It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Whats real funny about this is the refineries.

The refineries between Houston and New Orleans are where we get the vast majority of our fuel.

If Lousiana went as well that would take out the fuel production capacity of the US, including the nation's Stratgeic Petroleum Reserve which is located in Louisiana.

Texas is one of the few self sustaining states in the nation. There is a reason they don't have income tax and much of that I would have to say is because of the oil and the refineries. Louisiana is in the same position. Both states are the least affected by the economic crisis, in fact Lousiana's economy has grown and unemployment has went down.

The states together could literally be an American OPEC and could easily sustain themselves from oil and gas revenue. Not to mention cargo shipping and controlling the mouth of the Mississippi or the hundreds of offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Texas nor Lousiana need the federal government, but the United States needs them. So if secession ever became an actual issue I doubt it would be resolved peacefully.

It would really be up to the military. Who they chose to side with would determine the victor.

Most US Air Force recruits are from Texas. Texas is the second highest provider of US Army recruits. Texas is also the second highest provider of US Navy recruits. Texas also has fairly higher per capita rankings of recruits out of the population.
www.statemaster.com...&all=1





[edit on 17/4/09 by MikeboydUS]




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Its funny Texas had no problem being part of the union when their boy Bush was in office. Now that a Black liberal is an office for less than 100 days, they want to secede? Talk about conditional patriotism.


Ya know, this kind of divisive rhetoric is the problem.

I'm a white democrat, living in new york, I voted for obama even[would've voted for ron paul if I could have], and I have a gigantic problems with most of the policies obama has enstated and plans to enstate.

This kind of talk assumes that a small minority of republicans are the only one who takes issue with obamas over reaching policies, bankrupting our nation.

I had a problem with bush, and obama is just more of the same.

Theres an agenda behind the scenes that seems to get carried out fluidly no matter which side of the same coin holds the office.

I would guess the more people that become educated on what obama has actually done in these first few months, the more people that will become bitterly angry.

The media is just trying to marginalize the majority of US citizens that have a problem with obama's policies, into a minority of angry republican right wing racist extremists, much like you've tried to do with your comments.

That's not the case. People from all over the country are outraged at the bank bailouts, among other things, as is evident by the fact that there was a teaparty in nearly every state of the union.

Furthermore, you want to talk about patriotism.

Is it patriotism to blindly accept and applaud any and every policy your president puts in place, when it inevitably leads to more people behind bars, shackled up, putting people out on the streets homeless, while already wealthy business men and politicians line their pockets with cash hot off the printing press?

No my good sir, it is not. It's my deep love for this country that compels me to question and criticize the decisions our government makes, especially when it becomes destructive to its own means, brushes aside our constitution like its nothing more than an insignificant piece of scrap paper, the principles our country was founded on are being tossed aside for the security and wealth of a small minority of dominant business men.

You don't find it ironic that in the land of the free, home of the brave, prison is a growth industry, the very antithesis of freedom?

[edit on 17-4-2009 by djzombie]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Oh, and more and more people are starting to realize that succession is actually a viable option. After all, they can form another Federal government, can't they.


Form another Federal government ? No they cant. If they did they would be lined up, blindfolded and shot . Uncle Sam hates traitors and secessionists more than murderers and rapists.


Originally posted by sir_chancealot
At least one of the beautiful things out of the NH resolution was them claiming that the federal government had NO SAY in what they were talking about, because they were not a party to the original "contract" (i.e., the constitution), but are a creation of such a contract. In other words, they (fed. govt.) have about as much say in it as your car would in talks between you and your bank over your car loan.

No, that is absolutely untrue. The Supreme Court has said that any resolutions made by Texas regarding secession are completely null and void. Which means even if Texas passed a resolution they cannot act on it without breaking US law.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Which means even if Texas passed a resolution they cannot act on it without breaking US law.


If Texas passes a resolution seceding from the union, they are no longer subject to US law. That is the point of secession.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by djzombie
 


Washington would argue otherwise, especially because of the refineries around Houston, the vast number of US military bases in Texas, and specifically Fort Hood.

On the other hand many people in the military are from Texas so I have no idea what Washington would do if many in the military refused to obey orders to end the "rebellion" in Texas.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by djzombie

Which means even if Texas passed a resolution they cannot act on it without breaking US law.


If Texas passes a resolution seceding from the union, they are no longer subject to US law. That is the point of secession.

Maybe you're having a hard time understanding English but what I said means that they cant secede even if they wanted to and passed a resolution. It would mean nothing .

Its like you declaring that your house is a country of its own. Its mad talk. Means nothing, just like Texas declaring Secession from the USA.

Finally, the last time Southers acted up and talked about secession, we Yankees and Uncle Sam handed your butts to you in a silver platter and we did it with rifles and cannons. You dont want to be playing in this day and age because traitors in the USA are only give one option. That is DEATH.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Washington can argue otherwise until they're blue in the face.

What we need is a state to secede and then other states to follow suit in support.

Short of that I don't see much other than a revolution effecting any real change.

The smaller the government the better. I wish all states would secede from the union, though very unlikely, that would send a clear message.

The important thing is to unite, and not bicker amongst ourselves, this left / right squabble is a farce to begin with, and a detriment to any real change occurring.


Maybe you're having a hard time understanding English but what I said means that they cant secede even if they wanted to and passed a resolution. It would mean nothing .


I believe you're the one having problems with the english language.

se⋅cede
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.

Furthermore:

Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP]

A: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]


source


Its like you declaring that your house is a country of its own. Its mad talk. Means nothing, just like Texas declaring Secession from the USA.


I no longer consent to be governed. There I just did it.

The difference being I don't have the means to defend my home against a tyrannical government with military superiority. Texas, very well could. It has the military, provides the energy resources for quite a bit of the country.

Furthermore, if every state seceded from the union, what does the federal government have control left over? The district of columbia, try taking back the country by force with nothing but politicians when the military forces are summoned back to the residences of their home states under the authority of said state, no longer subject to US law after secession.


Finally, the last time Southers acted up and talked about secession, we Yankees and Uncle Sam handed your butts to you in a silver platter and we did it with rifles and cannons. You dont want to be playing in this day and age because traitors in the USA are only give one option. That is DEATH.


First off, I live in new york, I think I'm technically the Yankee.

Second, for the LAST F*CKIN TIME - THIS IS NOT A NORTH/SOUTH ISSUE, THIS IS NOT A BLACK/WHITE ISSUE - THIS IS NOT A RIGHT/LEFT ISSUE - THIS IS A PEOPLE VS ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT POWER ISSUE.

You only serve to further their agenda by dividing us.

Furthermore - LIVE FREE OR DIE.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by djzombie]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by djzombie
 


Washington would argue otherwise, especially because of the refineries around Houston, the vast number of US military bases in Texas, and specifically Fort Hood.

On the other hand many people in the military are from Texas so I have no idea what Washington would do if many in the military refused to obey orders to end the "rebellion" in Texas.


Some people in the military are from Texas. But even if you consider their number and then you take ALL the National Guard and military units from other states, they wouldnt stand a whisker of a chance. Also, ALL members of the military have sworn to obey the President of the US. So if the Texans dont hold to their oath, they will be shot as traitors. Simple


[edit on 17-4-2009 by IAF101]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


I still can't imagine that many in the military supporting it. There would be a huge amount of sympathizers in the military and the national guard.

This doesn't even include the many civilian sympathizers that would exist.

It would be a monumental mess. Especially in this day and age. This isn't the 1860s where the North dominated the economy and industry. Many of the refineries that supply the country are located around Houston. In addition to that Texas' GDP is larger than Australia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ukraine, Israel, or Venezuela. A conflict with Texas would cripple the US economy if not outright collapse it.

I also think it would lead to a domino effect, drawing in other states to declare secession if Texas was attacked. Just Alaska's and Louisiana's secession in the wake of an attack on Texas would collapse the US energy industry and the Strategic Oil Reserves would also be gone.

Here's the real kicker. Nuclear Weapons. If they seceeded they would have them. They are already in the state.

So like I said a monumental mess if it became violent and there would be no winners. ( Except maybe China and Russia
)



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   

But even if you consider their number and then you take ALL the National Guard and military units from other states, they wouldnt stand a whisker of a chance. Also, ALL members of the military have sworn to obey the President of the US. So if the Texans dont hold to their oath, they will be shot as traitors.


This assumes that all members of the military will blindly obey orders to shoot and kill their own brethren. In which case, we have a civil war on our hands, because there are not many people in this country will stand for that.

However there has already been dissent in the military, soldiers saying exactly what I've suggested - they will not follow orders to disarm the population and/or fire on them.

So it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 





Finally, the last time Southers acted up and talked about secession, we Yankees and Uncle Sam handed your butts to you in a silver platter and we did it with rifles and cannons. You dont want to be playing in this day and age because traitors in the USA are only give one option. That is DEATH.


incorrect, you were saved from being destroyed because Russia intervened, stationed its ships in USA and prevented european powers like Great Britain and France from entering the war



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

You have to see it as a matter of duty and loyalty. If it came down to it, members in the military would do their duty. That is to serve the Union and follow the orders of the President of the USA, no matter what else happens. Unlike the civilian world, there is no room for speculation and debate of orders. If the orders say "Go". Then you "Go". Even members from Texas would most likely support the USA even if their state secedes because they are loyal to the US more than Texas. When they wear the uniform, they defend the United States, from its enemies both within and outside. If they dont then they are automatically traitors and can be shot on the spot in wartime according to the US military code of justice.


Also, as to the viability. The matter does not become, if it "economically" feasible or if we can afford it or not. Those considerations come in when we have a choice. During an "insurrection", it is the duty of the state to put it down by any means as necessary as fast as it can. They will have no choice but to take Texas by hook or by crook. They will let loose the dogs of war and most of America will support Uncle Sam even if it is Texas because Americans HATE traitors and that is what they will be if they secede. During the last civil war they used conscription and many in the North rioted because of it but it still didnt stop Lincoln from conscripting. It becomes a matter of do or die. The US cannot let Texas secede as that will fracture the union. Have you ever know the USA to give territory back ? It wont happen.


Also, as for Texas's economy, it depends on the rest of union for everything from raw materials to industry to food. Do you really believe they can live alone or that Mexico will be able to aid them? Even if Lousiana joins them, their offshore oil rigs and sea terminals can easily be blockaded by the US Navy crippling their economy. Without the Mid West to feed them and their ports blocked, Texas will starve in a matter of weeks and automatically surrender. The only incalculable loss to the USA would be the loss of California. It is by far the most significant economy within the union and by far the most economically independent.

As for the nuclear weapons without launch and activation codes, they might as well be bricks. Moreover, even in a civil war, the Texans wouldnt want to be the first to play that card because once played there can be no turning back and it would be an end game for them.

Given all these factors, it is highly unlikely that Texas or even Texas and Louisiana can actually take on the USA and win. The whole point of secession is to gain something from it. Today, they can gain absolutely nothing at all from secession.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kombatt98
reply to post by IAF101
 





Finally, the last time Southers acted up and talked about secession, we Yankees and Uncle Sam handed your butts to you in a silver platter and we did it with rifles and cannons. You dont want to be playing in this day and age because traitors in the USA are only give one option. That is DEATH.


incorrect, you were saved from being destroyed because Russia intervened, stationed its ships in USA and prevented european powers like Great Britain and France from entering the war


No, the US congress and we Yankees were ready to whip the English back where they came from if Part two was to take place but Lincoln was all about fighting one war at a time and the French didnt dare attack even after they tried to take Mexico because Napoleon was in no position to effectively support the Confederates across the Atlantic or from Mexico without facing massive losses from Yankee forces. As for the Russians, they only came because the Russian Czar wanted to keep his forces free from being ice bound in order to prevent and counteract any conflict with the French or the British.

Even if the English landed in Canada, we Yankees would have sent them to hell with or without the Confederate support, however the Southerners even though the tried to pull Europe into the Civil war couldnt do so because they failed in their diplomatic attempts utterly.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by djzombie
This assumes that all members of the military will blindly obey orders to shoot and kill their own brethren. In which case, we have a civil war on our hands, because there are not many people in this country will stand for that.

However there has already been dissent in the military, soldiers saying exactly what I've suggested - they will not follow orders to disarm the population and/or fire on them.

So it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to think.


First, soldiers can say what they want but they have sworn their loyalty to the USA and sworn to follow the President of the USA. Any who fail to do so are traitors. Its as simple as that. Their "opinion" is irrelevant.

As for the military "killing their own brethren", a traitor has no brethren. And, as for "people not standing for it", the Federal government will have no choice. They have to preserve the union, come what may and will do so at any cost just like Lincoln did because that is their duty. And Since Obama is a "Lincoln" fan, you can bet, he will do pretty much the same thing and let loose the dogs of war with full scale conscription and the like!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


stop making make believe scenarios , and accept facts . forgot how Canada defeated USA in 1812 huh?

Canada was a british territory and canada defeated you ,lol . also you failed to defeat the british invasion of 1812-13 , it ended in a military stalemate

what makes you think that your nation divided would have defeated Britain.

www.lutins.org...
www.rpsc.org...
had russian ships not come , good chanaces were outbreak of hostilies with britain was inevitable .



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


I like your zeal and all but I was active duty in the army for over seven years (armor 4, MP 3), with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and have been in the national guard now for over a year and soldiers are not machines.

In the case of an American state's secession it would be a force majeure.

The oath is ultimately to defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If things have gotten so bad that one of the states secedes there could easily be unpredictable behavior from the military in general, including a Coup d'etat.

A states secession would result in an unpredictable chain of events. Trying to use a model from over 100 years ago simply does not apply. American people arn't machines either. They would be especially unpredictable in such an event.

If the US military did attack Texas it would be a monumental mess. It would cripple the US energy and defense industries. The plants that build the F-22 Raptor and will build the F-35 are in Texas. Bell Helicopter and its plants are in Texas. KBR, AAFES, and even USAA are in Texas. Greyhound Buslines, Continental Airlines, and American Airlines also in Texas. Halliburton, AT&T, ExxonMobil, Dell Computers and many more all operate out of Texas. Were looking at massive economic disruption.

If the military operated with the fanatical zeal you describe it would guarantee the balkanization of the country. The union would fracture and collapse like the Soviet union.

The truth though is that our military is filled with people of honor and virtue. There would be no genocidal campaign against fellow Americans. What force that would be used would be measured and deemed appropriate. If anything an operation against Texas would be more reserved than current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now for some facts about Texas:


Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state received approximately $0.94 in benefits.

The state holds the most Fortune 500 company headquarters in the United States.

Texas has the most farms and the highest acreage in the United States.

Texas leads the nation livestock production. Texas leads the nation in number of cattle, which usually exceed 16 million head.

With mineral resources, Texas leads in creating cement, crushed stone, lime, salt, sand and gravel.

The state grows significant amounts of cereal crops and produce.

The state is a large produce growing state especially with watermelons, grapefruits and cantaloupes

Texas leads the nation in production of cotton.

Texas has known petroleum deposits of about 5 billion barrels (790,000,000 m3), which makes up approximately one-fourth of the known U.S. reserves.

The Baytown Refinery in the Houston area is the largest refinery in America.

Texas also leads in natural gas production, producing one-fourth of the nation's supply.

Several petroleum companies are based in Texas such as: Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, Valero, and Marathon Oil.

The state is a leader in renewable energy sources; it produces the most wind power in the nation.

The Energy Information Administration states that the state's large agriculture and forestry industries gives Texas enormous biomass for use in biofuels.

Texas has the headquarters of many high technology companies, such as Dell, Inc., Texas Instruments, Perot Systems, AT&T, and Electronic Data Systems (EDS).

Texas has compensated by building both America's largest highway and railway systems in terms of mileage, as well as the largest number of airports.

The Texas Medical Center, in Houston, holds the world's largest concentration of research and healthcare institutions, with 47 member institutions.

As the largest exporter of goods in the United States, Texas currently grosses more than $100 billion a year in trade with other nations.

In 2006, Texas had a gross state product of $1.09 trillion

Texas is responsible for 7.9% of the United States' gross domestic product.


Texas
en.wikipedia.org...

Economy of Texas
en.wikipedia.org...

So there will be no starving In Texas.

The destruction such a conflict would inflict on the US would make any win a Pyrrhic Victory. It would be absolutley devastating and leave the US weak, bankrupt and open to an even bigger mess in the US Southwest involving pro Aztlan guerillas probably supported by China, Russia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

The cost simply would not be worth it. People at the Pentagon would know this and likely do what was necessary to prevent the secession in the first place.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kombatt98
Canada was a british territory and canada defeated you ,lol . also you failed to defeat the british invasion of 1812-13 , it ended in a military stalemate

Hold on! You said Canada defeated the US and now your saying its a stalemate ?
Please get your facts straight. You cant have a stalemate and a defeat at the same time.

In fact, after the war, America emerged stronger and more confident than ever before and we actually took Carleton Island from the British!


And also Mobile, Al from the Spanish but that wasnt part of that war.


Originally posted by Kombatt98
Also,

what makes you think that your nation divided would have defeated Britain.
had russian ships not come , good chanaces were outbreak of hostilies with britain was inevitable .

First and foremost the British tried to involve themselves but they failed to do so because of Lincoln's diplomacy. Second, even if the British tried to start something they would have again lost because the US had vastly increased our military after the above war you mentioned and was in much better shape to fight than in 1812. Lastly the Russian Czar's two fleets could Never have kept the English Fleet at bay had they really decided to attack and also, his stationing a fleet in the Pacific "away" from confrontation with any invading fleet is clear indication that his "support" wasnt really support but rather strategic deployment .

Do you want to keep delving into American history. I can keep going, I paid attention in school!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 





Hold on! You said Canada defeated the US and now your saying its a stalemate ? Please get your facts straight. You cant have a stalemate and a defeat at the same time.


Canada defeated you , because , you failed to conquer Canada despite your goal to do so




Please get your facts straight. You cant have a stalemate and a defeat at the same time.

for US expansionism it was a defeat as it failed to conquer Canada , for the British , a initial major victory and later a stalemate as it tried to conquer USA




First and foremost the British tried to involve themselves but they failed to do so because of Lincoln's diplomacy. Second, even if the British tried to start something they would have again lost because the US had vastly increased our military after the above war you mentioned and was in much better shape to fight than in 1812.

more make believe scenarios huh?
[edit on 17-4-2009 by Kombatt98]


[edit on 17-4-2009 by Kombatt98]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 

I myself have worked and lived in Texas @ Sheppard AFB with the 82nd AFMS so I know and have many friends who are Texans through and through and they are all good Americans but coming down to it any state in the Union be it Texas or New York, any secession would be very hard to deal with. Do you think a state like New York would be any less "economically viable" for the US ? or Florida ? Even states like Wisconsin would be pretty much irreplaceable and devastating to loose.

But when an extraordinary situation like States seceding the union happens, Americans will rally around the US. We are talking about only Texas here but imagine the scenario back during the Civil War when the whole South broke off from the Union. All states within the union did what they had to do. Congress didnt waver and neither did the US military.

A coup d'etat by the military generals and admirals would be an impossible event. There has to be one leader and we have no "Patton" or "Eisenhower". Most of the generals and the Admirals are unknown to the civilian world except maybe Gen.Patreas and a few others. And I doubt they would ever abandon their oath. In times of great moral dilemma and uncertainty, people are more likely to hold on to their core values.

In the remote probability that our secession scenario does take place, they will just take out the leaders of the secessionist movement and the probability of all out war would be extremely remote.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   


You can find people in Texas today who believe that it is still an independent nation!



The Republic of Texas is it's own nation. Republic of Texas.



And for anyone that thinks that the Republic of Texas would get smashed by a Federal army invasion, I point you to the place I was born, Ft. Hood.


Another Ft. Hood. link with information
=========================================


I would also like to point out that you CAN'T compare the first civil war to any seccession that might occur today. Today many people all over the States have lost faith in the government, back in the 1860s it was just the South that had lost faith in the system. You would see a lot less people sign up to fight a rebellion of any state, even the military itself would be hesitant. These are very different days indeed.









[edit on 17-4-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join