Texas Secession - A Unique Card to Play

[ParanoiA]

Interesting story on a unique card Texas can play, out of the 1845 Annexation Agreement, that could possibly work.

 

"[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

 

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature.

 

So what does that mean? Well, Texas could field another 8 senators if they divided themselves into 5 states. That would tip the balance of power to republicans, maybe for perpetuity with that kind of edge, if one can assume Texas states would stay red.

 

And according to Tom Delay:

"If we invoke it, the United States Senate would kick us out ... because they're not going to allow 10 (sic) new Texas senators into the Senate. That's how you secede."

 

That's 8 new senators, Tom, you already have 2.

 

I'm quite sure most would dismiss Texas as redneck whiny brats, but I think that's oversimplifying and a bit flippant since this is an old streak of theirs. Thirsting for independence shouldn't be disparaged out of hand, after all, Americans thirsted for independence in 1776 and they were similarly dismissed as bratty children. Feel free to vent about that, but I was hoping not to get bogged down too much on that argument.

 

I'm more interested in this: If Texas did secede, would you still want to be on good terms with them and trade and ally as friends? Do you think this division trick would even work for secession, or do you think the US congress would deny the request and accept 8 new senators?

[ecoli]

this is just the usual post-election whining I assume.

[swansont]

Interesting story on a unique card Texas can play, out of the 1845 Annexation Agreement, that could possibly work.

 

 

 

So what does that mean? Well, Texas could field another 8 senators if they divided themselves into 5 states. That would tip the balance of power to republicans, maybe for perpetuity with that kind of edge, if one can assume Texas states would stay red.

Probably not in perpetuity, or even for much longer. The Latino population is growing and is also young, so there is an ongoing influx of left-leaning voters as we move forward.

 

The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News crunch the numbers and find that Democrats are shaving five and a half percentage points off the GOP’s margin every four years, and the state is poised to turn blue in twelve years. A comprehensive campaign to register Latino voters could hasten that date.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/has-the-emerging-democratic-majority-emerged.html?mid=twitter_nymag

 

Even now it might be hard to pick up more than a few senate seats with this gambit. If you look at the county election map, there are sections of blue

http://i.imgur.com/2Qi6I.jpg

and dividing up into states is probably less prone to the exceedingly odd election district shapes from gerrymandering, and those borders would be fixed once that happened. It would likely make gerrymandering the congressional districts harder, too, since they wouldn't cross the new state lines.

 

So, the GOP would pick up a few senate seats now (4 perhaps, if the new ones broke 6-2), but could potentially subsequently lose 6-8 in the next decade as the demographics change.

 

edit: it also says "which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution" which implies that the new states would need to be approved by Congress, and this would take a little time. And then elections would have to happen. All the while, getting bluer by the year.

[iNow]

I'm more interested in this: If Texas did secede, would you still want to be on good terms with them and trade and ally as friends?

Yes, especially given how here in Austin we're a bit like silicon valley with MAJOR employers like Dell, AMD, Freescale, Facebook, Google, 3M, Texas Instruments, Applied Materials, and others. These companies, and the countless others in the service and support industries that assist them, likely wouldn't appreciate the added burden of having to engage in international border regulations just to sell stuff to people in Oklahoma or Louisiana.

 

I personally don't feel secession is viable as Texas relies far too much on help from the federal government for border security, help with poverty and education, and healthcare. The big one is obviously border security. The national guard and army and marines who are in Texas are part of the United States military and would remain with the United States, thus leaving Texas defenses and military resources decimated if a secession took place.

Edited November 14, 2012 by iNow

[Moontanman]

Another interesting petition being signed...

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/strip-citizenship-everyone-who-signed-petition-secede-and-exile-them/ZbMjcwPf

[imatfaal]

I have read a fair bit about this - and even though petitions have reached the 25,000 figure to get an official Govt Response - I keep on coming back to this webpage at the Texas State Library and Archive Commission - Texas Annexation Q&A.

[iNow]

Indeed. The idea that it's legally okay for Texas to leave is a myth... one that is often repeated, but a myth all the same. For Texas to secede, there would have to be a new agreement put in place and agreed to by all parties, or another civil war where Texas somehow manages to win and cause the United States (proper) to stand down and concede a loss.

[ecoli]

I have read a fair bit about this - and even though petitions have reached the 25,000 figure to get an official Govt Response - I keep on coming back to this webpage at the Texas State Library and Archive Commission - Texas Annexation Q&A.

Presidential proclamation doesn't make it a law, just saying.

[iNow]

Presidential proclamation doesn't make it a law, just saying.

What about SCOTUS decision?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[padren]

I've never understood the politics of secession - even if you have a 75% majority wanting to secede, how do you tell patriotic, hard working war veterans and the families of those who died for the stars and stripes that they have to choose between giving up their home and everything they've built... or accept that they no longer can fly the American flag, are no longer protected by the US Constitution, and will simply be annexed by an entirely new government.

 

While people who fit that bill may be a minority and of course, the demographic is loaded with qualifiers to maximize emotional appeal - I cannot imagine a solution to political conflict that simply discards the concerns of such people.

[D H]

I've never understood the politics of secession - even if you have a 75% majority wanting to secede, how do you tell patriotic, hard working war veterans and the families of those who died for the stars and stripes that they have to choose between giving up their home and everything they've built... or accept that they no longer can fly the American flag, are no longer protected by the US Constitution, and will simply be annexed by an entirely new government.

I doubt that a plebiscite on secession would garner 7.5%, let alone 75%, of the vote. This is just post election silliness. Look at all of the diehard Republicans who have said they'll move to Canada because Obama was reelected. Canada? Seriously? Canada has true socialized medicine (Obamacare is not), hate speech is a serious crime there, as is owning a semiautomatic. Canada is not the place for a diehard Republican.

[swansont]

I doubt that a plebiscite on secession would garner 7.5%, let alone 75%, of the vote. This is just post election silliness. Look at all of the diehard Republicans who have said they'll move to Canada because Obama was reelected. Canada? Seriously? Canada has true socialized medicine (Obamacare is not), hate speech is a serious crime there, as is owning a semiautomatic. Canada is not the place for a diehard Republican.

They were also threatening to move to Australia. We heard similar bluster when Obamacare wasn't struck down by SCOTUS, only to have many people point out that the list of other modern, industrialized democracies without socialized medicine was the empty set. All hat, no cattle.

[iNow]

how do you tell patriotic, hard working war veterans and the families of those who died for the stars and stripes that they have to choose between giving up their home and everything they've built... or accept that they no longer can fly the American flag, are no longer protected by the US Constitution, and will simply be annexed by an entirely new government.

Playing devil's advocate here... Isn't that what happened during our own revolution wherein "war veterans who died" for King George the III chose to no longer fly the union jack?

 

By no means do I think the situation WRT Texas and the US is even remotely similar to the situation between the colonies and GB, but it's an interesting thought. Those men who declared their independence... many of them previously fought for the king's empire and still felt it best to form their own independent from that.

Edited November 16, 2012 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

http://nymag.com/dai...d=twitter_nymag

 

Even now it might be hard to pick up more than a few senate seats with this gambit. If you look at the county election map, there are sections of blue

http://i.imgur.com/2Qi6I.jpg

and dividing up into states is probably less prone to the exceedingly odd election district shapes from gerrymandering, and those borders would be fixed once that happened. It would likely make gerrymandering the congressional districts harder, too, since they wouldn't cross the new state lines.

 

So, the GOP would pick up a few senate seats now (4 perhaps, if the new ones broke 6-2), but could potentially subsequently lose 6-8 in the next decade as the demographics change.

 

edit: it also says "which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution" which implies that the new states would need to be approved by Congress, and this would take a little time. And then elections would have to happen. All the while, getting bluer by the year.

 

Well done swansont. I think this is an excellent analysis. And informative, thanks.

 

Yes, especially given how here in Austin we're a bit like silicon valley with MAJOR employers like Dell, AMD, Freescale, Facebook, Google, 3M, Texas Instruments, Applied Materials, and others. These companies, and the countless others in the service and support industries that assist them, likely wouldn't appreciate the added burden of having to engage in international border regulations just to sell stuff to people in Oklahoma or Louisiana.

 

I was hoping this would be the prevailing sentiment. I think too many take the request of secession too personally.

 

I personally don't feel secession is viable as Texas relies far too much on help from the federal government for border security, help with poverty and education, and healthcare. The big one is obviously border security. The national guard and army and marines who are in Texas are part of the United States military and would remain with the United States, thus leaving Texas defenses and military resources decimated if a secession took place.

 

Yeah, the first thing I thought was...how do you protect yourself from Mexico? Do you have the state resources to militarize large enough to keep the peace and prevent an invasion? Not saying Mexico would want to but...

 

Indeed. The idea that it's legally okay for Texas to leave is a myth... one that is often repeated, but a myth all the same. For Texas to secede, there would have to be a new agreement put in place and agreed to by all parties, or another civil war where Texas somehow manages to win and cause the United States (proper) to stand down and concede a loss.

 

And the number of Texans that believe that myth is rather high, like 1/3 I thought I read?

 

Texas could probably pull off a war victory with the US if they fought it the same way the US military is being challenged in the middle east. Similar to our revolutionary war formula. Will Americans be willing to accept the specter of Texans being slaughtered and leveled and subsequently occupied in an perpetual war environment where Texans become "terrorists"? I'm not sure.

 

I've never understood the politics of secession - even if you have a 75% majority wanting to secede, how do you tell patriotic, hard working war veterans and the families of those who died for the stars and stripes that they have to choose between giving up their home and everything they've built... or accept that they no longer can fly the American flag, are no longer protected by the US Constitution, and will simply be annexed by an entirely new government.

 

While people who fit that bill may be a minority and of course, the demographic is loaded with qualifiers to maximize emotional appeal - I cannot imagine a solution to political conflict that simply discards the concerns of such people.

 

And didn't that happen, on some scale, when the republic of Texas voted to become part of the union? Didn't they have the same issues with the minority voters being annexed by an entirely new government - a federal government - giving up their previous identity and the sacrifices made for that identity?

 

It's a tough issue.

 

I doubt that a plebiscite on secession would garner 7.5%, let alone 75%, of the vote. This is just post election silliness.

 

Agreed. But I do see a divided country between two life philosophies. I do not believe it's an advancement to force us in the same space, so about half of us are necessarily miserable at all times. That isn't a "great experiment". It sucks. And it's unnecessary. I don't wish to force liberals and collectivists to live conservatively and independently, and I'm not sure why they want to force conservatives and individualists to live liberally and collectively. I like chocolate, he likes vanilla. Why does half the country have to lose?

 

Until we find a way to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, it's always going to suck. When we move the conversation from "my political ideas are better than yours" to "how can we implement your political ideas for you, while I enjoy mine", then we can start to pursue happiness again instead of this weird allegiance to performance and production.

 

Another interesting petition being signed...

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/strip-citizenship-everyone-who-signed-petition-secede-and-exile-them/ZbMjcwPf

 

Funny, but kind of hateful too. Kicking the spouse out with just the clothes on their back because it hurt their feelings that "I don't want to be with you anymore. I would like an amicable divorce". Poor babies. Must hurt somethin' special they are not wanted. So, toss the constitution and punish them for wanting to leave you. Talk about whiny brats...

[swansont]

Until we find a way to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, it's always going to suck. When we move the conversation from "my political ideas are better than yours" to "how can we implement your political ideas for you, while I enjoy mine", then we can start to pursue happiness again instead of this weird allegiance to performance and production.

Because some of the contentious issues and attitudes don't break down that way.

 

Take gay marriage, for example. From the left, this is an issue of equal rights — everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. But that right is denied some people. On the right, this is an issue of religion, and they wish to prevent certain people from pursuing happiness by marrying. It is impossible for both to coexist.

 

The dialog could proceed along the lines of how one reconciles the forcing a religious belief on others being supported by the Constitution (IMO it isn't), but usually the rhetoric is about traditional values. The thing is, a lot of "traditional values" suck, and the "good old days" weren't good for a lot of people. Slavery was a "traditional value". Inequality is a "traditional value". Bigotry and hatred each have a long history of being a "traditional value". It's not enough to appeal to traditional value. One has to question whether they are values to which we should aspire. Instead of values, how about ideals? An American ideal is equality. While there is a slice of people whose pursuit of happiness is to deny equality to others (or whatever mutually-exclusive positions that exist), I don't think you are going to be able to implement everybody's ideas.

[ParanoiA]

Because some of the contentious issues and attitudes don't break down that way.

 

Take gay marriage, for example. From the left, this is an issue of equal rights everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. But that right is denied some people. On the right, this is an issue of religion, and they wish to prevent certain people from pursuing happiness by marrying. It is impossible for both to coexist.

 

It is impossible the way we govern ourselves presently, the way we think and approach group cooperation, ie..our geographical allocation of authority and etc.

 

Prior to 1961, we said "we can't go to the moon". And that was correct. JFK moved the conversation to "let's go to the moon". We could not begin the process of figuring out how to do it until we decided to it, faithfully.

 

In that same vein, we will never figure out how to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, providing for a more individualized experience until we commit to figuring it out. The conversation has to move there.

 

But it's as if we're saying since we can't go to the moon presently, and we can't immediately imagine how to do so, then it's an impossible pipe dream of the simple minded. (Not you, but the general American discourse)

 

I don't think this is the best we can do, not by a long shot. We have not seen every type of government there is to offer.

 

The dialog could proceed along the lines of how one reconciles the forcing a religious belief on others being supported by the Constitution (IMO it isn't), but usually the rhetoric is about traditional values. The thing is, a lot of "traditional values" suck, and the "good old days" weren't good for a lot of people. Slavery was a "traditional value". Inequality is a "traditional value". Bigotry and hatred each have a long history of being a "traditional value". It's not enough to appeal to traditional value. One has to question whether they are values to which we should aspire. Instead of values, how about ideals? An American ideal is equality. While there is a slice of people whose pursuit of happiness is to deny equality to others (or whatever mutually-exclusive positions that exist), I don't think you are going to be able to implement everybody's ideas.

 

Yeah, certainly there's no doubt that happiness at the expense of others cannot co-exist while providing happiness for those others. It still requires a winner and loser (ethics and morals aside).

 

But many subjects can find immediate resolution, like marijuana laws, safety-net programs and legislation, social security..etc - many of these can provide a unique arrangement for each citizen. I might share a bank with thousands of others, but I don't have the same loans, CD's, deposits, credit rating...we each have a unique business relationship with the bank.

 

This happens already with citizens and government, as some of us access more help than others, or utilize more of the laws than others. Maybe this could be expanded, further still?

 

Take Ron Paul's 10% initiative for instance (that quickly faded away after the primaries) that gave citizens the option to "opt out" of all government services and programs for a 10% tax rate. You only pay 10% and you don't get social security, and don't apply for food stamps, student loans, public schooling, and etc... You aren't a drain on the collective because you have opted out, yet you are still protected by constitution and the laws of the land, and you pay 10% for that.

 

It's not perfect and has plenty of issues, but it's an example of beginning a different kind of conversation.

Edited November 16, 2012 by ParanoiA

[Phi for All]

It is impossible the way we govern ourselves presently, the way we think and approach group cooperation, ie..our geographical allocation of authority and etc.

 

Prior to 1961, we said "we can't go to the moon". And that was correct. JFK moved the conversation to "let's go to the moon". We could not begin the process of figuring out how to do it until we decided to it, faithfully.

 

In that same vein, we will never figure out how to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, providing for a more individualized experience until we commit to figuring it out. The conversation has to move there.

 

But it's as if we're saying since we can't go to the moon presently, and we can't immediately imagine how to do so, then it's an impossible pipe dream of the simple minded. (Not you, but the general American discourse)

 

I don't think this is the best we can do, not by a long shot. We have not seen every type of government there is to offer.

Like many things, it's the mistakes we make, the bad times we have, the stupidity that gets pointed out that seems to motivate us to change, in addition to adopting the right perspective on our goals. We saw a surge of national interest in electric cars when gas hit $5 a gallon.

 

We didn't need this last election to show us that things need fixing. But I agree that there's a vested interest out there that wants us to keep viewing the problem as insurmountable rather than just agreeing to fix it. With every system you're going to have people who've found ways to make it work very well for themselves and don't want it to change no matter how much it could improves life for everyone else.

[swansont]

It is impossible the way we govern ourselves presently, the way we think and approach group cooperation, ie..our geographical allocation of authority and etc.

 

Prior to 1961, we said "we can't go to the moon". And that was correct. JFK moved the conversation to "let's go to the moon". We could not begin the process of figuring out how to do it until we decided to it, faithfully.

 

In that same vein, we will never figure out how to govern ourselves more thoughtfully, providing for a more individualized experience until we commit to figuring it out. The conversation has to move there.

 

But it's as if we're saying since we can't go to the moon presently, and we can't immediately imagine how to do so, then it's an impossible pipe dream of the simple minded. (Not you, but the general American discourse)

 

I don't think this is the best we can do, not by a long shot. We have not seen every type of government there is to offer.

While I'm sure there are issues where this applies, I don't see what technology needs to be developed that will make people assent to gay marriage, or abandon other religion-before-constitution views.

[Moontanman]

Funny, but kind of hateful too. Kicking the spouse out with just the clothes on their back because it hurt their feelings that "I don't want to be with you anymore. I would like an amicable divorce". Poor babies. Must hurt somethin' special they are not wanted. So, toss the constitution and punish them for wanting to leave you. Talk about whiny brats...

 

 

How is this any different than the poor babies who think they should succeed from the Union because they can't get the vote to force all their control issues onto others?

 

Play the game my way or I take my ball and go home...

 

Take Ron Paul's 10% initiative for instance (that quickly faded away after the primaries) that gave citizens the option to "opt out" of all government services and programs for a 10% tax rate. You only pay 10% and you don't get social security, and don't apply for food stamps, student loans, public schooling, and etc... You aren't a drain on the collective because you have opted out, yet you are still protected by constitution and the laws of the land, and you pay 10% for that.

 

It's not perfect and has plenty of issues, but it's an example of beginning a different kind of conversation.

 

 

It would be the beginning of crazy, young people would tend to opt out, old people would scream to included once they got old and realized what a mistake had been made.

 

Do you let citizens die because they were foolish enough to opt out (many would you know due to it being cheaper) turn them away from medical needs?

 

I remember being young and thinking I didn't need insurance of any kind, fortunately i was working for someone who provided those things for free as part of my wages, later on after I saw how much money I was saving by having insurance I keep it going long after i was paying for most of it.

 

it seems to me that both conservative and liberal ideals mostly orbit around what they should require people to do, it's a lot more complex than that in the real world but the basics of it are in there. Freedom and responsibility don't really figure into it except on a ideal non real world model...

Edited November 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[ParanoiA]

How is this any different than the poor babies who think they should succeed from the Union because they can't get the vote to force all their control issues onto others?

 

It's different because they wish no ill to you, or to take from you, only to be allowed to separate so they can live how they like and so you can't force your control issues onto them. They wish for amicable divorce, not to throw you out of *your* home, or enjoy seeing you suffer.

 

Play the game my way or I take my ball and go home...

 

Exactly. They don't wish to ruin your game, only to be allowed to leave the field. You could relate if the electoral map turned 90% red, and republicans owned the entire government for perpetuity. Suddenly, you'd get it real quick. You would be calling for secession to get away from the religio nightmare you've been trapped in. And no amount of ridicule is going suddenly make you happy living under neo-conservative rule.

 

It would be the beginning of crazy, young people would tend to opt out, old people would scream to included once they got old and realized what a mistake had been made.

 

Do you let citizens die because they were foolish enough to opt out (many would you know due to it being cheaper) turn them away from medical needs?

 

I remember being young and thinking I didn't need insurance of any kind, fortunately i was working for someone who provided those things for free as part of my wages, later on after I saw how much money I was saving by having insurance I keep it going long after i was paying for most of it.

 

it seems to me that both conservative and liberal ideals mostly orbit around what they should require people to do, it's a lot more complex than that in the real world but the basics of it are in there. Freedom and responsibility don't really figure into it except on a ideal non real world model...

 

Right, like I said it's a starting point for the conversation. You have to commit to it before we can work it out. If you're not interested in your countrymen being happy, and you simply want them to adhere to your values and fight about it every couple of years, then yeah it will make no sense to you. People with control issues never see the sense in it. Hence why republicans and democrats suck so bad and ruin it for everybody.

 

While I'm sure there are issues where this applies, I don't see what technology needs to be developed that will make people assent to gay marriage, or abandon other religion-before-constitution views.

 

First thing that comes to mind is virtual statehood, or something along those lines. Where we group up and collect by a different method than location. That may be impossible, just a preliminary thought...

[iNow]

[imatfaal]

And now citizens of the city of Austin, Texas have filed a petition to secede from Texas and thus remain part of the greater USA in the event that Texas succeeds in seceding!

[ParanoiA]

 

I don't have a drop of love for this shit hole. Perhaps if the American piggies here just took the land they could actually occupy and put to use, like maybe 10% of the 2.3 billion acres they've claimed, the rest of us could enjoy it here too. Hard to compete with such "morals" and "ethics" like that...

 

And now citizens of the city of Austin, Texas have filed a petition to secede from Texas and thus remain part of the greater USA in the event that Texas succeeds in seceding!

 

That sounds tricky...

[iNow]

I don't have a drop of love for this shit hole. Perhaps if the American piggies here just...

Are you getting to be more of an extremist intentionally, or is it just the natural outcome of your recent reading habits on the subject of libertarianism? I wonder if you realize just how deeply unhealthy thoughts like this are in a group society like ours. I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel the way you do. Of course you do. I'm just pointing out some of the ramifications of this type of thinking. Sounds like you'd sooner shoot your neighbor than stand with them, and you're one of the saner and more rational ones out there TBH, so that's scary stuff.

[ParanoiA]

Are you getting to be more of an extremist intentionally, or is it just the natural outcome of your recent reading habits on the subject of libertarianism? I wonder if you realize just how deeply unhealthy thoughts like this are in a group society like ours. I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel the way you do. Of course you do. I'm just pointing out some of the ramifications of this type of thinking. Sounds like you'd sooner shoot your neighbor than stand with them, and you're one of the saner and more rational ones out there TBH, so that's scary stuff.

 

No, I haven't read anything "libertarian" lately, other than to browse reason.com from time to time. Instead, I torture myself with mainstream media in a perpetual state of anger, moving from one extreme pile of assumptions to the next..

 

Do you think owning a man is extreme? There was a time when that was a common position. From history's perspective, it was pretty extreme.

 

That you and your countrymen's desire to regulate me is common, doesn't escape extremism. From your perspective, I'm very extreme, and a threat. From history's perspective, I don't feel I'm exteme at all.

 

As I've said, and many libertarians have reminded, the days of convincing you to remove the chains from me will be traded for days of physical violence to remove the chains from ourselves. And that's human nature. I feel about as motivated to convince you to let me be free as a slave felt motivated to convince his master he should be free. Sorry you think this is normal behavior, but it isn't and we are growing tired of pretending like we should have to argue about it. As Goldwater once said, we consent to be governed, we do not elect to be ruled.

 

I am not obligated to you and the whims of your dumb little nation group because I was born "nearby", or inside some wild imaginary perimeter of land you over-claimed for yourselves. I am a person. Not a widget.