It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by ayoss

The statement that sticks in my craw is when he was asked why he just didn't let the southern states secede he replied "Who would pay the taxes" Now does that sound like a man who gives a damn about slavery ?

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
So the union military blockading and firing on civilian ships in Charleston harbor does not constitute an act of war?

The minute the Southern states decided to succeed it was an act of war. 10 years prior to that the United states ,backed strongly by southern states such as Texas, decided to run a campaign of invading northern Mexico. That was an act of war a well, instigated by the United states along with the South. The Union was spreading its wings and it was made clear that it would stay that way.

edit on 31-12-2010 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Well, first and foremost, it would look like a caravan of people like me flooding north and west the second we got wind of it. Secondly, if you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, I imagine it would look something like that.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by autowrench
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.

This is correct. Texas is perfectly capable of being it's own country. I'm certain most southern central states would go with it if it did. Including miss, louisiana, Oklahoma as well as Alabama. Thats pretty much the bulk of the oil industry right there.

We're not selling cotton. We're selling oil now. Now everyone is a slave to it... this slavery is colorblind. It only applys to the poor and middleclass.

Imagine the devistation to the rest of the country...
edit on 1-1-2011 by theRhenn because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by Jazzyguy

Yes...However,Manifest Destiny says we The United States of America can then conquer it and take it back...So please....Go.

That just means that if the majory of whats left of the US is powerful enough and wishes to. The way things are now, other states would follow if not lead. The constitution pretty much had that covered. If the Fed is bad.. We slap it on the wrist. If it does more harm, we pull out or counter it. The people have the right to counter the fed but it's made illegal for us to think about it now. They simply closed the pro america loophole and trapped us in one helluva catch 22.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:18 AM
As a side note on the question, several years ago a Washington DC think tank (Rand??) did a study about what would happen to states if the seceded. Texas would immediately have an economy larger that Canada (which is 10th in the world), would have the largest natural gas deposits in the hemisphere, the 2nd largest technological base in the hemisphere, among other things. And the 2nd largest military depending on what they could hold onto when they split. The general consensus was that Texas, Washington, Utah, and Illinois would have the best chance of being successful.

My history was along time ago, but as I remember the treaty the brought Texas into the US there was a provision that Texas could decide to split it self into smaller states, or at any point decide to with draw from the Union. If that is correct then the Civil War was illegal and Texas is probably owed a lot of damages. I may be incorrect about some or all of these points, if so please point me to the correct information.


posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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

SPAIN????????? Spain's across the atlantic and would be hard pressed to feed it's own population much less 49 hungry states.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:46 AM

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.


no need for dumb threads like this to continue.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:53 AM
Just my humble opinion, but it would depend on the "reason" for succession.
Some are more valid than others. I can't say that red states going at it would be automatically better, power corrupts, absolute. . . yaddayadda

What makes us great is not our similarities, but our ability to recognize our differences.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:58 AM
Of course they should have the right, and they do have the right.

Albeit might be foolish to do so. It would be interesting to see what happens. From afar.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:08 PM

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.


I'm not sure what some of you people find so hard to understand about this. It's not a hard subject to comprehend.

Although given the state of the public school system these days, I wonder....
edit on 1-1-2011 by Darkrunner because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:25 PM
Yes, the states can.
Yes, many probably will.

Happened in the former USSR not long ago and for some of the same reasons.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:45 PM
A secession would actually impact the economy very little. Most large corporations would still accept U.S. dollars, as would most banks that conduct business across state lines - any secession from states would almost inherently or immediately be amended to include allowing the banks to continue business-as-relatively-normal.

The biggest change would be in the programs formerly subsidized by federal spending.

As for GDP - it really depends upon what you consider a "red" state versus a "blue" state. What is more important than GDP is how much is currently spent on various forms of federal aid related to how much revenue the state provides.

There are two large demographics that end up consuming tax payer dollars - the elderly, and single parent families. States, like the one I live in, currently receive more in aggregate from federal funding than is generated in that state (though I've not found a good break-down of what all is being spent, where - as roads and education aid would be lumped in with social security and others).

The logical assumption would be to presume these states would then 'collapse' if they were to try and secede. This would not necessarily be the case. It would mostly depend upon what the state attempted to do - if they attempted to print their own money, that would ultimately end in an economic collapse as the state's notes would have very little to no accepted value.

Other factors, such as whether or not to establish and enforce a minimum wage, or leave that up to third-parties such as labor unions or "industry standard" organizations (IEEE and the like). Tax rates and policy would also have an impact.

However, most of these states would suddenly find themselves with a deficit - populations that were once content on receiving federal aid will now face being cut from programs that the state cannot afford and has not deemed a priority. Entire aid programs will be restructured (ideally for better efficiency - but that can go either way). The state will no longer be allowed to rely upon a printing press, unless they are so foolish as to attempt what I mentioned earlier, and authorize their own notes.

In either case - the state will become a huge target for businesses. People will be looking for work and, quite honestly, willing to work for far less than 'industry standard.' This may or may not be legal, depending upon what the state decides to do - but it will happen. Populations will condense into more communal living to reduce living expenses as businesses move in to provide an outlet for the newly arising labor market.

I'll be honest - at either of the jobs I'm working, I could work a few months, get fired, and draw unemployment for far more than I'm making at present. When companies in that area are not required to have unemployment insurance and benefits - I'm not going to be looking at being able to work for a few months, get fired, and spend ... what is it, now, eighteen months on unemployment? Drawing more than I'd make working in a factory?

I can't get unemployment because I'm still under my reserve contract while working at a restaurant on top of a factory job - so the example doesn't apply to me, but the principle applies.

When that's gone, and when you can't get paid to be a single parent, your work ethic goes up. And where there is work ethic, there will be people willing to put you to work doing something. If it's cold and someone says: "come help chop down this tree and let's build some shelter" - you'll do it, or freeze your balls off.

So, to recover, a lot of these states will end up having to tear a few pages out of the "civil rights" manual. Most would find agricultural pursuits rather profitable - but only with a considerable amount of mechanization, skewing the popular notion that we'd see the return of slave-labor. We would see the return of employer-provided housing and rather low pay - but it's little different than the way most Americans live today - hand-to-mouth ("Paycheck-to-paycheck")

We currently live under the illusion we are not slaves, but when asked if you could afford to quit your job, your answer would be no - and you likely don't have even a 'short' six months of expenses sitting in reserve to deal with such a situation. So, you can consider most of what you lease and/or rent to be provided by your employer, as well as your food and other consumables.

So, if the difference is that you get provided a place to live, personal transportation and food while working for $0.25 per hour - it's likely going to be little different from living the way you do, now - as that's about all of the income the average person leaves to discretionary spending, anyway.

In a strange and unexpected way, we'd probably see an improvement in the average standard of living within two to three years, but it would be another 20-50 before the states started to see substantial migration towards skilled labor and the 'indentured servant' inherently replaced with machines maintained by employees and contractors as we are familiar with them, today.

It would be a rough decade following secession - no doubt. However, the states would probably be much better off in the long run - provided the nation, as a whole, didn't do some considerable downsizing of the federal government.

As for whether or not states should be allowed to secede? The state has every right to secede - just as any person has the right to claim a plot of land and challenge anyone who says otherwise. In a sense - if I say that your house is mine, and successfully throw you out of it - it becomes my house. Now - society has established rules, and since society recognizes you as the owner of that house, a bunch of people would soon show up to 'correct' my error. As such - whether the constitution provides for it, or not, any state could flip the national government the bird and walk away from the union. Hell, A city could give both the state and the national government the bird and declare independent sovereignty. It's their right as a group of people.

It would be short-sighted, however, to only consider the rights of those seceding. Those being seceded from have every right to challenge that secession. This is what we saw happen during the first Civil War. Now - I can appreciate the sentiment of preserving the union. The most important part of the Union is that we stick together - We are not the cluster# of america - we are the United States, and that's part of what makes us great. Wisconsin isn't out there just looking out for Wisconsin, they have a vested interest in the status of every other state (even if they lack any legal jurisdiction). When you come talk to one state as a foreign country - you talk to all of us.

Of course, we also didn't become a superpower by envying wealth and prosperity. We became a superpower by striving for wealth and prosperity. By penalizing those with wealth out of some faux moral crusade, you inherently defeat the very principle that has lead to the prosperity of the nation (wealth being generated). If those creating wealth in the country are criminalized, then it should stand to reason that the country will essentially criminalize its own success and global standing.

If national policy is in direct conflict to the overall financial success and future of the state, then it is the duty, responsibility, and right of the state to declare its independence and set its own economic policies as it sees fit.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:56 PM
Should Texas or any other states should or be allowed to secede from the United States? Sure!

America is United by States, not by Feds. One less State won't hurt America. Other interested "countries" are welcomed to join America to form the "United States". Get it? Thank folks! And Happy New Years.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:04 PM
Huge step backwards,

Second line

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:30 PM
A citizen of the United States can stop being a citizen of the United States by proclamation. Citizens are the rulers of their lives, having Power (which is two part; the authority that can be delegated to elected officials and the responsibility, which cannot be delegated). By those facts, the State, which is lesser than the citizen can succeed if the citizenry so decides.

The federal, which is the least powerful, has already proven it does what it likes. That was expected by the Framers and the Debaters for Ratification, and "government take-over" is easily up-ended by the citizen by personal declaration of their Power.

There is either no independent entity called "government" or there is only government (no citizens). In the first concept, there are only citizens who've asked to be held accountable to the various voices, and either succeed or fail in that endeavour; to them we label as government. In the latter, citizens *are* the government and so, again, either there is no government or all is government. Is there a difference?
edit on 1-1-2011 by ETSubmariner because: Fixation by proclamation.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:44 PM
unfortunately the military controls all the country and all the nuclear weapons. they have the last word.
the government and the president controls nothing, and for any reason the military and the private contractors don't get their due they will quickly slap the insurrectionists back into reality. you have to understand where and what for all your tax dollars have been doing since Eisenhower.

preparing your comfort and security...HAHAHAHAHA
edit on 1-1-2011 by anumohi because: changes

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

That is not true of Texas.

In 2006, Texas was home to six of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 57 overall, tied with California. Texas has an economy that was the second largest in the nation and the 15th largest in the world based on GDP (nominal) figures. 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 2008, Texas had a gross state product of $1.224 trillion, the second highest in the U.S. The Gross state product per capita as of 2005 was $42,975. Texas had the second largest workforce in the United States, with almost 11 million civilian workers.

In 2008, for the seventh year in a row, Texas led the United States in export revenues. Texas exports for 2008 totaled $192.2 billion.

In 2002, the Port of Houston was 6th among the top sea ports in the world in terms of total cargo volume; Air Cargo World rated Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport as "the best air cargo airport in the world". The ship channel at the Port of Houston—the largest in the U.S. in international commerce and the sixth-largest port in the world.

Texas is a productive agricultural state with the most farms both in number and acreage in the United States. It is known for its fertile land and abundant supply of fresh water. Texas leads the nation in number of cattle, which usually exceed 16 million head. The sprawling 320,000 deeded acre (1,200 km²) La Escalera Ranch, located 20 miles (32 km) south of Fort Stockton, Texas, is one of the largest cattle ranches in the Southwestern United States.

The state also leads nationally in production of sheep and goat products. Texas is king of cotton leading the nation in cotton production, its leading crop and second-most-valuable farm product. Texas is a leader in cereal crop production. The state is a large produce growing state especially with watermelons, grapefruits and cantaloupes.

The known petroleum deposits of Texas are about 8 billion barrels (1.3×109 m3), which makes up approximately one-third of the known U.S. supply. Texas has 4.6 billion barrels (730,000,000 m3) of proven crude oil reserves. As wells are depleted in the eastern portions of the state, drilling in state has moved westward.

Texas is a global leader in the energy industry and Houston is the energy capital of the world. Since 2003, Texas state officials have created various initiatives like the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund to develop the economy of Texas. Texas is a leader in alternative energy sources, producing the most wind power of any state, as well as small solar powered efforts and the experimental installation of wave-powered generators. Texas also is home to many of the world's largest oilfield services firms including Halliburton, Schlumberger and Dresser. The state has a number of pipeline operators, such as El Paso and Dynegy, along with diversified energy firms such as TXU and Reliant Energy.

The rest of the States need Texas, more than we need you. Texas and California are the only reasons why the situation in this Country is not worse.

Most Texans dont want to be a part of the Union any longer anyway. We can make it by ourselves. We dont need any other State. We want to go back to being a Sovereign Nation like we used to be.

Good riddance......

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:48 PM

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! And WE the people give the power to the States, which are ALL seperate "countries" with respect to the "federal" united states. Which is itself a country. I love how ignorant people really are. Each state has it's own congress and governor/president. Each has it's own flag, this makes it a seperate and distinct "nation" of it's own. Each collectively together become "these united states of America". United as one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. But we have forgotten the lessons of our forefathers and allowed a group of british agents...i.e. lawyers, judges, cops and the like who take an oath to the BAR, "British Accredited Registry", to usurp and subvert our rights and take away our sovereignty.

Time to end the games and say NO MORE!!!!! Redemption is at hand.

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Jazzyguy

I can see why some states want to do this as of 6 months ago, 32 states were offically listed as Bankrupt. I don't mean Morally, hell that would be all 50 states, but Financially.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in