Bill on Texas Secession presented to Texas Legislature

Originally posted by Letmypeoplego
If this Passes, Texas will become part of the Narco state forming to the south...I'm just saying

On the other hand I would totally vote for it, the united states government is fail.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Letmypeoplego because: forgot rest of my opinion

Don't think so. We would actually be able to defend ourselves without the feds interfering.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by korathin You do realize that if Texas did secede from the Union EMP bomb's would be dropped across the State and either cruise missle would be used to eliminate the state government or special op's forces would arrest the state government.

You need to study more an read less Tom Clancy. An EMP burst over Texas would impede everything to the horizon including all of the surrounding infrastructure in the remaining Midwest of the US and the humanitarian crisis inflicted on “innocent people” who didn’t take up arms would be one from which no administration could recover regardless of popularity.

If you think Americans have no stomach for war now watching the occasional brown person in towel or dress get wasted by an Apache once in a while wait till the evening news shows starving homeless (due to the EMP) American’s being rounded up or gunned down in the suburbs of Houston. The peace-nicks in NYC will be clamoring for a cease fire so fast it’ll make Barry’s head spin.

You also left out any other States who would join them and the countless other countries who would take an interest in a Texas unencumbered by the US and how they would benefit from a weaker and divided nation.

You also presuppose that the US Military would engage in open hostilities with other Americans over a political right to express their "voice".

I doubt it would get to that point before the world would step in to teach the US a lesson in turnabout is fair play...quickly voting a UN resolution to back the rights of the Texans... and to enforce a no fly zone so the US can't use her air force against her own people - like that place Libya right?

The US has sided with every breakaway republic in the past 20 years citing the people's right to determine their government even as recently as a week or so ago Barry was all but clamoring for the "people's voice to be heard" in Egypt.

C-130 Hercules United States Tactical Transport
F-16C/D Fighting Falcon United States Air Superiority Fighter
MQ-1 Predator United States Remote controlled UAV
The battle would be over before Texan's even seen it coming.

You left out the bazillion pick-up trucks with gun racks...and the people wielding them who look just like the young men coming to round them up.

If you have never seen or participated in a true guerilla conflict or civil war you have no idea how much chaos a few infiltrators who speak the language and look like the government forces can wreak. Way prior to any hostilities their own “teams” who are Americans in speech manner and custom would have their own targets. They will be way mor devestating than any islamic insurgents ever could be.

That’s why civil war is the worst kind – the battle lines are fuzzy. It will be avoided at all costs by the US Government who has the most to lose.

Iraq had the third largest army in the world prior to the first Gulf War. Against a vastly superior air power their large army was reduced to ash. Now a few trucks with gun racks vs a few F-22's.... Wonder who is going to win?
The US hasn't supported every wannabe break away republic. Only ones where it would either be convenient for us or ones that would be inconvenient to Russia.

And remember the last civil war. The Southerners where filled to the brim with pride and thought 1 of them equaled 10 "Yankees".. Yet they ignored the realities of the situation and the South was burned to the ground because of their ignorance.

P.S most "white" Texans are of Anglo/Scott Irish heritage. Add in accent and deep tan= very, very, very easy to racially profile them without inconveniencing German Americans, Italian Americans, Greek Americans, Polish Americans etc too much. Texans stick out like a sore thumb. Texans could cause havoc in the deep South, but the Midwest and some Middle States would be very problematic for Texan terrorist's.

reply to post by korathin


But once again . . . that fails to take in what the world view of the US would be if, after hat we have done to help rebellions, the US does that.

Originally posted by korathin

Your lack of understanding of guerilla warfare is astonishingly apparent. People from the south live all over the US right now and they will contiue to do so - you really think the US who won't search a young arab male at the airport without also seartching gandma will suddenly start "profiling" souther accents. Dream on....

What's this?

Guess who fights the drug war in Texas and runs ops in Afganistan - you don't think they can survive undetected in DC?

LOL !

edit on 8/3/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by korathin

 

But once again . . . that fails to take in what the world view of the US would be if, after hat we have done to help rebellions, the US does that.

You forget the 90's. Waco, Ruby Ridge.. That line of thinking(back when "Cotton was King") the South had too before and during the Civil War. Now if Texas had more nuke plants and a more advanced Air Force yous could pull it off, with what yous have now, it would be over before you even realized it began.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by korathin

 

But once again . . . that fails to take in what the world view of the US would be if, after hat we have done to help rebellions, the US does that.

Yeah, I just can't picture the US waging war with its own state with the world's eyes on it. I think there would be double-crosses, assassinations, and other shenanigans with the CIA doing its CIA thing but I don't think they would ever officially attack the people.

Originally posted by Golf66 in response to korathin

Your lack of understanding of guerilla warfare is astonishingly apparent. People from the south live all over the US right now and they will contiue to do so - you really think the US who won't search a young arab male at the airport without also seartching gandma will suddenly start "profiling" souther accents. Dream on....

What's this?

Guess who fights the drug war in Texas and runs ops in Afganistan - you don't think they can survive undetected in DC?

LOL !

Thanks for that. I thought the 19th SFG had a contingent in Texas, but wasn't sure. There's a contingent in WV, and a couple other states as well, but I just wasn't sure about TX.

Anyhow, I notice a lot of folks saying they'd move to Texas if this ever came to fruition. Not me. I sympathize, but I've got my own ground to hold, and it ain't in Texas. I'd be staying behind, right where I am (or relatively near to it), throwing what support I can to 'em from "behind the lines".

It always helps to have folks out in the weeds, for recon or... well, you know....

Okay a brief lesson in some history and law. I'm from TX and I happen to know a lot about the state constitution and the alleged right to succession.

After the civil war the requirement for all states that were in the Confederacy were required to change their state constitutions in order to regain statehood.

It is a common misconception that TX has the right to succeed. The year I studied TX Gov't in college Gov Rick Perry came to our school to give a speech and answer questions while campaigning for reelection. A student asked him if he thought about succeeding and he said that succession is not a legal action under the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution.

In 1869, 4 years after the war, the Court Case of Texas v White ruled that TX's right to succeed was legally null and and void.

An important thing to point out about the ruling of this court case, The court did allow some possibility of separation of the union through "revolution of consent of the states"

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Rights?!

Legality?!

You must be thinking 20th century.....

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0In 1869, 4 years after the war, the Court Case of Texas v White ruled that TX's right to succeed was legally null and and void.

An important thing to point out about the ruling of this court case, The court did allow some possibility of separation of the union through "revolution of consent of the states"

The people of the State of Texas have the right to self determination regardlless of case law or either the consitution of the State or of the United States.

The people are not bound in perpetuity by the will and decisions of those long dead who wished it so. Just like our fore bears had the right to declare independance from England becasue they found her rule oppressive so to do we the current people have the same right.

Niether an illgal war faught 100 years ago withe the coercive diplomacy that followed it nor a court case (past or current) can take away that right.

The US Government would lose any standing in the court of world opinion should they not allow a state to seceed by peaceful means in the modern era. Frankly I am surprised it hasn't happened sooner. There are many States that would be better off without the yoke of the US.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by korathin

 

But once again . . . that fails to take in what the world view of the US would be if, after hat we have done to help rebellions, the US does that.

Yeah, I just can't picture the US waging war with its own state with the world's eyes on it. I think there would be double-crosses, assassinations, and other shenanigans with the CIA doing its CIA thing but I don't think they would ever officially attack the people.

You don't know anyone in the CIA, do you? The things that are thought in the basement there might surprise you. No, I take that back. If the above is an example of how you think, the things thought in the basement there WOULD surprise you.

It would no doubt shock you to realize that there are factions in and surrounding that community - relatively LARGE factions, at that, who aren't all that sympathetic with the way things have been going in the US of late. They are even LESS sympathetic after having been slapped around a bit by the last 3 or 4 administrations.

Yes, I think it might shock and dismay you to find that folks you THOUGHT were on "your" side really aren't all that cozy with those sorts of thoughts - and it helps nary a bit to continually trash them. Not the best way to endear them to you, y'know?

There are a fairly sizeable number of folks who will do their best for, up to and including giving their lives for, the US - until the orders come down to act against Americans. Now, if Texas were to secede, Texans wouldn't technically be "Americans" any more, but the connections would be awfully difficult to break in the minds of most people for years to come. Add to that the fact that the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community are still nursing bruises - and a bit of a grudge - from recent beatings, and the notion that you can predict just what they will and won't do becomes somewhat less secure than it is at first blush.

Now realize (or not, as the inclination strikes you) that those folks do what they do out of a sense of wanting to do their part to promote "freedom" and other American ideals, and it becomes even less clear that they will act against Texans for trying to bring that sort of condition about.

Matter of fact, I daresay that several of them would go so far as to assist Texas, albeit probably not overtly. Then again, the CIA has had some experience of doing things less than overtly, haven't they?

reply to post by jam321



Try the Texas Constitution of 1876, of which we are still under, which thoroughly replaced the 1866 version.

Let's see what it says, shall we?

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

SECTION 1. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States.

SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

. . .

SEC. 28. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.

SEC. 29. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


I will call that number tomorrow and ask them how come they can't read their own damn Constitution.

Edit: Obviously there has been no updates on it, because it was replaced in 1876. Derp.

Originally posted by Janky Red

I spent time in the WEST VIRGINIA and TEXAS - lovin the BOSS man is mandatory, "everyone has a place,
better know it... BOY..."

Where in West Virginia did you find THAT attitude? No, seriously, we need to know so that the rest of the state can educate that pocket...

Call a West Virginian "boy", and you need to have a blender - so that you can get your breakfast to fit through that straw you'll be eating through thereafter.

If you're that wrong about WV, I can't really just accept that your assessment of Texas is any more valid.

"Lovin' the BOSS man is mandatory"? Really? In West Virginia? I gotta know, man WHAT are you on?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by dalan.

Actually there is nothing in the constitution against what Lincoln did because secession is not clarified in it.

The problem of secession being clarified in the Constitution is irrelevant. It does not make any difference whatsoever that it was never mentioned in it.

And there is something against what Lincoln did. Lincoln needed Congress' approval to go to war. When the representatives walked out of Congress, Congress did not have the authority to make any decisions without them being there. Since they did, the decision to go to war with the Southern States was de facto, and we have since been living under a de facto Congress.

If secession was such a simple process, the United states would not be what it is today.

You are absolutely right, it would be much better than the police state that we have today. Because of the actions taken by Lincoln and the Congress at that time, they laid the ground work for the despotic Federal Government we have today.

The Union grew from being anti-secessionist in the first place. Land was expanded, Mexico was invaded, Texas was pressured to join along with other states. The notion that secession is a process in which states are merely unhappy with the government, it ain't that simply and never will be.

It is that simple, and it will always be, its just a matter of who has the superior firepower. The Federal Constitution is a contract made by the states to create our union. If the Federal Government begins abusing that contract, then the states have every right to have a redress of grievances. If the Federal Government does not listen and continues on their path, then the only remedies are either violent revolution or secession.

You cannot force someone to stay in a contract when you have been abusing it. It does not work that way.

And yes whats more interesting in this comment of yours, the confederate states intended to break off with the fullest intentions of preserving slavery, which is against the fundalmental freedoms people like you advocate for, so it is very hypocritical from your side.

This is an absolute fallacy that people throw around constantly, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with a power struggle between the rights of the states, and the power of the Federal Government. Abraham Lincoln did not engage the Civil War to help the slaves...he did it to "preserve the Union" which he had zero right to do as I previously explained. Congress did not have the power with the missing representatives to give him the Ok to go to war and attack states that left the union.

The only justification that Lincoln had was the fact that he actually won the war, and that's it.

History will always be a tale of peace through superior firepower.

It was not the job of the Federal Government to abolish slavery. That was the responsibility of the states that were actually practicing slavery.

People choose to read and believe what they want, they pick out the bits they like, and throw away the truths that are inconvenient.

Apparently:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

reply to post by Golf66


I have lived in TX for 20 years, and an aspect required for a revolution and/or succession is a right state of mind, and believe me TX does not have the right state of mind properly succeed, and we are far from it.

While I agree TX has the "potential" to do so and maintain 100% efficiency, sovereignty, and society but lacks the proper mind-state to do so. TX is extremely intertwined in the global chess game of the U.S. and in more aspects that you could imagine.

While I agree with TX to want to succeed but they don't have any plan what-soever how to form their new nation. Usually a succession requires social revolution unlike what the U.S. Revolution was (a struggle for power). (France was a real revolution) Right now the political philosophy and status quo is ruled by consensus theorists and are nowhere philosophically inclined to succeed.

Benjamin Franklin once said that a republic must remain virtuous and so far TX hasn't bestowed a revolutionary philosophy.

Here is my Thread on Political Revolution and Cultural Renaissance

reply to post by nenothtu


I already took him to town here and here.

LoL.

He is the same as the others in the first 7 pages. All BS. Nothing but blah blah blah with nothing to back it up.


Such hatred. :shrug:

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


The state of mind is not there yet, or else the legislature would be voting on a binding resolution.

But just the fact that this got through shows that the sentiment is growing, albeit slowly.

Things are still fairly good in TX right now. When People finally see pretty boy Perry's true colors, I think it will start to heat up (like it did with the Trans-Texas Corridor). Perry is just really good at saying the right things at the right time, and playing the misdirection game.

I'm still trying to figure out why you people haven't left America yet.

Originally posted by Throwback
I'm still trying to figure out why you people haven't left America yet.

Read the post above yours.

South Carolina's first attempt at secession was in 1822. It did not succeed in secession until 1860.

The point is that the feelings are there, and they are getting stronger.

reply to post by GullibleUnderlord


Lol you silly head.
You ask what would they do.
Well, they would find oil in Texas and claim they are harboring terrorists and wmd's.
They would then invade Texas and kill more civilians then military.
I am all for Texas as a sovereign country.