![[Post to Twitter]](http://simon-jester.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
The Texas Question
Posted by Prof | Filed under Take A Stand
So, there is quite a bit of blow harding going on in the country about Gov. Perry’s statements. So, intellectual curiosity got the better of me and I had to poke in the actual history of Texas and how it became it state.
A quick precis, Texas declared independence and became their own country in 1836. In the first elections held in this new country, the citizens of the Republic voted to become a member state of the United States, but backbiting and backstabbing and political infighting between Texas and DC prevented it from happening until 1845. The annexation of Texas to the US was so divisive (including late-night, quorum-free votes in DC to annex the independent nation whether they wanted it or not and using military force if required) that eventually TX and DC decided the only way it could be accomplished was for the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States to be passed. Unfortunately for Gov. Perry, not once in this agreement, nor any subsequent or supplanting documentation, is the right of Texas to secede and become and independent Republic again ever mentioned.
However:
New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution
Nowhere does it say that what these four additional states will be called, where they will be located within the territory of the Republic, how large these states must be, or, and here is the kicker, that they MUST treat to become states of the United States. That’s right folks, we have ourselves a loophole. Now, let us look at a map:
An argument could be made, not a good one mind you, that Texas already did this when the State of Texas sold off the chunk of land to the US that eventually was incorporated into several other states. But you would be wrong. At best, it only means that Texas has divided itself ONCE and the Federal government did the dividing. That still leaves three more states that can be added into the current borders of the State of Texas. (Really it is still four, but I’m trying to throw a bone here since the State of West Texas was later dissolved.)
Nowhere, in any of the eight constitutions that the State of Texas has been under since it first declared independence, seceded from the US and joined the Confederacy, rejoined the Union under Reconstruction, no where, has anything ever been written to disallow the division of Texas into several smaller States. Further, nowhere does it say that those states have to join the Union if they do separate.
Gov. Perry, your duty seems clear. You have the power, never once retracted, to divide your State into five States. You can leave the borders of “Texas” as the city limits of El Paso if you want to do so and divvy up the rest into New Texas, South Texas, Panhandle Texas, and East Texas. These four new Texan States would be free to join the Union dependent upon the will of the voters in each area. Or, you know, to not join. Personally, I just want to know you are doing for the right reasons. Your Bill Of Rights has remained more full bodied and well enumerated since the inception of the Republic. (Your current hash of amendments to the Constitution of 1876 is worse than here in FL, and that’s saying something; but that’s another show.) If you are ready to follow the letter of the law, to stand up to what you see as an over-reaching, over-taxing, power hungry Federal government, do it the right way. Use the Law correctly: not as a sword to thrust at your political opponents, but as a shield to protect your citizens. You have a moral obligation, sir, to do what is right for your people.
And I will stand with you.
Help Support Simon-Jester.org!
April 21st, 2009
That current hash of amendments is what keeps us free. In order to limit the damage carpetbaggers could do during reconstruction, the post Civil War constitution basically requires amending to do anything. This means 3/4ths votes and all of that, which is among the reasons why we’re a right-to-work state with no state income tax and a state legislator with a family of five can qualify for food stamps.
April 22nd, 2009
Woo hoo! God bless TX!
April 22nd, 2009
[...] PROF. BERNARDO DE LA PAZ on the Texas Question. [...]
April 22nd, 2009
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but: Each of these new states would have 2 US Senators, and the number of electoral votes for each state would be the sum of the number of US senators and US congressional districts. So is the decision about whether to create new states solely in the hands of the Texas governor and legislature and voters?
April 22nd, 2009
and a state legislator with a family of five can qualify for food stamps.
At $7,200 a year, a state legislator who has no outside job qualifies under both the gross and net income tests even if he has no other household members.
April 22nd, 2009
It is true that “state” is used as a synonym for “country” in other parts of the English-speaking world.
However, in the U.S., the term generally means one of the states of the United States.
This is especially true in the context of a treaty of statehood (wherein “the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas”) and especially true when the word “States” is capitalized.
This meaning is made even clearer in the passage extending the Missouri Compromise (”and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. “) — Clearly the Missouri Compromise would be extended to new members of the United States, not to foreign nation-states.
So no, Texas has no authority to spin off foreign “states.”
April 22nd, 2009
Howardl, the new states would only have US senators and US Congressmen if they wanted to apply for Statehood to the USGov. And no, DC doesn’t have a voice in whether or not TX does it, just the people of the STATE.
April 22nd, 2009
Good luck with the ever growing socialist state, we’re chunking up the duces here in Texas.
Peace out!
April 22nd, 2009
You left one important bit of calculus out of the equation here, Prof -
Regardless of any plausible legal arguments, the Union has had a history (1/1!) of not letting states secede. Texas is a big net tax plus (ie more taxes go out than in) and, besides, its a matter of pride for whoever is in power.
Perry might as well run lobby for independence for all of Texas, as Texas, and the results will be the same. Even if some court does recognize it as legitimate (and your argument seems very frail at best; plausible, but even an honest judge could be forgiven for going the other way, and there are many not-honest judges,) fact is that it will be squashed in short order.
April 22nd, 2009
There is one point of absurdity whenever anyone says “Texas has no right to secede, they would be breaking the law!” Isn’t the whole point of a secession to say “We’re not living under your laws anymore?”
And here’s the thing for all those people who think there would be a civil war if Texas were to leave… most of the public sympathy – and certainly the sympathy of our military – would currently be WITH Texas, and not the Union itself.
Just things to think about.
April 22nd, 2009
Well the rules of the game were set up by the winner of the US Civil War.
However if Texas decided to ignore the rules, what could Washington do. If it attempted to use military force would it have enough? Texas would be a nuclear power almost immediately if not before a question of secession was placed for a vote in Texas. What percentage of military stationed and serving in Texas would side with the Federales. Texas has a rather large ex-military population and a fair percentage of those currently serving. Who would be our allies? De facto could very well trump de jure.
April 22nd, 2009
Texas is more likely to lead the liberation of the serf states than to secede. We tried secession back in 1861 and it didn’t work so good. Nah. Liberation is what Texans do best, having liberated France (twice) and liberating most of Asia and Europe during WWII and the Cold War.
And we will be well equipped to lead any liberation of the United States as we have a big chunk of the Army and Air Force in Texas and a large armed citizenry — to say nothing of the only nuclear weapons production facility in North America.
April 22nd, 2009
Well, being close to Austin, I expect I’d end up in the People’s Republic of LCRA. I guess I’d better pass on this.
April 22nd, 2009
Firstly, when I heard Perry’s comments I interpreted them as saying if this goes on there will be a call for succession from the wingnuts. Just like some on the left did after 200 and 2004. Totally blown out of proportion in an attempt to de-legitimize the Tea Party movement.
However, the that Texas readmitted under a different set of rules in 1870 pretty well nullifies the 1845 joint resolution, so (IMHO) the idea of splitting the state further is far fetched.
April 22nd, 2009
To whoever pointed out that “Texas would be a nuclear power almost immediately” – this is a little silly.
First of all, there is unlikely to be enough public support in the remaining U.S. for a war to reclaim TX, anyway. After all, this is the 21st century, not the 19th, and for better or worse, people just don’t have the same idealism about nations-as-singular-entities that they once did.
Most likely, there would some angst and saber-rattling, but if events actually came down to secession, it would be largely peaceful, similar to Slovakia’s departure from the Czech Republic. The American people are generally friendly to the idea of self-determination. Texas would even have a substantial amount of good will from those remaining in the US.
Now, even if it DID lead to war (let’s hope not – it would make Iraq look like a Nerf gun fight), Texas would *never* nuke the United States, because it would completely erase the aforementioned good will.
I generally support the right of regions to secede when their political ties are no longer mutually beneficial, but my sympathy would evaporate pretty quickly if the seceding party started lobbing nukes about willy-nilly.
April 22nd, 2009
Gee whiz that was fascinating, as I’m currently on the fence about whether or not Texas should secede. If the U.S. government stays on the path of accelerated socialism though, I’m all for it.
April 22nd, 2009
Y’all are so unimaginative! Texans used to joke that with so many people coming in from Mexico, it wouldn’t be too long before Texas bacame part of Mexico once again. Afte the 2008 elections, many Texans are thiking maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. After all, Felipe Calderon is much mre knowledgeable about basic ecomonics than Obama obviously is. That, and Texans have so many guns, and Texas has so many military installations it would be easy to just take over the government in Mexico city. California would follow relatively quickly. We’d then have out own nuclear armed superpower without a shot being fired, and leave the rest of the old United States to stew in its socialist joices. We’d even have cars, computers and pharmaceuticals. Not to mention no more FDA to tell us we can’t have certain useful drugs.
Yeah, forget secession – let’s just rejoin Mexico and take it over.
April 22nd, 2009
Isn’t all of this talk about secession prompted by Perry’s support for HCR 50, the bill before the Texas legislature that asserts the 10th amendment to the US Constitution actually does place limits on federal authority?
I agree with your analysis of the Annexation documents, but II have no interest in seceding from the Union, or dividing into multiple states, even if it were a realistic option. I don’t think HCR 50 even hints at secession, simply declares that Texas expects the federal government to abide by the constitution and leave other powers to the states and the people.
April 22nd, 2009
Sorry, but isn’t this all moot? Texas was re-admitted as a state in 1870. Wouldn’t that event supersede any previous agreements?
April 22nd, 2009
[...] it become the stronghold of last resort for freedom-loving Americans? And does anyone dare to hope that liberal-fascists would let it go [...]
April 22nd, 2009
Sparky,
You make this sound like secession is a new thing, brought up only now by angry “wingnuts”. Our countrymen on the other side of the aisle have been advocating this in the Northeast for some time. It’s not a new idea.
http://www.vermontrepublic.org – not fans of either side of the Federal government. They know that the apple is rotten at the core, regardless of party.
Or who could forget Aztlan in a secessionist discussion? Obviously not run by “wingnuts”, but instead by leftist moonbats.
Upon doing a little research you can find some kind of secessionist movement in most of the states, some louder and more popular than others.
April 22nd, 2009
I don’t advocate for secession. I’m not a constitutional lawyer. However, I’ve read quite a bit on the our Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. Here’s my layman’s opinion: the Civil War, not withstanding, the admission of a territory into the Union was voluntary. There is no specific prohibition against secession in the Constitution. Provided the same conditions for admission are met (popular vote and approval of the Congress) I see no prohibition against secession. Our Founding Fathers believed that people are free to give and to take away their consent to rule without limitation. Further, I believe the UN Charter provides for “self-determination.” There was no UN at the time of the Civil War. Conceivably, Texas could concede and through a sponsor in the UN (China perhaps) have a resolution admitted confirming Texicans “right” to self-determination. The Obama administration would fold.
April 22nd, 2009
Let Texas secede, then make Puerto Rico a state. Y’all wouldn’t even have to change your flag, and you’d have a reasonably friendly neighbor on your southern border.
April 22nd, 2009
IIRC, Texas Monthly magazine devoted several articles one month in the 1970s to this topic. One article explored secession from the United States. Another explored remaining in the Union and dividing into five states.
Worth looking up.
April 22nd, 2009
@JHHARRIS: Gerrymandering should solve our problem. I’m too close to Dallas for comfort, and would count upon the sense of the good people of Fort Worth and the rest of North Texas to restore sanity. Houston gets East Texas and as much of central Texas is it takes to outnumber them. Would the rest of Central Texas be enough to quell the leeches of Austin? Can South Texas manage San Antonio? I imagine our tough, self-reliant West Texans can keep at least one of them in line. Dunno about the area around El Paso. I must say, though, the idea of building Aztlan and running it has scope and texture.
April 22nd, 2009
[...] *The Texas Question, by Professor Bernardo de la Paz at Simon-Jester.org. For those of you who don’t get the author or blog name, educate yourself, you’ll thank me later. And if the Prof get’s a link back here, I applaud you on your choice sir. [...]
April 22nd, 2009
Just thinking out loud ……
If I was born in TX would I get automatic citizenship even if I am living in NYC? And as a TX native would I have to apply for US citizenship? Probably the two nations would work out a dual citizenship agreement. But what about a non-native-born Texan who has lived there for a long time? Maybe if they fulfilled the requirements for in-state tuition at UT, they could automatically be granted citizenship if they so desire.
Would I need a passport to travel to the US?
I own a house in Austin; if Bank of America then considers TX mortgages to be foreign, I guess I can refinance with a TX bank. …..
Now since many of the military are stationed there but really live somewhere else, they might want to stay in the US military, so the TX Armed Forces might not be as large as you want. But I agree that whoever is Prez wouldn’t start another Civil War to bring us back.
TX has some oil (in the Gulf) & natural gas it can sell to the US. However, if the US wanted to “punish” us they could impose high tariffs on goods going both ways, and not let our trucks onto US highways. TX could create tax havens for all those people who are afraid their Swiss accounts are being compromised! There has been some discussion about whether TX gets to keep NASA.
You really want to annex any part of Mexico? Would require lots of drug-cartel-quelling.
Anyway, fun to think about.
There is an obscure 1975 alternate history novel called “The Texas-Israeli War 1999″ by Howard Waldrop which I read back then, it’s the only alternate history I know where TX is an independent country – from the Amazon review:
” …1992 a limited nuclear exchange and widespread use of biological and chemical weapons has killed nine out of every ten people in the world. ….. The Israelis stood neutral and their sworn Arab enemies attacked Israel, but with little result. ….. Israel now hires out its excess population as mercenary soldiers to the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, in the shattered remnants of the USA, Texas declares independence and a second US civil war develops, ….. Israeli mercenaries have been hired out to both sides of the war and the book’s protagonists are a mixed unit of Israeli tankists and reinforcements from the federal government. Their mission is to penetrate the heart of Texas and rescue the kidnapped president of the USA. …..”
April 22nd, 2009
As my congressman (Culberson) pointed out the other evening, the five states that were Texas would have the same total number of representatives in Washington — but of the eight new senators, six would be Republican. And everyone at the party said, “Oooooh!”
April 22nd, 2009
Professor, respectfully, your argument only works when you excerpt the “new states of convenient size” clause and ignore where it appears in the Joint Resolution.
That language is in paragraph 2, which provides the conditions upon which Congress–not Texas–agrees to annexation. The other two conditions (first, permitting Congress to adjust Tecas’s boundaries and requiring Texas to transmit evidence of Texans’ adoption of the US Constititution, and second, requiring Texas to cede to the US all “means pertaining to the public defense” and forbidding Texas from charging the US with its debts and liabilities) are clearly in place to protect the Union, not Texas. Why would the third condition be different?
Why would Congress condition its acceptance of Texas into the Union on Texas’s authority to subdivide? And if that was the intent of that provision, why does the phrase “by the consent of [Texas]” appear? If the clause describes a power retained by Texas post-annexation, then that phrase would be superfluous.
Read in context, the power to subdivide Texas is one held by Congress, not Texas. Congressional action would require Texas’s “consent.” Texas has no authority to create new states out of itself, though Congress does (if Texas concurs).
April 22nd, 2009
JeanE writes: “I don’t think HCR 50…hints at secession, simply declares that Texas expects the federal government to abide by the constitution and leave other powers to the states and the people.”
And if the federal government doesn’t do so, Jean? Then what? Woodrow Wilson once wrote that, as a consequence of the Civil War, the federal government is the final judge of its powers. Without a viable threat of secession, HCR 50 and similar acts, are dead letters.
Frankly, I’d prefer to see renewed attempts at nullification. I’ve been inspired by the so-called sanctuary cities.
April 22nd, 2009
Now the present Texas Constitution has a myriad of amendments for a very good reason, it’s written to restrict the power of the state government and require the citizens of the state to vote on lots of measures that would simply sail through most state governments. This constitution was written in fhe aftermath of the corruption of Reconstruction governments and was intended more to check such than empower such. It may not do this perfectly, but it does seem to have helped the state evade problems afflicting other large states such as New York or California.
American by birth, Texan by choice.
April 22nd, 2009
For the sake of argument, lets assume Texas secedes. Who is going to play Lincoln and lead the rest of the states to restore the Union? Obambi? Don’t think so. I bet he’d want to “talk” to us, though.
And just another data point in the “Texas as Superpower” theme: we have the largest fighter jet factory in the free world here in Fort Worth.
Bring it on, you Chicago Commies!
April 22nd, 2009
I’m proud of Governor Perry for taking a stand. The stimulous package offered has too many strings attached and would set up Texas to be beholding to the Feds. We don’t need no stinkin’ stimulous money!
Here’s hoping HR50 will pass in the Texas House of Reps. and then the Senate. (Even though this is already in the Constitution, I guess we have to bring it to light to reaffirm it to Washington.)
If push comes to shove, then Yee Haw, let’s secede. Texas CAN secede from the Union, with petitions to call a vote and then unanimous vote by Texans. I doubt if it will ever happen but, we can dream can’t we?
If we did secede, can you imagine the immigration laws that would be passed to be a Texas citizen? ha ha… many would not qualify.
April 22nd, 2009
@Pogo: I understand most of the interest here is in the secession options, but I am more intrigued with the potential impact on electoral politics assuming that Texas does not secede, but remains in the union as 4 or 5 states. Pogo’s report on Culberson’s statement is exactly on this point: a significant shift in favor of Republicans in the US Senate. In addition, there would be a small, but potentially important shift in the electoral college map.
In this context, Donald’s point is of critical importance: does the authority to split up into states reside with Texas, or with the national legislature. If the latter, this is a fun exercise that will never occur. If it is the former, it is a more likely method of registering deep discontent with current regime than is secession. As i understand the issue the alternatives are:
1. Texas can act whenever it wants and the US is treaty- bound to accept the Texas decision.
2. The US legislature can act whenever it wants, but Texas has to agree to any split.
In addition to Donald’s reading of the act, what does it mean to say “shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution” . In other words, is there a third option:
3. Texas can act whenever it wants, but the US legislature has to act affirmatively to add the states to the union.
April 22nd, 2009
(HCR) 50:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm
April 22nd, 2009
Swimsaturn: pls see this ref to ans your query http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/30march1870.html.
Donald: Texas wanted that proviso, since they wanted the chance to increase their number of congressmen; it was one bit of the contention between the Republic and DC that almost led annexation down the road of military annexation by conquest rather than by treaty. Don’t forget, a treaty that is affirmed by the Legislature becomes part of the US Constitution. I’m thinking both sides of the deal knew exactly why that clause was there, and is a big reason why several of the north east states opposed annexation—they saw it as a threat to their power base.
Brian and Evan: Don’t misunderstand, I whole-heartedly approve of limiting the ability of ANY legislature to get anything done. But the C of T could use some rewrites, as could almost all state constitutions. If for no other reason than to remove impediments to the liberty of citizens, streamlining and reducing the size of bureaucracy, and making local (city and county) rule easier to attain.
Texas Pete, you and others have mentioned some things that call to mind armed insurrection rather than a civil parting. Not the least of which is the will of the rest of the US to fight about keeping TX as part of the US. I think it’s safe to say that at least the southeast would back TX, possibly quite a few of the southwestern states as well. (When I say “back”, I mean public sentiment, not necessarily with arms.) If I had to guess, I think Vermont or New Hampshire would stand up and holler “Yeehaw!” while every state on the Gulf Coast would just be happy to get the shipping that would be diverted from your coastline.
Yeah, I said diverted from your coastline.
Our government has proved that it takes not at all kindly to states who desire sovereignty. On the other hand, they have always bent over backwards to get a state to join the Union. Four new states, all at the same time, all with damn precise requirements of their own Bills of Rights, and all full to the gills of resources both natural and economic…DC would cave. But only after they tried to re-enact Ft. Sumter in Galveston Bay. There would be a blockade while hands were wrung and public opinion assessed. Military installations and personnel would be put on high alert “to protect the freedom and the property of US citizens and US businesses, and to prevent any acts from foreign powers.” Secession is a gamble of immense proportions; but if you could use the laws that already exist not only would YOU get what you wanted from the federal government, but the REST of the country would follow in your example. It is a chance to fundamentally change the way the federales do biz because they would be suddenly and irrevocably forced to withdraw their reach knowing that they can not only go too far, but that someone will stand up to them for it.
April 22nd, 2009
And one more thing in regards to limits placed on states by Reconstruction…
No requirement exists — either in the Reconstruction Acts governing the rebel states or in the document readmitting Texas to full statehood — for the governor of Texas to sign a document reaffirming Texas’ position as a state within the United States republic. The only ongoing requirement of Texas government was that no constitutional revision should deny the vote or school rights to any citizen of the United States.
(from this site http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/index.html )
April 22nd, 2009
No one has mentioned the real reason for the “five state” proviso – to maintain the balance in the US Senate between “free states” & “slave states” required by the Missouri Compromise. Maine was created out of Massachusetts to balance Missouri in 1820. By the 1840s the west had been explored enough for the politicos of both persuasions to know that Texas (and just the eastern third of it, at that) was the last possible area capable of profitable agricultural slavery. Desert, mountains, and high plateaus cannot support slave-based agriculture using 1840s farming practices.
Texas & Wisconsin were admitted together to maintain the balance in 1845. With the breakdown of the Missouri Compromise and the advent of Popular Sovereignity, the issue became moot.
I would personally welcome the return of our beloved Republic of Texas to full independence, but demographics make it only a romantic notion, not a practical reality.
April 22nd, 2009
Perhaps a point of interest to the discussion:
The current final word from the US Supreme Court on the subject of succession (so far as I have been able to find with limited research) is Texas v White (1869) 74 US (7 Wall.) 700. In this decision, the USSC laid out the two conditions under which succession from the US would be legal: de facto – fight a war and win, which the Confederacy failed to do, and de jure – legislation from the US Congress and the affected State or States. Pretty straightforward.
Also, this decision holds that the attempted succession of Texas (and by extension, the rest of the Confederacy) was an illegal act and of no force and effect, and that the affected State(s), though in rebellion, were never separated from the Union. Consequently, one can (I believe) argue more effectively that the treaty provision allowing for division into multiple states continues in force rather than arguing that it was superseded by a mere act of legislation ‘readmitting’ the State into the Union. A careful reading of the referenced legislation (linked to above in a post by Prof) supports this view – the legislation as entitled purports to readmit TX to representation in the Congress, NOT readmittance into the Union.
FWIW.
April 22nd, 2009
Excuse me – secession. I knew that just didn’t look right.
April 22nd, 2009
[...] that word, my dad used to use it) and it’s attracted luminaries like Rachel Maddow. But, as Professor Bernardo de la Paz notes, it’s not quite so simple. Texas is unique in more ways than one. It’s not only the [...]
April 22nd, 2009
Just the fact that we’re even discussing it in a serious fashion should be a warning to DC.
April 23rd, 2009
FYI:
The subdivisions of India (Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, etc) are called “states” in Englsh. So are the subdivions of Australia (Queensland etc).
The official name of Mexico is “Estados Unidos de Mexico” (United States of Mexico); thus the subdivisions of Mexico (Sonora, Michoacan, etc) are states.
The divisions of Brazil (Minas Gerais, Amazonas, Bahia) are called states.
Germany’s subdivisions are called Lander (Lands); but three (Bavaria, Saxony, and Thuringia) call themselves Freistaaten (Free States).
Venezuela, Nigeria, and Malaysia are all composed of states.
So there are planty of plaees around the world where non-sovereign subdivisions of sovereign nations are called states.
April 23rd, 2009
I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned, but…
… while any new states formed out Texas (or any other state, I don’t see any limitation in that regard but maybe I missed it) wouldn’t have to seek admission into the United States as states, they are already United States territory, so they would be treated as territories until their admission as new states.
April 23rd, 2009
@LoneStar78730: Culberson, who researched the “Can Texas Secede?” question several years ago, cited Texas v. White in his talk the other evening.
BTW: “succession” is a existing word with a very different meaning from “secession.” Please use the right one so I don’t have to keep reminding myself of this error while I read.
April 23rd, 2009
[...] states have the right to secede? Texas Gov Rick Perry has been talking a lot about it lately. Obviously, there is strength in numbers, but is this a viable option for independent states as a [...]
April 23rd, 2009
These memes (about Texas seceding, or splitting into 5 states) aren’t new. In fact, they seem to resurface each time a Democrat is elected President. Wonder why?
No one has yet mentioned the only successful secession in our nation’s history: the Conch Republic. Key West seceded (for 24 hours) a couple of decades back. The Federal government chose to ignore it rather than suppress it.
April 23rd, 2009
I would rather keep Texasn the USA, as one state, than see it leave or split. I always believed that Congress could give the Nation’s consent to a secession act, with a Presidential assent or over his veto if the veto is overridden. I wonder if Congress can ordain an expulsion, by sufficient votes. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have an orderly expulsion of New England, and keep Texas? How many of you would miss Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Leahy, Snowe, Collins, and some of the House? Just make sure it declare neutrality like the Swiss, and make it sure it doesn’t allow foreign troops to set up shop in the area.
April 26th, 2009
please secede. texas is the source of so much backwards ass thinking and mentality. then it can become the mecca for christian zealots and all the neo con evangelicals can move there and have their ‘utopia’ where they control everyone the way they are striving for. It’s a win-win situation. America would finally rid itself of some of it’s worse pollution.
May 1st, 2009
Evidently the state department has rendered the point moot and has already recognized Texas as an independant Nation.
Check out this link from Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/30/does-state-think-texas-is-a-foreign-country/
May 2nd, 2009
Invigorating reading, y’all! But most re-assuring is the apparent exclusion of nuclear war as a procedural step. On the division question, one very big bone of contention is not addressed, the tidelands revenue. I’m recalling that one of Irag’s opposition to the Kurd’s proposed secession is the oil in that area. It’s a pecuniary (not a philosophical) concern, but some folks notice. Are the present oil reserves adequately dispersed throughout the state to assure a positive, statewide plebiscite?
June 4th, 2009
This could be a runaround to secession.
The divided states could all refuse to join the US.
Then the republic of Texas (a union between the 5 states) could be born.
So Texas didn’t officially secede, just the states that were Texas.
April 14th, 2010
A better way would be to work for a Constitutional Amendment granting any state the right to secession after simple majority votes of three successive legislatures.
The action of each vote being sent to the President of the U.S. Senate for record in its journal.
April 14th, 2010
Hey! Texans! Whoa, there! Wait for me!
If I can just sell this damned house in Pyongyang-on-the-Willamette…