Thread: The New Republic of Texas?

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

If you love something, set it free. If it comes back, it's yours. If not, GOOD RIDDANCE!

Close

" If you love someting, set it free. If it comes back, cook it!"

Originally Posted by earcutter

I get a kick out of the fact that the dude who's pushing to stop all the "negative waves" is a Canuck lol.

Man that was a crazy movie lol!

Got to watch those hot headed Canucks.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Just as I assume one possibility, you assume another. I've thought of what you mentioned.

What would it accomplish to treat another new country as we have Cuba for the last 50 years?

Yes, and history is the best way to judge the likelihood of one vs. the other.

Originally Posted by Wullie

You remind me of Moriarty in KELLY'S HERO'S.


I guess you're just our little ray of sunshine.

Nice one, I guess in your former governor's language I 'misoverestimated' you, so have fun, I have more interesting things to do.

Originally Posted by gugi

The problem is that you are presuming a scenario in which everybody happily lets Texas to become its own country, while retaining all the benefits from being part of the U.S.A.
But, that's far from given. A separate country means they need to take care of the citizenship, the borders, start using their own currency, negotiate the relationship with any other country they want to have a relationship with.
If the union decides to treat Texas the way it treats Cuba, Texas would be faced with huge structural changes to their economy. Trade war is nothing close to real war, but it can still be very very painful.

Just think for a second - the whole world is going towards more integration, not less. May be you think Texas will be better off going in the opposite direction of history, but I don't see how any reasoning can support it.

Well put gugi...I believe up here in Canada, in the past, we have called this Quebec. And I'm sure some here know how that has gone.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Wullie, you're probably very right; the succession movement will likely be a flash in the pan. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that the election numbers are accurate and on the up and up (I know, just suspend disbelief for a minute). If the election numbers are to be believed we're at about a 50/50 split so half of the electorate was displeased with the direction of the country. Unfortunately our next chance to do anything about that will be in 2016. All that aside, I think this whole succession movement is much more symbolic than it ever would be practical.

As for the American Civil War, Bruno's observations are spot on. Americans by and large have, for a variety of reasons, been sold armed conflict in the modern age as an antiseptic, video game type affair. The American Civil War was completely and totally the opposite. Over 500,000 people were killed, of those 200,000+ were KIA. Figures for folks wounded who in many cases lost limbs, permanently dismembered, etc. are also north of 300,000. What is even more shocking was the fact that this war only lasted for FOUR years. Truly brutality on a scale that most modern folks can't even wrap their brain cells around. The disparity between those Killed in Action and total deaths should be a hint that civilians (in many cases old people, women and children) were as in the thick of the war as the soldiers. The one advantage that the U.S. has enjoyed in every war since was distance. Combat losses in both world wars were ghastly, no doubt but back, on the home front American civilians basically lived their daily lives much the same as they had before the war. Not so for our European counterparts.

There was a reason for that carnage. Tactics were those of the 18th century but weapons were of a more modern nature and the result was the carnage. Primitive medicine didn't help. Just about any wound to a limb and amputation was routine.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, and history is the best way to judge the likelihood of one vs. the other.



Nice one, I guess in your former governor's language I 'misoverestimated' you, so have fun, I have more interesting things to do.

And I'd say the same about you.

Bring donuts next time.

Here's how the secession petition from Texas ( also the most popular of all petitions) reads;

“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”

Gugi, you said, "history is the best way to judge the likelihood of one versus the other."

I would say to you that this country was formed of and from secession.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

What's the population of Texas? What's the percentage of folks who want to secede? It's ridiculous to even think about it but if it did happen the exodus from the state would be astounding but it would be worth it to consider Texans as Illegal Aliens.

Originally Posted by Wullie

Got to watch those hot headed Canucks.

I posted that on my fb page Wullie - thanks for the ammo - it's been a hit!

I think the Texas secession could work due to the popular support of all the other states. Who would stop them?