It would be in Texas’ interest to merge with Mexico as each would have to spend less defenses maintaining a mutual border.
OTOH, as an independent nation, Texas would be free to enslave the Mexicans that are already there.
Mexico comes to mind.
And they’d have to get along without federal funds too. And they’d suffer from a general economic and social collapse; right wingers tend to screw things up. They’d also probably be embargoed by the US. My guess is they’d collapse into something similar to a Third World nation, or an outright failed state.
Weeelll… There is a bill currently in the House that essentially reintroduces the nullification issue. Which is stupid, since that’s been dealt with in one war, one Supreme Court case, and common sense (if states don’t have to obey federal laws if they don’t want to, the federal government has no power, which is clearly contrary to the intent and text of the Constitution), but nullification led to secession before.
They already have an army, the Texas State Guard, on of the three branches of the Texas Military Forces. As I recall from school, retaining it’s own military was part of the statehood deal back in 1845. I believe it supplements the National Guard.
I’m not sure your summary is too accurate.
In what way? The Wikipedia link confirms it supports the National Guard.
Well, for one thing, it sure sounds to me like Texas lost its independent military when it joined the Union, and it doesn’t say anything about that being a special part of the statehood bill.
It does say: “… but local militia companies were maintained for ready response.”
At any rate, that is what we were taught in 7th-grade Social Studies, the term “Social Studies” actually meaning “Texas History.” (In junior high, at least back then, Social Studies was Texas History in the 7th grade, then a course actually called US History was 8th grade and World History in 9th. I don’t know why they didn’t just call it Texas History and be done with it.) We were also taught that bit about Texas being allowed to divide into as many as five separate states, although that seems to have come into question in recent years.
When one says can’t does one mean that is impossible or merely illegal.
It seems to me that Texas and any other state can do whatever they please.
They may have to fight to maintain an secession but doing is not an issue.
If one is a homeowner one is free to secede from one’s city, county or state. That is, one may announce one’s plan to disassociate from the community.
The only thing that will determine success or failure is whether one has the strength and resources to quell all forces that are apt to be brought to bear to prevent said secession.
Now, if Texas and some other states try since we have most of our troops oversees they might succeed for a while. Certainly the governors would activate their own national guard. If they could successfully take over the military bases in each state it could be a pretty decent fight.
Not from Texas
Again, there ISN’T any movement for secession. The governor made an allusion to secession, an allusion he’s never made before and has never shown the slightest desire to act on.
Except for a few drunk rednecks here and there, NOBODY in Texas has the slightest interest in a peaceful parting of the ways, let alone an actual shooting war.
If Rick Perry TRIED to suggest that Texas National Guardsmen might have to go into battle against the regular U.S. Army, they’d unanimously laugh at him, and say, “That’s not what I signed up for.”
Texas isn’t going anywhere, even if there are some red staters who WISH it would!
The OP was posited as a question about Texas having some special ability to secede different from other states. It was not being posited as the obvious question: “Can Texas attempt to leave the union?” The answer to which, as with all things, is, “yes, of course they can attempt.” :rolleyes:
Except the fucking governor.
Sure, he might not mean it, but he said it, and he and those who voted for him will, and should, be mocked for it. There’s no helping those who support the idea, but maybe the saner constituents will be shamed into to trying to change things.
I say this as a Californian for gay marriage and an American against the war in Iraq; I may disagree with what’s going on but donning an “I voted for Kodos shirt” doesn’t fly in the real world.
In the last election, Governor Good Hair won a whopping 39% of the vote. Our Democratic candidate got 29%, but the Independent candidacies of the Kinkster and Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn Cougar Mellencamp muddied the waters considerably.
I’ll continue to support Democratic candidates; Ann Richards wasn’t so very long ago. But the word is that Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to be the Republican candidate. She has a very good chance of beating Perry (who was a Democrat until 1989) & is not bad for a Republican. Her Senatorial career has consisted of being “Not as bad as Gramm” & “Not as bad as Cornyn.”
Let’s not forget that Perry first became Governor because he was Lt Governor when we got Our First Court-Appointed President…
I repeat, there’s no secessionist movement in Texas.
There HAS been one in Vermont. An organized one. Have you spent as much time ridiculing THOSE people as you have slamming Texas?
Cite for the Vermont “movement” being more than just a hometown crackpot or two circulating a petition for a town meeting warrant, and getting only laughter in response?
Cite for the *governor *saying anything approving about them, or anything at all for that matter?
But the governor of Texas has as about as much power as said crackpot in Vermont. So, they’re pretty much even.
Are we allowed to make fun of that?
Of course I got carried away with the idea that someone might stand up to the tyranny of the Federal Govt. sorry
There have been many comments in this thread about the original treaty that allowed Texas to join the U.S. back in 1845. Did readmission to the U.S. following the Civil War continue the treaty or nullify it?
Oh, for fuck’s sake, there is no tyranny.
Except for the 35% who think Texas would be better off independent. Relevant questions most of the way down the page.