Should Texas or any other states should or be allowed to secede from the United States?

Secession! What Would It Look Like If Red States Formed Their Own Country?

From me, the answer is yes. It's just my opinion, I don't know the details regarding the technicality or the legality of it, but the general principle is you shouldn't force a state to stay within a UNITED States if it's no longer wish to do so.

The states give power to the federal government. The federal government does not give power to the states. The states can take away that power at any time. Read The Constitution.

Originally posted by thewanger
The states give power to the federal government. The federal government does not give power to the states. The states can take away that power at any time. Read The Constitution.

Sorry, not looking for constitutional detail, just member's opinions.

You don't remember much about history do you Comrade? You tried to secede back in the 1860's and the glorious armies of Comrade Lincoln crushed you. Counterrevolutionaries will be crushed by the collective. Praise Comrade Obama! Report to your nearest FBI-NKVD office and confess your thoughtcrimes against the state. Bring a shovel and dress warm.

I think so.
Most of the red states produce very little GDP...so the problem is, once they form their own country, it would be only a matter of time before they started asking for handouts due to impoverished settings.

They would be dealing with problems of mass starvation, violence, hyper-inflation, and all sorts of other issues that would in the end turn them into a third world nation..and depending on how strongly they pushes for "freedom", it could end up with warlord ruling style lordship and fifedoms..not unlike somolia.

I think they should be allowed though. I am sort of tired of hearing about conservative utopia. They need a large area, say from Alabama to new mexico. give them all the middle southern states and perhaps a few northern ones like kentucky.
Hell, they can even have Florida...but they got to wait for me to get out of dodge first!

Then call it just that...Red America and Blue America. Have some basic trade agreements with them and a alliance pact overall. Also open borders and a very easy immigration process so that someone from the blue can simply move into the red with no problem should they find out they are a conservative, or a liberal can escape the clutches of the red menace and go get a harvard education or whatnot.

Now, can it happen? no. been tried before...it failed. But, should a serious discussion happen? most certainly. I think the divde in mindsets in the US are significant and basically fall in two sides. I see the chasm too deep to bridge for either side and so a seperation should be made.

Originally posted by thewanger
The states give power to the federal government. The federal government does not give power to the states. The states can take away that power at any time. Read The Constitution.

You read the constitution - it is the people who grant the power, the people are free to take it away...

As for the OP I say yes, let them go

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
You don't remember much about history do you Comrade? You tried to secede back in the 1860's and the glorious armies of Comrade Lincoln crushed you. Counterrevolutionaries will be crushed by the collective. Praise Comrade Obama! Report to your nearest FBI-NKVD office and confess your thoughtcrimes against the state. Bring a shovel and dress warm.

Too bad the collective usually supplies the count revolutionaries...

In this strange equation maybe the counterrevolutionaries will be corporately sponsored

Gotta make sure Walmart is free to be free and tell you what free means

Gotta love the Janky Reds

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
I don't know the details regarding the technicality or the legality of it, but the general principle is you shouldn't force a state to stay within a UNITED States if it's no longer wish to do so.

Originally posted by thewanger
The states give power to the federal government. The federal government does not give power to the states. The states can take away that power at any time. Read The Constitution.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Sorry, not looking for constitutional detail, just member's opinions.

He gave you the "Technicality and the legality of it"

The answer is yes. A state has the technical and legal right to secede from the Union.

Opinions don't matter. They have the right. It depends on the peoples wishes of that state.

reply to post by SaturnFX

That's a very good post, Saturn, starred. But I have to say though, Texas economy is very important for america.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Opinions don't matter.

Then this thread doesn't matter to you.

The War Between the States wasn't really about slavery but more about differences in economic policies. The North had become heavily industrialized and relied less on slave labor than the South, who still had an agrarian economy for which they wanted slave labor for. The whole leadup to the war was a fight against economic policies and the South saw the Northern states as a threat to their way of life/economy so they seceded from the Union. It was a fight over the rights of the States v the Federal Government's encroachment upon those rights. I maintain that the States have a right to secede, but that right has never been confirmed by SCOTUS.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Then this thread doesn't matter to you.

No, your offhand dismissal of his correct reply to your OP doesn't matter.

Enjoy the New Years.

If they don't want to stay in the US they should be able to go do their own thing. it seems silly to try and force them to stay....

Of course they have the right. Will the fascist corporatist allow it without a fight is the question. And the answer is most likely no. Doubtful any state will try succession any time soon as not enough of thier people would support it. The economic crisis could change all that though as it worsens.

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

That's a very good post, Saturn, starred. But I have to say though, Texas economy is very important for america.

Yes, it does...hense why trade needs to be established. however, who is more important economically, texas to california, new york, and penn, or those three to texas.
most of the deep red states can actually be eliminated, with only food being the issue. the blue states support almost the entire gdp of the nation. If we lost all the red states, the only issue we would have would be to get a food supply line in from south america and spain.

I don't want to see Conservatopia fail...I think that as long as there is some place where the rush limbaughs and sharon angles can go to, then the rest of the states will be far better off, and so their continued success is required. If they need some funds now and then to keep going, then the blue should send care packages or whatnot to make sure they don't try to come back into the union.

The one major problem I see is how to divide up the nuclear stockpile. I do not want to imagine a world where a very hard right religious theocratic style nation has a ton of nuclear weapons..so that in itself is a show stopper until we can elimiinate all weapons of mass destruction in America and sign a treaty of non-proliferation that both sides abide by...with the contingency that if either side violates it, they give up all rights as a nation and UN troops move in to secure the entire country without question. You build a nuke, you give up control completely.

So, ultimately...it will never happen. We like our big bombs and earth ending devices.

reply to post by SaturnFX


An interesting scenario, but I disagree.

The south's weak economy is a result of the Reconstruction. The South was traditionally an agrarian society and was an extremely prosperous primary economy based on extraction of mineral wealth and exploitation of rich agricultural lands. Southern Conservatism has been concerned with a return to agrarian society since 1930 at the latest. I imagine that the Red States could be very successful if they returned to a largely rural, agrarian society. My understanding is that the North forced economic reforms on the South that included massive investment in manufacturing and other secondary industries. The Union's manufacturing industry is obviously collapsing around us as we speak and now may be a good time for an agrarian revival, a 'grassroots' reinvigoration of the economy.

I see 'DankNugs' has beaten me to the punch, which brings something else to mind; cotton may not be profitable anymore, but the South could rise again if it mass-produced dank nugs...

reply to post by Jazzyguy


From what I have read in the Texas Constitution Texas never gave over power to the Federal Government, Texas had a Treaty, instead. And truthfully, any or all of the States can "secede" merely by nullifying Federal Law. It's that simple.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

An interesting scenario, but I disagree.

The south's weak economy is a result of the Reconstruction. The South was traditionally an agrarian society and was an extremely prosperous primary economy based on extraction of mineral wealth and exploitation of rich agricultural lands. Southern Conservatism has been concerned with a ]url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Agrarians]return to agrarian society[/url] since 1930 at the latest. I imagine that the Red States could be very successful if they returned to a largely rural, agrarian society.

Sorry to point it out


Free Labor...

I think they could do well if they would change their views on fictitious entities and humanity, it is an inadvertent bi-product of a belief system that is very destructive and oppressive. Because the belief in "freedom" applied to business; the ( en.wikipedia.org... ) would create tremendous cost to the populace who is unwilling to abate any abuse because of "freedom". This is a huge economic factor that people do not consider because externalities are too abstract,,,however, the nature of this abstraction does not negate the cost in the slightest.

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Ya...the whole free labor thing was part of southern success in the 19th century, and the next to slave labor of the very early 20th century.

So, I guess they will have to find a new slave class if they want to return to the good ole days. Perhaps make every single crime a massive offense requiring 20 years of slave labor...that should fix that issue. Will get a good revenue to the government by making slave trading a official federal trade, get your fields plowed and picked for next to nothing, voila...back to the southern good ole days.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


I think they should be allowed though. I am sort of tired of hearing about conservative utopia. They need a large area, say from Alabama to new mexico. give them all the middle southern states and perhaps a few northern ones like kentucky.
Hell, they can even have Florida...but they got to wait for me to get out of dodge first!

New Mexico doesn't need another border with a 3rd world country. We have enough Texan refugees as it is!
I'm one of em! But I still maintain the home place on those windblown plains.

Texans in general feel like they are a separate entity from the US anyway. The pity is....that so many folks from Michigan and Pennsylvania move to Texas, buy a cowboy hat and think that magically transforms them into a Tejano.

Well we know what will happen if any of the red states succeeed and start their own libertarian/conservative utopia. Even the Southern representitives and governors know the kind of libertarian hogwash they have been spewing out applies for nothing really. This is why conservative and southern governors like Jindal could not refuse stimulus money, this is why the republicans had to redeclare their support for medicare, this is why virtually none of those states have proven themselves the ability to operate purely through private means. Texas itself takes in more money that it gives out from the federal economy and thats more so evident.

So no, the Southern states would not last long on their own, unless little to nothing changes in their overall economy (they keep on medicare and welfare and so forth). In that scenario they will probably be able to operate by themselves, barely.