[KidQuartermain]

So in the wake of #Brexit Texas leaders are again opening Dialogue for leaving the US and seeking sovereignty.

http://www.thetnm.org/why
http://www.thetnm.org/answers

I kind of what to see this happen ! At the very least I think Decentralization is a good thing for a nation that can't agree to anything anyway. So what do you all think?

[Zagadka]

Meh, this same talk is always around... X state leaving, Y state seceding, Z state splitting... very few people bother getting up to doing anything, and in those cases they are considered social outcasts (looking at you, Bundys)

Though I generally prefer a less powerful federal government. The practicalities of the diverse parts of the government make it hard to pass universal laws without screwing over one state or another, or you end up with things being legal in some states but illegal federally (marijuana being one)

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Texan secessionists are a fringe group, and so a tweet or two is about as far from awe-inspiring as you can get these days, and there isn't an actual chance of it happening via popular support. Basque lands in France and Spain have a greater shot at independence than Texas. If it ever became a real issue, it would go nowhere as the Civil War resolved the question of the rights of the states to secede from the Union, and a serious attempt by any state to secede again, especially a Southern one, would result in a number of ringleaders arrested and charged with sedition and treason, and a lot of lolbertarian mall commandos shitting their pants.

[soron]

Wouldn't it also be possible that a Texit might end up as Reconquista ?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

In the antebellum South, there were economic motivators behind secession and anti-Union militarization and belligerence. Do you really think today, in Texas, its people have a reason to secede, much less a reason to arm themselves and fight the US military? Can you possibly picture the citizens of San Antonio or Dallas out in the streets desperately fighting for their "freedom and liberty" by upturning vehicles to block roads and seeing women and children on the outskirts helping to build ditches and road blocks?

Like I said, it's entirely a fringe issue that hardly anyone in Texas would actually be willing to fight and die for. The US military/government would never allow it to get to the point where crazed Texan "nationalists" tried to force the population into fighting against fellow Americans.

[Rei Murasame]

Texit would lead to an independent Texas half-filled with pretty cool Hispanics, it would not be some kind of horrible racist state. It would also undermine one of the key territorial building blocks of the Monroe Doctrine. Since full control of the North American continent seems to be a precondition for suzerainty over the Caribbean, and since suzerainty over the Caribbean is a precondition for being able to project power into the Pacific Ocean from North America, I would support whatever unravels these layers of aggression that the United States has been keeping the rest of us at a disadvantage with.

For as the mid-20th century Dutch-American strategist, Nicholas J. Spykman, observed, the basic geographical truth of the Western Hemisphere is that the division within it is not between North America and South America, but between the area north of the Amazon jungle and the area south of it. Colombia and Venezuela, as well as the Guianas, although they are on the northern coast of South America, are functionally part of North America and the American Mediterranean. So once the United States came to dominate the American Mediterranean, that is, the Greater Caribbean, and separated as it is from the southern cone of South America by yawning distance and a wide belt of tropical forest, the United States had few challengers in its own hemisphere. The domination of the Greater Caribbean, by providing domination of the Western Hemisphere, left America with resources to spare for influencing the balance of power in the Eastern Hemisphere. First the Greater Caribbean, next the world, in other words: such was the history of the United States in the 20th century with its two world wars.

Texas is actually a touchstone in this arrangement, and since I don't like the arrangement and I don't like the US Federal Government which benefits from it, so I'd like to see it removed.

Therefore, I support Texit on principle and I hope they find themselves some compelling reasons to rebel. I'm sure that plenty of countries would sign free trade deals with an independent Texas because not only does Texas have a pretty impressive economy, it also would be geostrategically awesome to do. Texas absolutely could survive outside of the United States.

It's possible that there are some factions of the ruling class in Texas who might be willing to try this by 'legal' avenues in the event that Donald Trump becomes president and is a thoroughly offensive person, since those persons might be able to ride the popular sentiment against Trump and channel it toward Texan independence as the 'solution to the problem'. Unlike many other American states, Texas has always had a framework for being able to remove itself from the union if it so desires, and so the first attempt could be 'legal' withdrawal. Trump would be a negative unifier, because it's easy for lots of people to hate Donald Trump across all ethnic backgrounds and political affiliations.

If legal withdrawal is not allowed, only then would actual insurgency become necessary, and if the US Federal Government wanted to violate Posse Comitatus to send the US Army to suppress the will of the people, then the Texas National Guard would have to defend the state of Texas from what is obviously an act of aggression from the US Federal Government. These are possible ways of looking at it.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The whites leading the charge behind Texan nationalism would definitely share the power with their Hispanic brothers, and it's not like Texan nationalism is generally seen, for obvious reasons if one meets them (I lived in Texas) or does any research on the current incarnation, as driven by racism. It comes as no surprise that the Texan nationalist movement had a spike in membership/petition signers once Obama was elected, and that they regularly rail against "Marxist Obama" and the changing demographics of Texas and the US.

This is all moot because unlike the coming fascist Indian 2030 revolution (right Rei? ), none of this will go anywhere.

[yiostheoy]

So in the wake of #Brexit Texas leaders are again opening Dialogue for leaving the US and seeking sovereignty.

http://www.thetnm.org/why
http://www.thetnm.org/answers

I kind of what to see this happen ! At the very least I think Decentralization is a good thing for a nation that can't agree to anything anyway. So what do you all think?

Not exactly.

Not even close either.

This Texas crap has been going on for a while.

However the morons behind it must have slept through middle school and high school history and probably did not go to college either. Most colleges require and additional dose of U.S. history as well.

Normally by then if you paid attention at all you would have learned that the U.S. Civil War settled the issue of whether States may secede from the Union. For additional reading also see U.S. Grant's "Memoirs". This issue has already been settled in the USA with the bloodiest war in its history, even more so than WW1 or WW2.

[yiostheoy]

In the antebellum South, there were economic motivators behind secession and anti-Union militarization and belligerence. Do you really think today, in Texas, its people have a reason to secede, much less a reason to arm themselves and fight the US military? Can you possibly picture the citizens of San Antonio or Dallas out in the streets desperately fighting for their "freedom and liberty" by upturning vehicles to block roads and seeing women and children on the outskirts helping to build ditches and road blocks?

Like I said, it's entirely a fringe issue that hardly anyone in Texas would actually be willing to fight and die for. The US military/government would never allow it to get to the point where crazed Texan "nationalists" tried to force the population into fighting against fellow Americans.

Actually it was the South that was militant, not the North.

The only militant thing the North did was shelter escaped slaves -- which is not militant -- and then finally at the last straw under Lincoln raise armies and send them into the South to put down the Southern rebellion -- which WAS militant.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I actually did say that when I said "anti-Union militarization and belligerence," but I appreciate the post nonetheless. It's of course important to note that Lincoln was not having the idea of any state seceding, and he merely allowed the South to show its true colors and to fire the first shot, with every intention of finishing the job.

[yiostheoy]

I actually did say that when I said "anti-Union militarization and belligerence," but I appreciate the post nonetheless. It's of course important to note that Lincoln was not having the idea of any state seceding, and he merely allowed the South to show its true colors and to fire the first shot, with every intention of finishing the job.

Ok I see. It was a tricky grammatical construction.