Parent
                      Russia still has veto power though.

                      Russia still has veto power though.

      2. [3]
        sparksbet
        Link Parent
        It did once before! Sherman won't even need to make it all the way to the sea this time.

        The agreement of the rest of the country can't meaningfully stop secession

        It did once before! Sherman won't even need to make it all the way to the sea this time.

        19 votes
  3. [22]
    Bet
    Link
    Right. Per the Office of the Texas Governor: So, let me guess — they want to leave the Union behind yet continue to funnel in all of that federal money to fund their freshly seceded, traitorous...

    Right. Per the Office of the Texas Governor:

    Texas is the proud home to 15 active duty military installations with an economic impact of over $100 billion.

    So, let me guess — they want to leave the Union behind yet continue to funnel in all of that federal money to fund their freshly seceded, traitorous state. And that is supposed to just… work.

    45 votes
    1. [10]
      l_one
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      You see, there's your problem in understanding. You're thinking past the surface level. Clearly, you shouldn't be doing that. (my bit of dark humor) At the risk of sounding slightly...

      You see, there's your problem in understanding. You're thinking past the surface level. Clearly, you shouldn't be doing that. (my bit of dark humor)

      At the risk of sounding slightly conspiracy-theorist (though current events have substantiation for at least parts of the following):

      My personal view / theory is that Russian information ops have been efforting towards steering the GOP (and other politics in other nations) in directions that are divisive and nationally harmful, in ways hoped to have favorable or useful outcomes for Russia's view of the geopolitical landscape around the world. On a simplified level, a more divided US dealing with a larger number of damaging and intractable issues of national politics is one that is (in theory) less able to act freely to counter Russian goals. Example: partisan divide delaying the latest Ukraine aid package for as long as it did, with very harmful impacts on Ukraine's strategic situation.

      32 votes
      1. [9]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        That's not really a theory. It's the official view on the topic by the entire US intelligence community with a ton of evidence backing it up. They of course aren't only targeting the Republican...

        That's not really a theory. It's the official view on the topic by the entire US intelligence community with a ton of evidence backing it up. They of course aren't only targeting the Republican party, but they do seem to be having a surprising amount of success there.

        50 votes
        1. [7]
          l_one
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Ah, yes, and thank you. I've become accustomed to presenting such things in a more neutral manner to be able to communicate with certain relatives of my girlfriend who are Republicans. We (the...

          Ah, yes, and thank you. I've become accustomed to presenting such things in a more neutral manner to be able to communicate with certain relatives of my girlfriend who are Republicans. We (the relatives and myself) have very different political views but I feel it is important for us to be able to have civil discussions so I've taken to the more neutral voice of "I believe" or "my personal view is" as opposed to "this is what is happening" or, less productively but more hilariously, "THIS IS THE OBVIOUS TRUTH YOU OBTUSE BRAINWASHED CULT-FOLLOWER!!!!11MOREEXCLAMATIONPOINTS".

          I feel it is... not needing pointing out which method of presentation keeps conversation calm and civil.

          That, and if your goal is to change a firmly held viewpoint or belief or political position, there is almost no success to be had through any method that makes your conversational partner angry or defensive. There are very few (and very valuable and special) people who have the level of mental flexibility and self-honesty to change their minds on a topic they firmly believe in the face of new information being presented by an angry person yelling at them about how wrong they are.

          17 votes
          1. [2]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            I think you’re right to be wary of making broad accusations, and not just with Republican friends. Some additional context: Foreign meddling does often happen, but there’s a question of how...

            I think you’re right to be wary of making broad accusations, and not just with Republican friends. Some additional context:

            Foreign meddling does often happen, but there’s a question of how effective it is. Accusations of foreign meddling tend to assume without evidence that it’s effective. It’s a ready-made way of discrediting any political groups you don’t like. It has a long history in US. There was MacCarthyism and the red scare in the 50’s. We’ve been worried about the Russians for a long time. And in other countries, accusations of CIA meddling are pretty common too.

            Nowadays it’s often people in the left making broad accusations. It can be an effective accusation because it’s pretty much always plausible. Sometimes it really is the CIA, or the Russians. There are real spies and real propaganda websites and campaigns.

            It’s rather weird to anyone who remembers history that many Republicans are so sympathetic with Russia nowadays. But that doesn’t mean it’s Russia propaganda doing it. There’s plenty of home-grown misinformation too, you know? The question I have is why are people so susceptible to some kinds of nonsense?

            And the trouble is, we’ve heard this sort of thing many times before. When made with no evidence, it’s an empty accusation. Some government is making accusations of CIA meddling again, ho hum.

            So I think it’s unhelpful to encourage others to throw such things around more on Tildes. It’s just not very interesting to read generic accusations about foreign spies from pseudonyms.

            For anyone really interested in espionage and propaganda, maybe find some interesting links to share about it from credible sources? I think it can be pretty interesting, but only when done in the right way.

            6 votes
            1. l_one
              Link Parent
              Concur on most counts. The frustrating thing is how asymmetrical the issue is. The effort / amount of resources needed to run an influence operation, or to falsely accuse of such, is so much less...

              Concur on most counts.

              The frustrating thing is how asymmetrical the issue is. The effort / amount of resources needed to run an influence operation, or to falsely accuse of such, is so much less than the effort / amount of resources needed to either qualitatively substantiate or disprove the claim. I don't have a particularly good solution to that.

              4 votes
          2. [4]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Well if it helps at all, Russian intelligence operations have also have great success recently by targeting the democratic party as well, primarily by stoking division over the war in Gaza. From...

            Well if it helps at all, Russian intelligence operations have also have great success recently by targeting the democratic party as well, primarily by stoking division over the war in Gaza. From their point of view, that invasion is a blessing because the longer and bloodier it is, the less attention and resources the west has to marshall to support Ukraine. It also is a fantastic wedge issue that they can use to divide more center leaning liberals from leftists in the US, who both have been a lot more Russia critical than conservatives as of late. There's plenty of solid evidence supporting that one as well.

            13 votes
            1. l_one
              Link Parent
              That makes sense to me, it's a very easy target for this since it starts off as a genuinely divisive topic. Russia's interests certainly align with anything that improves the odds for 'let's be...

              stoking division over the war in Gaza

              That makes sense to me, it's a very easy target for this since it starts off as a genuinely divisive topic. Russia's interests certainly align with anything that improves the odds for 'let's be friends with Russia' / 'all these dictators I've met are such great guys' / 'threaten to leave NATO' Trump.

              I worry about what will happen around the world (Ukraine / Europe / China / Taiwan) if Trump gets another term.

              5 votes
            2. [2]
              updawg
              Link Parent
              Yeah, Russia doesn't really care who they boost as long as they cause division. It doesn't matter if the Democrats win every election if a Civil War is triggered.

              Yeah, Russia doesn't really care who they boost as long as they cause division. It doesn't matter if the Democrats win every election if a Civil War is triggered.

              3 votes
              1. PuddleOfKittens
                Link Parent
                Disagree - AIUI Russia tries to keep their relationship with Israel fairly alright, because Israel does the same (Israel's geopolitical situation is weird). Boosting anti-Israel sentiment will...

                Disagree - AIUI Russia tries to keep their relationship with Israel fairly alright, because Israel does the same (Israel's geopolitical situation is weird). Boosting anti-Israel sentiment will tick off Israel, it's not a free lunch like boosting anti-Ukraine sentiment in the USA is.

                I'm not saying "Russia wouldn't do that", I'm saying they care about it, and presumably would be less willing to do so in traceable ways, even if only because the Mossad could boost pro-Ukraine or anti-Russia sentiment in retaliation.

        2. d32
          Link Parent
          It has been even confirmed by the russians - at least in regards to Europe. I think it was Lavrov who said directly, about 10 years ago, that unstable Europe is good for russia and of course it is...

          It has been even confirmed by the russians - at least in regards to Europe. I think it was Lavrov who said directly, about 10 years ago, that unstable Europe is good for russia and of course it is in their best interests to try to make that happen.

          3 votes
    2. [4]
      Eric_the_Cerise
      Link Parent
      Interestingly, I was just reading about the (first?) US Civil War ... and this is literally what started the actual shooting war ... the South seceded, but thought they also get to keep all of the...

      Interestingly, I was just reading about the (first?) US Civil War ... and this is literally what started the actual shooting war ... the South seceded, but thought they also get to keep all of the military forts and resources the North had built and supplied. Lincoln was, apparently, walking some kind of middle ground of pretending the South wasn't allowed to secede, but practically allowing them to, even allowing them to keep a lot of resources that, rightly, belonged to the North ... but he drew the line at military bases.

      12 votes
      1. [3]
        R3qn65
        Link Parent
        Would you mind sharing your source on this? Not saying there's no truth to this, but it is not the commonly accepted view of why the war began.

        Would you mind sharing your source on this? Not saying there's no truth to this, but it is not the commonly accepted view of why the war began.

        5 votes
        1. [2]
          Eric_the_Cerise
          Link Parent
          My source was the Wikipedia article on the US Civil War. Perhaps I'm paraphrasing it badly? But that's about as "commonly accepted" as you can get. Edit to add: Just before that point is this...

          My source was the Wikipedia article on the US Civil War. Perhaps I'm paraphrasing it badly? But that's about as "commonly accepted" as you can get.

          The American Civil War began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces opened fire on the Union-held Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter is located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

          Edit to add: Just before that point is this paragraph--

          [Lincoln] had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but said that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property, including forts, arsenals, mints, and customhouses that had been seized by the Southern states. The government would make no move to recover post offices, and if resisted, mail delivery would end at state lines. Where popular conditions did not allow peaceful enforcement of federal law, U.S. marshals and judges would be withdrawn. No mention was made of bullion lost from U.S. mints in Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina. He stated that it would be U.S. policy to only collect import duties at its ports; there could be no serious injury to the South to justify the armed revolution during his administration.

          13 votes
          1. R3qn65
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Ah, got it - ok, I can totally see how you got there. The Wikipedia article isn't very clear because they jump around between months. It's key to note that when Lincoln was making that speech,...

            Ah, got it - ok, I can totally see how you got there. The Wikipedia article isn't very clear because they jump around between months. It's key to note that when Lincoln was making that speech, most states had not yet seceded. His statement was intended to be a reassurance that the federal government had no intention of invading unseceded southern states wholesale, which is what southern elites were popularly claiming was Lincoln's intention. From the beginning, though, Lincoln had no intention of letting the union fracture by secession, which I think is generally substantiated by his campaign speeches, etc. I'd also argue that him saying "we intend to recover seized federal property by force" is an indication that he had no intention of tacitly allowing secession. The battle for Fort Sumter wasn't because Lincoln drew the line at military bases, it was just the first of many potential flashpoints. (It was also the first indicator of Lincoln's absolutely brilliant strategic mind).

            13 votes
    3. [6]
      agentsquirrel
      Link Parent
      If TX seceded, the US military would abandon the military installations, probably destroying them in the process, assuming there isn't some mass defection of soldiers (which would be treason). The...

      Texas is the proud home to 15 active duty military installations with an economic impact of over $100 billion.

      If TX seceded, the US military would abandon the military installations, probably destroying them in the process, assuming there isn't some mass defection of soldiers (which would be treason). The sites would essentially be military bases in a foreign country. TX my get the land, but they won't get the facilities, equipment, and personnel. I think this is where a lot of Texans are mistaken. They think they can simply make "mini US" and everything gets divided all nicely. Also, they get to be on the other side of a border wall.

      10 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. agentsquirrel
          Link Parent
          Agreed on the military installations on foreign soil, however, these require cooperation of the nation hosting the installations. The relationship with the new country of Texas would likely be...

          Agreed on the military installations on foreign soil, however, these require cooperation of the nation hosting the installations. The relationship with the new country of Texas would likely be quite tenuous. But I agree that the US could maintain bases in what would be a foreign country. Arguably it would be in the best interests of both the US and Texas.

          I also agree no one in their right mind would secede or allow a state to secede, but our politics have gone off the rails. One party has gone off the rails, to be more specific. Who would have though we'd have a violent insurrection at the Capitol, we'd have politicians booing police officers who were injured in protecting the Capitol, and the instigator of it all still walking around free, and now convicted of 34 felony counts still running for president and having a real good chance of winning? We're in a very crazy timeline. If Trump loses the election, all bets are off. Of course, the same can be said if he wins.

          1 vote
      2. [3]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        Presumably more than a couple nukes down there, too. Probably full-sized missile silos. Even assuming the US would consider allowing Texas to leave ... the logistics of formally agreeing on what...

        Presumably more than a couple nukes down there, too. Probably full-sized missile silos.

        Even assuming the US would consider allowing Texas to leave ... the logistics of formally agreeing on what "belongs" to who, then moving all the personnel, ordnance, etc., out of there peacefully....

        It'd be a lot hairier than even Brexit was.

        4 votes
        1. updawg
          Link Parent
          No nukes or missile silos in Texas. But Air Force Global Strike Command is headquartered in Louisiana, less than 30 minutes from Texas.

          No nukes or missile silos in Texas. But Air Force Global Strike Command is headquartered in Louisiana, less than 30 minutes from Texas.

          3 votes
        2. nukeman
          Link Parent
          Pantex is located near Amarillo. It’s where all U.S. nuclear weapons are assembled, and there’s a large stockpile awaiting disassembly, along with excess plutonium pits awaiting disposition.

          Pantex is located near Amarillo. It’s where all U.S. nuclear weapons are assembled, and there’s a large stockpile awaiting disassembly, along with excess plutonium pits awaiting disposition.

          3 votes
      3. nosewings
        Link Parent
        Would they not be more likely to simply sit where they are and make the Texas government put its money where its mouth was?

        If TX seceded, the US military would abandon the military installations

        Would they not be more likely to simply sit where they are and make the Texas government put its money where its mouth was?

        2 votes
    4. Khue
      Link Parent
      Also, they probably still want FEMA assistance...

      Also, they probably still want FEMA assistance...

      6 votes
  4. [21]
    Eric_the_Cerise
    (edited )
    Link
    I've always had a very deep-seated, fundamental disagreement with (hatred for) the argument that states are not allowed to secede. First, bluntly, history is written by the winners. If, in some...

    I've always had a very deep-seated, fundamental disagreement with (hatred for) the argument that states are not allowed to secede.

    First, bluntly, history is written by the winners. If, in some magical alternate universe where the South had won the Civil War, there would have been two countries afterwards. The (remaining) United States would not have spent the next 160 years pretending the Confederacy was still part of the Union, and grumbling about how they're not paying their taxes.

    Second, the primary reason the US is such a (pardon the expression) shit-hole country these days can be traced directly back to the decision to force the South (literally, at gunpoint) to stay in the Union and like it, or else.

    But much more significantly, I have a real problem with the idea of a country created by--and based upon--democratic governance, saying that some group within its community is not allowed to leave the country after a fair/honest democratic vote choosing to do so.

    That goes as well for Catalonia and similar regions/movements. If Texas actually votes to leave the US, just let 'em go. They've been living in a fantasy world for decades, anyway; let them sink or swim on their own.


    Edit to add: This is a late edit, after a lot of discussion has already happened ... but it just occurred to me that any of the 100+ Native American tribes & nations currently stuck in some weird semi-autonomous-but-still-subservient status probably have at least as good a claim to secession as Texas. Especially considering many/most of them never actually got the opportunity to vote on joining in the first place.

    I wonder how many of them have already explored this option?

    18 votes
    1. TemulentTeatotaler
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      The long history of problems in the South is due to rewarding political violence and screwing up Reconstructionism. Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson favoured white Southerners /...
      • Exemplary

      traced directly back to the decision to force the South (literally, at gunpoint) to stay in the Union and like it, or else.

      The long history of problems in the South is due to rewarding political violence and screwing up Reconstructionism. Lincoln was assassinated and Andrew Johnson favoured white Southerners / northern Copperheads. He attempted to veto the Civil Rights Act of 1866, revoked Sherman's Special Orders, and pardoned/restored the Confederate elites.

      The same people were put back in power and the federal gov't relegated authority back to the state, so they recreated the pre-war social order by an expansion of Black Codes into the Jim Crow era.

      And because the fed didn't protect black southerners but did count them for the purpose of representation we rewarded disenfranchisement.

      But much more significantly, I have a real problem with the idea of a country created by--and based upon--democratic governance, saying that some group within its community is not allowed to leave the country after a fair/honest democratic vote choosing to do so.

      (*except for women, non-landowners, and black people (who get a negative vote), and where land is more important that people)

      Presumably that also means Dallas and Austin can secede from Neo Texas? And conservative neighborhoods can secede from them? That is a good recipe for Balkanization.

      One of the foundational principles of democracies is limitations on authority of the gov't and guaranteed protections for the people. The 90% cannot vote themselves entitled to the 10%'s labor and property. Why should you be able to vote away someone's home and country?

      And as has already been pointed out elsewhere, the state doesn't own everything. Texas wouldn't resemble its present self without the support and protections of the U.S., and there are significant federal investments in it. Why would it be allowed to steal those?

      If Texas actually votes to leave the US, just let 'em go. They've been living in a fantasy world for decades, anyway; let them sink or swim on their own.

      Texas has been fairly purple for decades. When you say "Texas" that includes people like the thousands of women Texas would like to force to carry their rapist's child who would no longer be eligible to travel to another state or be given federal protections.

      That sort of "burn the system" shtick appeals to a desire for simplicity in a complex reality. I find it hard to believe that anyone calling for that, when presented with a realistic representation of what that would entail, would remain in favor of it.

      41 votes
    2. [6]
      Raistlin
      Link Parent
      The only real counter to your argument that I'd have is that letting the Confederacy go would've been abandoning every single black American to chattel slavery. I know that's not why the Union...

      The only real counter to your argument that I'd have is that letting the Confederacy go would've been abandoning every single black American to chattel slavery. I know that's not why the Union fought, but the result was still the abolition of slavery in both north and south. The South did not have the right to abuse it's African population, and it would've sucked if the US allowed it.

      17 votes
      1. [5]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        I mean, not every one. Many, many free black Americans lived throughout the US at the time. I expect the Underground Railroad would have continued in some fashion, at the very least, granting...

        I mean, not every one. Many, many free black Americans lived throughout the US at the time. I expect the Underground Railroad would have continued in some fashion, at the very least, granting asylum to any black ex-slaves that managed to escape and get across the border, and potentially working in secret to help to free more, help them get to the border, etc.

        It's not a pretty idea, but I do believe that the "slave era" ended around then, globally. If the US had either let the South go, or not fought (first figuratively, then literally) for abolition, that slavery in the South would have ended on its own, one way or another, in the next few decades.

        It is interesting to think about what would have become of an independent Confederacy ... I'm inclined to think they would have soon found themselves at war, either with the North or with other countries, over their continued addiction to slave labor, or at the least, faced steadily worsening relations -- effectively, sanctions and such-like -- with most of the rest of the world.

        5 votes
        1. [4]
          Raistlin
          Link Parent
          Perhaps, but that would've been cold comfort for the slaves of the era. I can't speak for what could've happened, but it would take a lot of other benefits for me to believe that allowing chattel...

          Perhaps, but that would've been cold comfort for the slaves of the era. I can't speak for what could've happened, but it would take a lot of other benefits for me to believe that allowing chattel slavery to continue when you have the power to stop it is in any way worth it.

          This is not to say things were rosy for black people after the war, they weren't. But an undeniable good goal is that the institution of slavery was destroyed.

          13 votes
          1. DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            In many ways, things were "not rosy" because after Lincoln the federal government pivoted to a much softer attitude towards the former rebel states and permitted slavery to exist in all but name...

            In many ways, things were "not rosy" because after Lincoln the federal government pivoted to a much softer attitude towards the former rebel states and permitted slavery to exist in all but name under Jim Crow. And it's how we went from having Black led local governments to lynchings and towns that to this day will pretend that an elected Black official just wasn't elected.

            Ah @temulentteatotaler said it better, here

            10 votes
          2. [2]
            Eric_the_Cerise
            Link Parent
            Unfortunately, the biggest example of secession that we have in the US revolves around the Civil War. I'm not arguing for slavery. I'm arguing for the right to vote to leave a democratic...

            Unfortunately, the biggest example of secession that we have in the US revolves around the Civil War.

            I'm not arguing for slavery.

            I'm arguing for the right to vote to leave a democratic government that you no longer wish to be a part of. Other good examples include the Catalonia Independence Movement and the Quebec Independence Movement; and that's just a couple, off the top of my head. I don't actually know much about either; I just know that there is a widespread tendency in democratic countries to prevent regions from choosing to leave. And that bothers me.

            3 votes
            1. MimicSquid
              Link Parent
              A country that doesn't resist secession is like a body without an immune system. It will quickly dissolve. It's not unique to democracies, either. Are nation-states in general offensive, in that...

              A country that doesn't resist secession is like a body without an immune system. It will quickly dissolve. It's not unique to democracies, either. Are nation-states in general offensive, in that they attempt to maintain their national cohesion?

              11 votes
    3. [4]
      ChingShih
      Link Parent
      It goes back a little further than that. When the British withdrew from the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800s without actually abolishing slavery, they had essentially codified the...

      Second, the primary reason the US is such a (pardon the expression) shit-hole country these days can be traced directly back to the decision to force the South (literally, at gunpoint) to stay in the Union and like it, or else.

      It goes back a little further than that. When the British withdrew from the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800s without actually abolishing slavery, they had essentially codified the idea of a generational slavery dependent upon existing slaves giving birth to children who were understood to have been immediately born into legal bondage (in this case chattel slavery). There was an immediate need for slaves to reproduce at a rate that would replenish existing persons while keeping up with plantation growth. If generational slavery was not an entirely new concept, it was a highly desirable one that allowed slave-holding territories throughout the Americas to continue their way of life. It also further radicalized slave holders who felt that their primary source of income was at risk and that their way of life was being attacked. Slave holders needed a continual source of slave labor in order for their economy to function and for their classist system to work.

      This dependency upon other people's labor became so culturally and politically ingrained that it became a point of contention in the US Congress to the extent that the Missouri Compromise was not just about bringing in one slave state for every free state that joined the union in order for the Senate to be "balanced," but for that policy to continue until such time that slavery-supporting politicians and states could find some new way to get what they wanted. Because above all, that was what it was about. This also allowed the idea of a "bloodless war" and other myths to be sown into the social fabric of high society in the southern states.

      However there was another dependency, and that was trade. The southern states needed to be able to export their cotton, tobacco, and other wares, which meant that any Congress or Executive branch that they deemed hostile to their points of views, threatened their economy. They refused to substantially industrialize, or even accept substantial railroad infrastructure, which gave northern states an opportunity to exploit both a national trade imbalance and a dependency on international trade. While there are myths that the northern states forced the southern states into a disadvantageous position, the southern states were seeing a startling trend of population growth in the north outpacing the south. By the time of the 1860 election, the one where southern states said they wouldn't accept the results if Lincoln one, the north outnumbered the south (and thus imbalanced the House of Representatives) by more than 6:4. It's my understanding that that was counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person. So white southerners were substantially outnumbered. It also doesn't take into account the hundreds of thousands of French Canadian, Irish, British, and German immigrants who would arrive each year, with many of them being staunchly against slavery.

      Whether the slave-holding states had remained in the US or not, it seems unlikely that their social development and economic security would have been sustainable for very long, even if the British interceded with highly supportive trade agreements.

      As an aside, both the provisional constitution and the ratified constitution of the confederate states sure talked about slavery a lot. But it's the Cornerstone Speech that really drives home that certain people were Hell-bent on retaining institutionalized slavery as well as other racist ideals that were becoming less and less popular in 1800s Europe.

      15 votes
      1. nukeman
        Link Parent
        Let also not forget the fact that cotton and tobacco are both intensive crops. Prior to the development of modern fertilizers, the land would be stripped of nutrients after a couple of decades, so...

        Let also not forget the fact that cotton and tobacco are both intensive crops. Prior to the development of modern fertilizers, the land would be stripped of nutrients after a couple of decades, so plantations would move westward to “virgin” lands, and repeat the cycle.

        7 votes
      2. [2]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        Jesus, I'd forgotten about the Missouri Compromise. Of course it goes back further. There's hardly ever a true "first step" for any bit of history. The US was built on slavery. Much of the US was...

        Jesus, I'd forgotten about the Missouri Compromise.

        Of course it goes back further. There's hardly ever a true "first step" for any bit of history. The US was built on slavery. Much of the US was motivated to end that institution, either "ASAP", or "immediately". The US Abolitionist movement predates the creation of the US as a country ... so this tension goes back a long way.

        But I'm not sure we're even disagreeing on anything here?

        6 votes
        1. ChingShih
          Link Parent
          We're not disagreeing. :) I just think it's worth noting that the obstructionism as a means of "compromise" goes back a long way and the roots of displacency really evolved out of the period where...

          We're not disagreeing. :) I just think it's worth noting that the obstructionism as a means of "compromise" goes back a long way and the roots of displacency really evolved out of the period where there was an effort to balance entrance to the Union entirely based around how the institution of chattel slavery would be upheld or balanced.

          4 votes
    4. [3]
      hungariantoast
      Link Parent
      You don't have to universally support or oppose any and every secessionist (or "self-determination") movement. You absolutely can pick and choose which movements you support based on why those...

      You don't have to universally support or oppose any and every secessionist (or "self-determination") movement. You absolutely can pick and choose which movements you support based on why those movements want to secede or how they plan to secede.

      Some county in eastern Washington wants to join Idaho because Washington passed strict gun control legislation? They can go fuck themselves.

      El Paso County wants to secede from Texas and join New Mexico so they can re-instate abortion rights? Very cool, let's get it done.

      You don't have to support every secessionist movement equally. You can pick and choose. That does not make you a hypocrite, it makes you principled.

      (Also these are just random examples that I have zero interest arguing about the specifics of, I'm just trying to make a general point here.)

      13 votes
      1. [2]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        I disagree with your premise, but I am skipping over it; agree to disagree. The bigger point is that, in the US, it is fundamentally written into law (in Federal law, SCOTUS rulings, and--I...

        I disagree with your premise, but I am skipping over it; agree to disagree.

        The bigger point is that, in the US, it is fundamentally written into law (in Federal law, SCOTUS rulings, and--I believe--even in the Constitution itself) that states are not allowed to secede, at all, ever, under any circumstances.

        And in my mind, that's just flat-out wrong.

        I guess the problem is that allowing it, even in principle, opens up exactly the kind of hornets' nest of secessionist movements that you describe ... all the way down to the whole "Sovereign Citizen" fantasy ... and I don't really have an answer for that.

        5 votes
        1. psi
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          It's not impossible, however, since anything is possible through constitutional amendment. And sure, the barriers for amending the Constitution are high, but for something as consequential as...

          It's not impossible, however, since anything is possible through constitutional amendment. And sure, the barriers for amending the Constitution are high, but for something as consequential as secession, wouldn't you want the process to be difficult?

          And honestly, I don't find this hypothetical to be that far-fetched. I can conceive of the possibility that, if Republicans were to succeed in calling a constitutional convention, they could include an Amendment guaranteeing the right to secede whenever some conservative grievance is not duly addressed.

          6 votes
    5. [3]
      R3qn65
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Several thoughts - First, this is an area where principles collide with reality. It's hard to argue that people shouldn't have the right to self-determination as a blanket principle, but the...

      Several thoughts -

      First, this is an area where principles collide with reality. It's hard to argue that people shouldn't have the right to self-determination as a blanket principle, but the implementation is where things break down. As @hungariantoast wrote, you don't have to universally support (or oppose) every secessionist movement.

      This was the case for Lincoln as well. Rather than make blanket arguments against secession, when he was making his case for preserving the union by force, Lincoln generally listed arguments in favor of secession and then argued that they didn't apply to the southern states.

      He did make three blanket arguments, however, which you may find interesting. First, he argued that allowing secession encouraged the use of secession as the solution to political disagreements, which would naturally lead to successive subdivisions that left nobody connected to one another. (His example was that if the south seceded, what was to stop south Carolina from then seceding itself, and so on?)

      Next, Lincoln questioned whether there were moral differences between secession and exclusion. Put simply, imagine that the south had constituded 51% of America by some measure. What would be the practical difference between the south choosing to leave the union and the south choosing to expel the north from the union (which Lincoln assumed was clearly impermissible?)

      Finally, Lincoln argued that the other provisions for dissent in a republic (elections, amendments, and even revolution) were adequate without needing to resort to secession. (The above summary was adapted from Lindsay and Wellman. Their paper goes into the arguments specific to the confederacy as well, and is worth reading in order to understand the incisivieness of Lincoln's mind).

      There are other collisions between principle and practice. Taking the example of the American civil war, for instance, there was no referendum on seceding. It was only a democratic choice inasmuch as the preciously-elected representatives decided to do it. (Lincoln called this out quite explicitly - he argued that only in south Carolina was it even conceivable that a majority of citizens supported secession, and questioned the legitimacy of the elected representatives in at least two southern states based on the coercion observed.)

      But even if we accept that the decision to secede was democratic, the argument that in a democracy, if a group democratically decides to do something it must be allowed, is not on particularly strong foundations. There are all kinds of things that subgroups want to do that they are not allowed to do. That's sort of the definition of democracy, in fact - the will of the minority bowing to the will of the majority.

      And drawing lines is not so easy. Let's say a majority of Texans want to leave the union. Well, if we look at level of the nation, the majority doesn't want Texas to leave. I'd be willing to concede that the national level is maybe a bit too broad, but is the state level not too broad as well? What if we examine things more closely in Texas itself -what if the Dallas-fort worth metro area doesn't want to secede? Why should they be dragged along into an independent Texasistan if they'd rather stay with the union? What about even smaller groups - should the hasidic Jews in NYC be allowed to take their neighborhoods and secede from the Union?

      On a totally separate note, I strongly disagree with the characterization of the US as a shithole country - because honestly, man, have you ever been to somewhere that really sucks? - but that's sort of irrelevant because I'd also disagree with the argument that the primary reason for the US's woes is that the south lost the civil war and was forced to remain in the union. (Especially since in a separate comment you projected that the north and south likely would've gone to war within years anyway.)

      13 votes
      1. [2]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        By and large, you make good points all around; but I want to take exception to this one. I'm not arguing that any group gets to pick and choose the things they want to have in the larger democracy...

        the argument that in a democracy, if a group democratically decides to do something it must be allowed, is not on particularly strong foundations.

        By and large, you make good points all around; but I want to take exception to this one. I'm not arguing that any group gets to pick and choose the things they want to have in the larger democracy they are a part of. I'm arguing that they have the right to choose to leave. The notion that the US inherently recognizes the "natural right" of people to revolt against their own government ... but does not recognize the right to vote to leave peacefully ... that simply boggles the mind.

        Additionally, in this particular case, we are talking about Texas, which seceded from Mexico (illegally, I guess) and then the US accepted Texas' application to join the US, and then the US fought a war against Mexico justifying this ...

        Again, I'm not arguing for every county and village and special interest group to vote to get what they want on any given Tuesday. But the people of Texas voted, democratically, to join the US in 1845. If they vote democratically to leave the US today, they should have that option.

        4 votes
        1. MimicSquid
          Link Parent
          What makes the State of Texas the appropriately granular level to respect an attempt to secession? The current state boundaries aren't analogous to what was Texas at the time of its inclusion in...

          What makes the State of Texas the appropriately granular level to respect an attempt to secession? The current state boundaries aren't analogous to what was Texas at the time of its inclusion in the Union. Should the same right be added to the original 13 colonies, since they chose to come on board having been existing entities beforehand? What about California? It was also a Republic. (For 20 days, whatever.) Should Oregon and Washington be allowed to return to Canada? Any state at all choosing to go their own way by arguing that the land was previously administered by a native tribe and thus have an independent right to the land free of federal government interference? Each state chose, for one reason or another, to become part of the USA, and none of us (barring the First Nations) have an ancestral right to the ground we're currently occupying.

          None of the people who voted for Texas to join the union are alive to change their mind on the topic. Why should the current residents of Texas get a special dispensation to walk off with a chunk of the USA?

          7 votes
    6. [3]
      hungariantoast
      Link Parent
      Letting the Confederacy secede, or the United States losing the Civil War, in what ways, for either of those scenarios, do you think the United States would be better off today?

      Second, the primary reason the US is such a (pardon the expression) shit-hole country these days can be traced directly back to the decision to force the South (literally, at gunpoint) to stay in the Union and like it, or else.

      Letting the Confederacy secede, or the United States losing the Civil War, in what ways, for either of those scenarios, do you think the United States would be better off today?

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        Eric_the_Cerise
        Link Parent
        Short answer ... who knows? But, in broad strokes, I think civil rights in the remaining (hmm, 39?) states would look a lot better than they do now. Tentatively, perhaps women would have gotten...

        Short answer ... who knows?

        But, in broad strokes, I think civil rights in the remaining (hmm, 39?) states would look a lot better than they do now. Tentatively, perhaps women would have gotten the vote (and property rights, and etc) sooner. Even more tentatively, perhaps the current disconnected-from-Reality version of the Republican Party might never have developed. It seems to me that today's Republican Party "platform" is almost entirely driven by racism, wishing for the good old days when white men ran the country and black boys shined their shoes.

        Globally, perhaps the US dominance over the world would have been a lot smaller, which might have been a lot better for the rest of the world.

        ... or maybe Hitler would have won. It's hard to speculate.

        PS: I'd actually written most of a response to your previous version -- which I thought was a perfectly acceptable post -- before you removed/deleted it.

        5 votes
        1. hungariantoast
          Link Parent
          Yes, I deleted that comment because I find that, when someone makes a statement to the tune of “the main reason this country is so bad is because it didn’t leave the rebel slave states alone”, the...

          PS: I'd actually written most of a response to your previous version -- which I thought was a perfectly acceptable post -- before you removed/deleted it.

          Yes, I deleted that comment because I find that, when someone makes a statement to the tune of “the main reason this country is so bad is because it didn’t leave the rebel slave states alone”, the burden is generally their’s to justify such a statement.

          7 votes
  5. [2]
    SteeeveTheSteve
    Link
    I seem to remember the last attempt at secession didn't go so well. Seriously, "Texit" just isn't an option.

    I seem to remember the last attempt at secession didn't go so well. Seriously, "Texit" just isn't an option.

    States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

    13 votes
    1. SloMoMonday
      Link Parent
      I often hear secessionsts longing for the great Republic of Texas to return so I looked through the cliff notes. It reads like a group of libertarians getting played by larger powers. They grabbed...

      I often hear secessionsts longing for the great Republic of Texas to return so I looked through the cliff notes. It reads like a group of libertarians getting played by larger powers.

      They grabbed Mexican land, refused to pay taxes, insisted on keeping slaves, took US troops when the army came after them, enforced their own special brand of disenfranchising non-whites/women, and immediately folded when their slave crops crashed.

      It'd be a tragically funny event if it does somehow happen again. Like brexit, they spend all effort campaigning for clout, focusing on culture war issues. But in the end they don't an actual plan for when they win. Worst case, Day 1 ICE and border patrol gets pulled and we get all the shocked Pikachu faces.

      10 votes
  6. [6]
    ignorabimus
    Link
    To be honest I do support this, but for totally different reasons that the Republicans; reducing America into a smaller coagulation of states reduces their geopolitical capacity.

    To be honest I do support this, but for totally different reasons that the Republicans; reducing America into a smaller coagulation of states reduces their geopolitical capacity.

    7 votes
    1. Eric_the_Cerise
      Link Parent
      Interesting ... and probably, never-said-out-loud, the real reason secession is "not allowed". OTOH, Texas leaving would sure help out the Democrats in the remaining 49. It's interesting to read...

      Interesting ... and probably, never-said-out-loud, the real reason secession is "not allowed".

      OTOH, Texas leaving would sure help out the Democrats in the remaining 49. It's interesting to read just how much stuff the US govt got done in the short period of time when the South's representatives were no longer part of Congress (due to seceding).

      6 votes
    2. [4]
      ChingShih
      Link Parent
      Purely as a good-natured thought-experiment (having recently had this exact discussion with a British friend), if the US were to be replaced as the global hegemon (my friend's term), who do you...

      Purely as a good-natured thought-experiment (having recently had this exact discussion with a British friend), if the US were to be replaced as the global hegemon (my friend's term), who do you think would be the natural successor? The EU (with 38% more people but half the GDP and all of the bureaucracy)? Who would you prefer to be the successor, if it's not the "natural" choice?

      And is there a geopolitical void to fill?

      6 votes
      1. [3]
        tauon
        Link Parent
        It’d be China, in my opinion (as an EU citizen). We still do not have a supranational military, and while the bureaucracy isn’t as bad as you suggested, the lack of unified defense is kind of a...

        It’d be China, in my opinion (as an EU citizen).

        We still do not have a supranational military, and while the bureaucracy isn’t as bad as you suggested, the lack of unified defense is kind of a dealbreaker to becoming the next “global hegemon” – although the EU has also realized this, and there’s been pushes, at the forefront by France & Germany, to change that.

        6 votes
        1. [2]
          KapteinB
          Link Parent
          China is possibly on the onset of a rapid decline caused by demographic collapse. They'd probably use their position as global hegemon to conquer Taiwan, establish dominance of the South China...

          China is possibly on the onset of a rapid decline caused by demographic collapse. They'd probably use their position as global hegemon to conquer Taiwan, establish dominance of the South China Sea, and do some other shenanigans, before being replaced as the top dog in a few decades.

          I'm not sure the EU would even want the position as global hegemon.

          4 votes
          1. tauon
            Link Parent
            While I agree, even if that happens and their population declined by a couple hundred million, they’d still outnumber the EU population by a factor of ≈2 in that scenario. And obviously, once...

            While I agree, even if that happens and their population declined by a couple hundred million, they’d still outnumber the EU population by a factor of ≈2 in that scenario.

            And obviously, once Trump upends all support for the Ukraine and the world gets to see how that plays out with regards to the EU stemming most of the support, they’ll start invading Taiwan.

            3 votes
  7. [2]
    FishFingus
    Link
    Oh, please do it. The GQP really is the dog that caught the car. They keep counting on the adults in the room to step in and stop them from doing ridiculously stupid things for attention, just so...

    Oh, please do it. The GQP really is the dog that caught the car. They keep counting on the adults in the room to step in and stop them from doing ridiculously stupid things for attention, just so they can later whine and stamp their feet for a myopic audience on Xitter - "We wanted to make x great, but the deep state wouldn't let us!"

    I can't wait for the adults to get tired of dialling an ambulance. They need to reach the Find Out stage with this nonsense in the same way they have with Roe v Wade. I want to see the federal government let this go nice and far, and then announce that all those military bases will be closing and their personnel relocated. Goodbye revenue, goodbye towns. It's probably not going to happen, but it couldn't happen to a better bunch of bastards.

    7 votes
    1. MimicSquid
      Link Parent
      With regards to the closing & relocating of military bases, there's a reason Space Command is going to be in Colorado instead of in the south. With the disruptions to reproductive care available...

      With regards to the closing & relocating of military bases, there's a reason Space Command is going to be in Colorado instead of in the south. With the disruptions to reproductive care available to service members and their families, the relocation is already happening.

      6 votes
  8. [7]
    BeanBurrito
    Link
    What about all of the Texans who don't want to secede?

    What about all of the Texans who don't want to secede?

    4 votes
    1. [5]
      moocow1452
      Link Parent
      They can make their own state and rejoin the US, obviously.

      They can make their own state and rejoin the US, obviously.

      7 votes
      1. [3]
        BeanBurrito
        Link Parent
        Assuming they are not the majority in Texas, they aren't concentrated in one place in Texas. What happens to their homes and property? What happens to their rights?

        Assuming they are not the majority in Texas, they aren't concentrated in one place in Texas.

        What happens to their homes and property?

        What happens to their rights?

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          KapteinB
          Link Parent
          I highly doubt the government of independent Texas would be big into collectivization and nationalization, so I assume they keep it. They'd lose their rights as US citizens, and gain new rights as...

          What happens to their homes and property?

          I highly doubt the government of independent Texas would be big into collectivization and nationalization, so I assume they keep it.

          What happens to their rights?

          They'd lose their rights as US citizens, and gain new rights as Texas citizens. And since Republicans tend to be all about that constitution, I assume they'd write a new one that would be very similar to the constitution of the USA.

          2 votes
          1. DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            Those are two big assumptions that I don't think are borne out by what has happened in the past nor what the same groups of people that want to secede also say. I'd be surprised if active...

            Those are two big assumptions that I don't think are borne out by what has happened in the past nor what the same groups of people that want to secede also say. I'd be surprised if active opponents were unharassed, or worse, depending on their local law enforcement and their skin color. And despite the arguments about states rights, the Confederacy didn't allow states to abolish slavery. Based on Project 2025 I don't see evidence that a new constitution would actually protect many of the same fundamental rights.

            9 votes
      2. public
        Link Parent
        Like what Scotland should do with the EU after they voted to remain in the UK, then got stabbed in the back by Brexit.

        Like what Scotland should do with the EU after they voted to remain in the UK, then got stabbed in the back by Brexit.

        2 votes
  9. jredd23
    Link
    We have had the Florida man meme and now the Conservative Texan man meme - what a bunch of losers. Sad given how a NJ kid like me has met so many cool Texans over the years.

    We have had the Florida man meme and now the Conservative Texan man meme - what a bunch of losers. Sad given how a NJ kid like me has met so many cool Texans over the years.