Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The dark mythology of network television Previous entry: The Advocate interviews mom of 11-year-old who committed suicide over gay taunts

Texas will secede and you’ll finally get that pony

Thanks to reader Mark for sending me this picture from the Houston Chronicle detailing one of the many pro-secessionists who’ve sprung up in Texas (well, become more outspoken) in the months since the election.  The woman’s sign is a threat, a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”  Manure is about right when it comes to the people who are not-subtly using this occasion—-which is pretty much a reunion opportunity for the morons that started to make McCain campaign rallies so scary—-as a way to question the legitimacy of Obama, with the hopes that someone else will kickstart this revolution. Timothy McVeigh, who also looked up to John Wilkes Booth, wore a T-shirt with this slogan

New York’s rallies might have been about coloring within the lines on the podium, but in Texas, there was no such restraint.  Our own governor played footsie with the people who mistakenly think that Texas has a right to secede, and that we should do that as a pouty-bear response to the rest of the country indecorously electing a black/Democrat/funky-named/popular President to office.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

My fellow Texans with less than ideal understanding of law and history, I’ve created a primer for you on the subject of Texas secession.

Does Texas have a right to secede?

No.

Oh really?  How do you know that, smartypants liberal Austinite who isn’t really a Texan at all,* even though you live in the state’s capital?

Because Texas tried it once, and that didn’t work out so well.  Surely you remember the Civil War, since most of you idiots have a Confederate flag somewhere in your possessions.

If we can’t secede, then how come my buddy Joe Bob said we could?  You can trust that guy, since he swore up and down that he had a serious cache of automatic assault rifles from around the world, and we doubted him, but sure enough, you haven’t seen a pumpkin explode until you’ve hit it with an Uzi.

Despite Joe Bob’s shiny credentials and his Ron Paul bumper sticker, he’s wrong.  The myth that Texas can secede probably goes back to the Civil War.  Texas willingly joined the union in 1845, and then got dragged back in kicking and screaming a mere 20 years later.  That had to have had a psychological impact on the supporters of the confederacy.  The sort of impact that could create wishful thinking like, “If we’d just left on our own, this wouldn’t have happened.  It was pairing up with those other racist fucktards that got us into this situation.”  But there’s no reason to believe that we actually have the right to secede.  It’s not in the state constitution, and even if it was, the Civil War amply demonstrated that’s a fight that Texas won’t win.  And these idiots at these teabagger events who actually think they could take on the U.S. government with a fleet of pick-up trucks armed with automatic weapons while the state loses its population as people pick their loyalty to America over the paranoid rednecks should share what they’re taking with everyone before it rots their brains further.

But that makes me feel emasculated and stupid.

Indeed.

*The problem of Austin—-all the big cities who are pretty liberal, actually—-is not generally dwelt upon by those who think we’re not real Texans, and yet intend to haul us along in their fantasy secession.

By the way, it’s very telling to me that most of the people participating in this thing don’t appear to be aware that you can buy loose tea, if you want something to symbolize your efforts that doesn’t accidentally end up symbolizing your smallness and pathos.  Tea bags are some sad-looking objects.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:09 AM • (230) Comments

87 days. Obama’s been in office for 87 days. And they’re talking about secession and seditious murder.

That’s the maturity level we’re dealing with here.

It is literally not possible for Obama to have done enough to get people this riled up on even a cockeyed assessment of the merits. Their signs and shirts might as well read “OBAMA IS A N^&&@R,” because that’s what they’re really saying.

Comment #1: RickMassimo  on  04/16  at  12:03 PM

I’m still trying to decide if this is the new Golden Age of Conspiracy Theory and Paranoia. I’ve always felt that 1992-2000 were the Golden Age, what with the black helicopters, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, the Salt Mines of Utah, etc., etc., etc. I don’t know if the birthers and Tea Partiers can match up with that level of lunacy, but I also don’t remember governors going out of their way to commit treason back then either.

When Perry gets his ass stomped by Kay Bailey, I think I’m going to call him every single night just to laugh at him.

Comment #2: Scott  on  04/16  at  12:03 PM

“It is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty!” says the sign.

Don’t you know what the Tree of Liberty is watered with? The blood of patriots! You can go first, ma’am!

Comment #3: Falconer  on  04/16  at  12:03 PM

Whoops. Guess I should have started reading the article first. *sheepish grin*

Comment #4: Falconer  on  04/16  at  12:05 PM

No, wrong- Texas has the right and the MORAL IMPERATIVE to secede ... and don’t let the federal subsidies hit y’all in the ass on the way out smile

In fact, in order to form a more perfect union, Texas should then join with Quebec in a New United Territorial States.

Comment #5: firefall  on  04/16  at  12:06 PM

Ugh, I really hope this does not happen. Mississippi wouldn’t be far behind, and then I’d have to move.

I’m sure there will be plenty in this thread who will cheerlead for southern-state secession, and all I can say is, I hope you are ready to open your home to the flood of progressives who will have to leave if that happens.

Comment #6: ErisDiscordia  on  04/16  at  12:12 PM

most of the people participating in this thing don’t appear to be aware that you can buy loose tea

Shush! It’s more fun to watch them attempting their grand gesture while struggling with each individual teabag. It can hardly be the orgasm of patriotism they were hoping for when that sad little wisp of tea comes out.

Comment #7: tb  on  04/16  at  12:15 PM

Even the latte liberal wimps that go to starbucks think tea drinkers are wimps ... especially the teabaggers.

Comment #8: Ms Kate  on  04/16  at  12:21 PM

I’m getting a bit of a “might makes right” vibe from some bits of the post, which I really hope you don’t intend to convey.  You make is sound like Texas (the Confederacy) was wrong because they lost, not because they were actually wrong.  Self determination might not be a right, but if it isn’t, it isn’t so because the stronger power can force its will on the lesser (alright, in practice that’s often the case, but ideologically not).

Comment #9: D  on  04/16  at  12:22 PM

Consider this: the feds may never have gotten McVeigh had he not been driving without a license plate on his car.

Comment #10: Ms Kate  on  04/16  at  12:24 PM

This seems like a no brainer for the rest of the country, we would need some humanitarian safeguards, specifcaly anyone from Aftexistan should be allowed to migrate north and we would have to make sure that they didn’t have nuclear weapons, but other than that it seems like a the best solution to the countries Texas problem.

The country of Aftexistan would also probably absorb a lot of the unproductive citizens from other states, and it would be a good opportunity to see if christian socialism can succeed. Texas, go ahead make my day.

BTW my place is pretty small but I would be willing to share with a few progressive refugees, but be advised my dog really hates kids.

Comment #11: John Rove  on  04/16  at  12:31 PM

“To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. “—Sam Houston

Comment #12: rea  on  04/16  at  12:32 PM

D, you could only read it that way if you were straining to be offended.  Might doesn’t make right.  But the notion that the Confederates lost because they were In The Wrong, not because they were overpowered, is magical thinking.  And offensive to those who were in the right and unable to win a war despite it.  Say, Native Americans, for instance.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  12:33 PM

The pity is that no one will actually leave (or try).

America has a wingnut/fundnut problem.  In centuries past, the disaffected group would leave or get kicked out to go and steal someone else’s land/continent and start over there (that’s how America started to begin with).  But there’s nowhere left on earth that can be exploited that easily.

So we face a difficult situation:  They don’t like us, and refuse to behave well enough to live among the rest of us.  They won’t accept other cultures, races, languages, religions, political viewpoints, food, clothing, music, television, science, etc. 

The whole asinine “teabagging” thing has been a literal tantrum in reaction to not getting what they want.  But they can’t legally/literally get what they want, which seems to be turning back the clock to somewhere between 1860 and 1960.

If you were dealing with an individual with these kinds of problems, you’d either let them live in a 1-room cabin in Montana and mail wooden bombs to people, or you’d take them to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals for intervention and heavy-duty treatment.

Bu how do you do that with 1/4 of the US citizenry?...

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  04/16  at  12:33 PM

I just keep having this visual of gorilla freepers ripping open individual packets of Constant Comment tea bags and throwing them on the ground.  Beat chest, move on to next tea bag. . . .

Comment #15: deep6  on  04/16  at  12:34 PM

Thanks, rea. I need to save that quote.

Comment #16: Scott  on  04/16  at  12:36 PM

Dude, as a Texan, it strikes me as not in the least tragic that these morons are all hat and no cattle.  I’d really hate to have to get the hell out or face some sort of punishment for treason.  Since these are violent, sadistic right wingers, if they did get that power, it would be very, very bad.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  12:37 PM

I don’t see any other way to read the second q & a.  “How do you know Texas doesn’t have a right to secede?  Because they tried once and were whipped.”  Really?  You don’t see how that comes across as might makes right?

But the notion that the Confederates lost because they were In The Wrong, not because they were overpowered, is magical thinking.  And offensive to those who were in the right and unable to win a war despite it.  Say, Native Americans, for instance.

Exactly.

Comment #18: D  on  04/16  at  12:39 PM

Only a liberal Austinite would know so much about a girly drink like tea.

I’m sure there will be plenty in this thread who will cheerlead for southern-state secession, and all I can say is, I hope you are ready to open your home to the flood of progressives who will have to leave if that happens.

Yep.  And I’ll be on the first ship…er…truck out along with my husband, two feral children, two dogs (one really old and the other really HUGE) and a 6”+ goldfish. We will be applying for refugee status.

Comment #19: ChristinaM33  on  04/16  at  12:39 PM

I think it would be grand if Texas seceded, though I hope they’ll wait a couple years so I can finish school before I have to leave.

Give everybody 2 years from the date of secession (or from their 18th birthday for kids born in the U.S.) to decide what sde of the border they want to be on.

I wonder how long it would take them to start a war with Mexico?

Comment #20: Babieca  on  04/16  at  12:43 PM

It’s a fun thought experiment to imagine what Texan secession would wreak. We’d (i.e. the USA) save all those Social Security payments, the Medicare payouts, we’d take back the defense contracts and give ‘em to American companies in America, we’d stop with the pesky upkeep of the Alamo (that being a National Historic Site and all), we’d stop the FEMA support of the Gulf Coast hurricane victims, we’d shutter the five army installations, the 2 Navy and Marine installations, the eight Air Force bases, and the eight Coast Guard facilities, and move all those border guards to Oklahoma.

We’d stop subsidizing Texas-based companies, and we’d no longer fret about the tax revenue they’ve been squirrelling off shore.

Okay, so we’d probably want to install a US Embassy, but it needn’t be big.

And then we could start the countdown clock to see just how fast Texans would apply for international aid from us.

Comment #21: benvolio  on  04/16  at  12:44 PM

D, I suppose I wrongly assumed that the audience would realize that a) I’m obviously against slavery, b) that this is a satirical piece with a fictional audience of secessionists.  Well, I’m not wrong.  Most people got it.  But in case it’s not clear, I think slavery is wrong.  And that the South’s treachery was wrong. And also that it didn’t work out for them.  The last statement doesn’t negate the first two, but I apologize if there was any confusion about my opinions on the morality of slavery.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  12:44 PM

Babieca,

What do you mean “start”?

Comment #23: ChristinaM33  on  04/16  at  12:45 PM

I’m getting a bit of a “might makes right” vibe from some bits of the post, which I really hope you don’t intend to convey.  You make is sound like Texas (the Confederacy) was wrong because they lost, not because they were actually wrong.  Self determination might not be a right, but if it isn’t, it isn’t so because the stronger power can force its will on the lesser (alright, in practice that’s often the case, but ideologically not).

I seriously doubt that’s Amanda’s thinking on this.

Yes, I agree that Texas’ right to secede shouldn’t be nullified simply because they would be obliterated ina 49 against 1 battle, but the reality is, on top of Texas not having any legal or moral right to secede, the proposition of secession is farcical, because if it in fact came to that - they would lose.  Badly.

Just as America would lose if we ever decided to simultaneously declare war on China, North Korea, the entire Arab World, and all communist Latin countries at once.

Comment #24: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  12:46 PM

DTG, you are assuming that the other 49 states would want us back so much they’d go to war over it.  I’m not so sure.  And wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants.  “Fine.  Go….What?  You’re still here? I thought you were going?”

Comment #25: ChristinaM33  on  04/16  at  12:49 PM

I’m assuming the U.S. would kick back, because such a secession (like the Confederacy’s) would be such a stand against the basic human rights of its citizens that it would create a human rights crisis and put the U.S. in a position to defend the people who were subject to it.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  12:52 PM

“Just as America would lose if we ever decided to simultaneously declare war on China, North Korea, the entire Arab World, and all communist Latin countries at once.”

True, but to be fair, that wouldn’t stop the next power-mad Bush or Cheney from trying to do it.  Some of these people are like our very own corn-fed American answers to Kim Jong-il…

Comment #27: MikeEss  on  04/16  at  12:52 PM

Sorry, Texas is too big.  There’s no reason treasonous assholes should be given such a lot of land when they offer nothing in return (except the pleasure of their absence)

Round ‘em all up and drop in Alabama with banjos on their knees.

They are pissed off because they are a visible minority when they were promised White Power Forever by the GOP’s Southern Strategy.

There aren’t enough of you treasonous cowards to man Texas.  Mexico would have you in no time, and we’d let them seeing how we wouldn’t really have much reason to be allies.

There are more Democrats, progressives, moderate conservatives, and moonbats than racist fucks who are mad that they lost an election.  They don’t get Texas.

(Yeah, I know, they don’t get anything, but they certainly do not get an area comparable to the Confederacy.  Not enough of them, more than enough of us.  it won’t even be a Civil War, b/c there are just not enough of them.  If they riot, what remains of the National Guard will go in and arrest them all.  The Blackwater/KBR/Halliburton concentration camps will come in handy after all.)

Really, what kind of traitor tries to secede?  And they call themselves “real Americans”?  They are cowards of the highest order.

Comment #28: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  12:54 PM

We’re talking past each other Amanda.  Sorry to have raised your hackles.  I’ll just say I find it, even as snark, in bad taste and leave it at that.

Comment #29: D  on  04/16  at  12:55 PM

@Christina M33,

Neither Texas nor the U.S. is at war with Mexico and we haven’t been for 160 years, but I have little doubt the redneck secessionists would start an ethnic cleansing campaign that would force Mexico to defend its citizens.

Comment #30: Babieca  on  04/16  at  12:56 PM

DTG, you are assuming that the other 49 states would want us back so much they’d go to war over it.  I’m not so sure.  And wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants.  “Fine.  Go….What?  You’re still here? I thought you were going?”

What I’m assuming is that the federal government wouldn’t just let that happen without repercussion.

Do you honestly think that if Texas officially declared their secession and began ignoring the U.S. Constitution and stopped paying federal taxes that President Obama (or any other president, for that matter) would just sit back and say, “cool, have fun.”?

Comment #31: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  12:57 PM

Texas is starting to seem like the really bad boyfriend or girlfriend who keeps threatening to leave and when they finally do leave, or you kick them out, you just kind of sit around and enjoy the silence.

Comment #32: John Rove  on  04/16  at  12:57 PM

Loose tea is what I keep coming back to.  Have some f’ing dignity, and stop walking around waving little white baggies.  It makes you look even more like losers.

Comment #33: Wallace  on  04/16  at  12:58 PM

Sorry, Texas is too big.  There’s no reason treasonous assholes should be given such a lot of land when they offer nothing in return (except the pleasure of their absence)

Round ‘em all up and drop in Alabama with banjos on their knees.

Hell, I’d round them up and give them Alaska, oil and all.  It would suck what they would do to the wilderness up there, but a small price to pay to have a truly progressive nation with two island getaways (once Puerrto Rico becomes the new 50th state), and a Canadian buffer to keep the wingnuts far, far away.

Anything to get them as far away from me as possible.

Comment #34: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  01:02 PM

I think as a condition of secceeding they should have to agree to take all the citizens of Alaska as well and then turn Alaska into a national park.  We could get more bears wolves and carribou while getting rid of a lot of wingnuts.

Comment #35: John Rove  on  04/16  at  01:06 PM

In fact, in order to form a more perfect union, Texas should then join with Quebec in a New United Territorial States.

Hmm, no. You keep your trash over on your side of the border.

Maybe they can join up with the Albertan secessionists. But I don’t think any Texan would want to team up with the Socialist Republic of Quebec.

Comment #36: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  01:07 PM

They want to leave and take all of the Texas with them? Screw that. And screw giving them Alabama or Alaska. This is America. They lost a democratically held election. If they don’t like it they can move to Dubai or Singapore, or whatever other theocratic and/or authoritarian state will take them.

Comment #37: penn  on  04/16  at  01:09 PM

Hey now, y’all would miss us.  Remember, secession would actually be a miserable event, as the majority of people who live here (immigrants, Democrats, non-voters, non-white people) would suddenly be in a situation where we had to get the fuck out or be treated like traitors to the secessionist cause.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  01:10 PM

Let me add my voice as someone who would willingly open up my house to a progressive refuge or two. Must not be allergic to cats (though, seeing as we’re on a feminist blog, don’t think there’s much to worry about).

I find it funny that when the liberals were dis-empowered (and we didn’t even a have president willing to look like he gave a shit about us) the cry was we were up and moving to Canada.  How come the conservatives seem to think they can make the rest of us leave them now that they’re out of office?

Comment #39: Antigone  on  04/16  at  01:12 PM

Remember: Texas is the 3rd most populous state in the country.  Imagine half of New York suddenly evacuating and running off to find homes in the rest of the country, and you’re looking at what kind of disaster would happen.

Comment #40: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  01:14 PM

True Amanda, but think of all the wingers from Altoona to Colorado Springs to Bakersfield who would head to Texas. It would be a bit of a mess, but I bet it would work itself out quite well in a few years.

Comment #41: Babieca  on  04/16  at  01:20 PM

Hey now, y’all would miss us.  Remember, secession would actually be a miserable event, as the majority of people who live here (immigrants, Democrats, non-voters, non-white people) would suddenly be in a situation where we had to get the fuck out or be treated like traitors to the secessionist cause.

Yeah, we would.  I think there would be a heck of a lot of resistance fighters.  Maybe you could secede from secession and set of the Austin Republic.  Anyway, I don’t think Texas will secede because then the Dallas Cowboys couldn’t keep claiming they’re “America’s Team.”

Comment #42: Magis  on  04/16  at  01:21 PM

There are more Democrats, progressives, moderate conservatives, and moonbats than racist fucks who are mad that they lost an election.  They don’t get Texas.

That’s a point that bears repeating.

Many times.

Many people look at Texas, and they just see this one gigantic red state full of wingnut morons.

44% of Texans voted for Barack Obama in the last election.  44% of a state with a population of 25 Million people.  That means that for all the wingnuts that may exist there, at least 11,000,000 of them probably aren’t wingnuts.  I’d venture to say it’s even more than that.  For those saying that we can just let the non-wingnuts repatriate to other states, we’re not talking about an insignificant number of people here.  I dare say it would cost a few trillion dollars to pull this experiment off effectively.

We’re giving the wingnuts in Texas more credit than they deserve in terms of how many Texans truly sympathize with their cause.

Winning an election requires 50% + 1.  That doesn’t mean that the 50% - 1 who didn’t vote for you don’t exist or don’t count.  Let’s assume for a moment that Bush did win the 2004 election fair and square (which, unlike 2000, is at least plausible).

Does the fact that Bush won in 2004 mean that the whole United States was a wingnut nation throughout his second term?

Rick Perry is obviously a fairly popular governor, or at least popular enough to have gotten re-elected twice.  And that doesn’t speak well for the majority of Texans.  But a majority does not equal everyone.

Don’t give the wingnut teabaggers more credit than they deserve.  On top of all of the liberals and moderates who voted for Obama in Texas last November, I imagine a fairly large number of moderate Texas Republicans are a little embarrased by their governor right now.  A few hundred or even a few thousand people working themselves into a wingnut frenzy at a few rallies around that state when their wingnut governor flirts with secession doesn’t mean that the majority of Texans really want to secede.  10,000 wingnuts making loud noises in a state with 25,000,000 people means that 0.04% of Texans were making loud wingnut noises yesterday.

Nothing more.

Feeding into this ridiculous secession talk by saying, “Yeah, secede please!” is giving their pseudo-populist movement more credibility than it deserves.

Comment #43: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  01:22 PM

If somehow those fucktards did secede, and the rest of the country didn’t instantly stomp them into dust (preferably letting them retreat to some Alamo-redux redoubt so we can minimize “collateral damage”), the refugee crisis would be appalling. It would make New Orleans look like a grade school field trip.

I admit there is a certain poetic justice in the good ole boys suddenly finding out just how much of their economy is based on immigration (everything from the Asian engineers to Latinos, immigrant or not, in virtually everything). As well as the vast number of liberals, all African Americans, or just sane people fleeing the embryonic fascism of the Second Texas Republic. The STR would be almost de-populated very quickly. Some of it would be made up by immigration from the U.S. of other wingnuts, but some of them would need to do work. The Gabblers and the Scafie Foundation just don’t have enough money to give everyone a stipend.

Comment #44: histro-geek  on  04/16  at  01:26 PM

It’s amazing how much people forget that the southern states, for most of their history, were police states of one sort or another.  Even white people would be fucking insane to want to live in a fully reconstituted South.

hmph…That’s Lost Causism for you…

Comment #45: shah8  on  04/16  at  01:30 PM

If nothing else, Texas is a minority majority state.  White people are not a majority here.  So Texas secessionists are, if only subconsciously, demanding a right to run an apartheid nation.  Because obviously, Texas the Country would be even more devoted to disenfranchising huge masses of voters than Texas the State already is.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  01:30 PM

This will never happen, for a very simple reason: Laziness.

Yes, there are wingnuts who will get up off their asses to wave signs at City Hall. But look at their numbers. Now look at the population of Texas. Certainly, there are a lot more wingnuts here than were represented at the teabag orgies. So where were those people?

Sitting on their asses at home, drinking beer and watching Fox News and/or listening to AM radio. Or more likely, just watching ESPN. Sure, if asked, they’ll rattle off a 10-minute rant about the scary black Muslim president, but they really, really like their comfy chair and Natural Light, and it was a long day down at the machine shop/real estate office/Mattress Giant.

Do you know how much actual gumption would be required, spread amongst the population, to bring about an actual revolution? The modern wingnut Texan does not have a fifth of that kinetic energy. Honestly, secession is a complete non-issue. Yes, Perry said it. But Perry is in for a serious fight against an opponent he knows could best him, and he’s amping up the base in hopes that he can cast Hutchison as milquetoast. Didn’t work for Ron Paul, won’t work for Rick.

The real worry is not of mass action, but of individual actors and small cells, a la Tim McVeigh. Mark my words, something along those lines will either happen or be foiled before 2012. Let’s put our antennae up for that, not these blowhards.

Comment #47: the matthew show  on  04/16  at  01:31 PM

Remember: Texas is the 3rd most populous state in the country.

Actually, Texas is the SECOND most populous state in the country.  You have nearly 5 Million more people than New York.  Which is why you have 34 Electoral Votes and New York has 31 EVs.

And in 2012, you’ll have 38 EVs, and NY will only have 29 EVs - you are gaining four House seats and New York is losing two.  California is losing one as well.

Comment #48: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  01:32 PM

True Amanda, but think of all the wingers from Altoona to Colorado Springs to Bakersfield who would head to Texas. It would be a bit of a mess, but I bet it would work itself out quite well in a few years.

We’re talking about displacing TENS OF MILLIONS of people.

I don’t think it would work out even slightly well.  We’d become like the former Yugoslavia.

Comment #49: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  01:34 PM

I think it’s also important to realize that if there was a Seccession, (being serious for a sec), the traditional mode of Southern socio-economic cycles would pretty soon generate border wars like silly, not just against Mexico but against all of the neighboring faithful states.  We’d have Bloody Kansases all over the place.

Comment #50: shah8  on  04/16  at  01:34 PM

It’s just that when they whine about seceding, they don’t really mean it.  It’s just so stupid.  My response is like that to my toddlers.

“You want to go?  Go then.”

The threat of them leaving is that the rest of us would miss them.  We won’t.  We won’t miss those people at all.  As for the land and resources?  Well we won’t let them take them, and that’s why they cannot secede.

Seriously, when W was in power, anyone who disagreed with him was called a traitor and told to leave.  This is actually bordering on treasonous (bordering, b/c I don’t think they mean it or have thought it even halfway through) but they still think they are going to kick *us* out.

No.  If it’s American, love it or leave it, then you assberets need to go.  Good luck finding somewhere you like better—there are more stratified and authoritarian states, it’s just that most of you assholes don’t have enough money to make it into the upper echelons of power you think you deserve.

Comment #51: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  01:37 PM

Huh.  I was taught in school (in Florida) that Texas has the right to secede.

Comment #52: lizriz  on  04/16  at  01:44 PM

That’s Lost Causism for you…

Lost Caucasianism actually

Comment #53: phalamir  on  04/16  at  01:49 PM

True Amanda, but think of all the wingers from Altoona to Colorado Springs to Bakersfield who would head to Texas. It would be a bit of a mess, but I bet it would work itself out quite well in a few years.

Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Wingnuts don’t want to leave their homes in their own states any more than I want to leave my home in Texas. They’ll just demand that THEIR state (Alabama? Mississippi? Missouri? etc.) will be the next to go and “you liberals” can “get out”.

By your logic, when SC sparked the Civil War by leaving, the slave holders all just picked up their plantations and moved to SC. Say, what? It didn’t happen that way? No, duh.

Huge thanks to the few voices of reason on this thread that pointed out that millions of liberal / moderate Americans shouldn’t be forced out of their Texas homes because of a few crazy wingnuts. The rest of you who are SO determined to believe that Texas is a collective drain on the country… well, ya’ll can bite me.

Comment #54: Essie Elephant  on  04/16  at  02:00 PM

Bakersfield who would head to Texas

We’ve already had our ‘version’ of secession discussed for CA:

When his final term as a California assemblyman came to an end at the start of the year, Bill Maze could have quietly headed off to do other things.
Advertisement

But in the past couple of days at the World Ag Expo, Maze, of Visalia, has been busy shaking hands, talking to people and passing out pamphlets, much like a politician seeking votes.

This time he’s not seeking them for himself but for a cause: Splitting 13 counties along the California coast into a separate state.

They are: Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angles counties.

“We need to talk to people up and down California,” Maze said, trying to drum up support for a group called Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries.

He formed the nonprofit with three men who approached him in mid-January with the idea of splitting the state.

He was(thank Odin!) my representative, this is Red CA, y’all understand…...

Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/16  at  02:11 PM

Hey now, y’all would miss us.  Remember, secession would actually be a miserable event, as the majority of people who live here (immigrants, Democrats, non-voters, non-white people) would suddenly be in a situation where we had to get the fuck out or be treated like traitors to the secessionist cause.

And there you have my basic problem with the usual “self-determination” argument in a nutshell. You can’t get it down to the level of individual people and houses, so self-determination proponents are almost always forced to flip positions on a dime and argue that while Texans have an inalienable right to secede from the union, Austinites can’t secede from Texas, becuase… (there’s really no reasonable argument that follows that “because”).

I’m sure we’d be willing to organize an Austin Airlift, if necessary (as suggested on Daily Kos) if Loyalist Austinian Forces can control the airport…

Comment #56: Llelldorin  on  04/16  at  02:11 PM

I say we give secessionists somewhere truly non-American to go; one of those small, barren, uninhabited islands in the Pacific, where (in a delicious ironic twist) global warming means the island itself is slowly being subsumed. Better work on your boat-building skills, Bubba.

Comment #57: emjaybee  on  04/16  at  02:23 PM

In terms of a humanitarian crisis I would imagine at first people would be able to leave texas and sell their property if they owned a home.  At least in the beginning a lot of wingnuts would be wanting to move there and it might even drive property values up.  Later I have no doubt Texas would have to build a wall around the state to keep people in.

Eventually I have no doubt Texas would be sort of like East Berlin, a smelly example of the failure of christain socialism, living nextdoor to a vibrant country that thanks to getting rid of most its wingnuts would be able to have national health care and good education not encumbered by creationists and other morans.

Comment #58: John Rove  on  04/16  at  02:26 PM

I think we can control the airport, if need be.  It’s pretty small.

Comment #59: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  02:30 PM

I think the Canadian experience provides some direction here. We got uncomfortably close to Quebec leaving, but it was largely because the separatists wanted to essentially be sovereign but still get all the advantages of being in Canada, and told their supporters that was somehow possible. Parizeau charmingly blamed “money and the ethnic vote” for their 1995 loss.

The US needs their own equivalent of the Clarity act to put an end to this nonsense. Make it Clear that if Texas secedes, they don’t keep the American dollar, the National Guard, access to US offshore resources, or membership in NAFTA (indeed, they’d be under embargo).  No defense industry either. Then see if they’ll do it. Not to mention the obvious fact that if Texas can secede from the US, Native Americans can secede from Texas (and would in a heartbeat, I bet).

Texans are seccessionists like most Quebeckers are sovereigntists - it’s a great card to pull when you have a beef with the federal government, but they would never follow through. On a referendum with a clear question, you could never get more than a lunatic fringe to vote for secession in either area (and the independant state of Quebec is decidedly less terrifying than Texas).

Comment #60: HonestB  on  04/16  at  02:30 PM

we’d shutter the five army installations, the 2 Navy and Marine installations, the eight Air Force bases, and the eight Coast Guard facilities, and move all those border guards to Oklahoma.

Wasn’t this the direct literal immediate cause of the beginning of fighting in the Civil War?  “Wait, uhhh, y’mean when we quit your country, we don’t get to keep all the toys?”

Comment #61: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  02:30 PM

I find it funny that when the liberals were dis-empowered (and we didn’t even a have president willing to look like he gave a shit about us) the cry was we were up and moving to Canada.  How come the conservatives seem to think they can make the rest of us leave them now that they’re out of office?

If it’s American, love it or leave it, then you assberets need to go.  Good luck finding somewhere you like better—there are more stratified and authoritarian states, it’s just that most of you assholes don’t have enough money to make it into the upper echelons of power you think you deserve.

You guys are answering each others’ questions whether you realize it or not! Most of us could live in another country; the wingnuts couldn’t. Their whole deal is about how they’re the majority (and when they’re not, it’s only because someone cheated, which they really couldn’t even try to pull in another country).

Comment #62: RickMassimo  on  04/16  at  02:40 PM

Texans have been planning this for a long time. Most of Texas is on its own electrical grid, not part of the other North American grids:

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/mediakit/maps/ERCOT_Region_map.jpg

Poor Lubbock and Amarillo. Once the shit goes down, they’re gonna be left to the tender mercies of New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Comment #63: Hector B.  on  04/16  at  02:44 PM

In terms of a humanitarian crisis I would imagine at first people would be able to leave texas and sell their property if they owned a home.  At least in the beginning a lot of wingnuts would be wanting to move there and it might even drive property values up.  Later I have no doubt Texas would have to build a wall around the state to keep people in.

I think the reality would probably be not unlike Partition was in India/Pakistan.  The very lucky people were wealthy enough not to worry too much about doing whatever they needed to do (pick up and move, dispose of some property, relocate a business, etc etc etc) or perhaps could afford to take a hit like just up and fleeing for somewhere else, leaving everything behind.  A lucky few might see which way the wind was blowing and sell out in time. 

Most people, though, would, if they were lucky, be able to physically move themselves across the new border in time to escape the rioting and terrorism and death squads.  The house, the business, the second car?  The boat, the ATV, the camper?  Any asset you can’t literally carry with you in a totally secure fashion without risk to your person?  Gone.  Forever.  The remaining population would invade or take what was left behind.  Traffic would be backed up on every major interstate highway, for weeks, and people would start fleeing on foot.  There would be refugee camps littered along the main routes into Shreveport, Lake Charles, Oklahoma City, Albequerque, and Las Cruces, on both sides of the border. 

And, yes, if somehow a chain reaction of secessions rebuilding the Confederacy didn’t happen, what would happen would be that any likeminded person within easy driving distance of Texas would seriously consider relocating if at all possible (and if there was unrest in the frontier zones, could be forced to relocate not unlike the liberals would be forced out).

Comment #64: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  02:48 PM

In terms of a humanitarian crisis I would imagine at first people would be able to leave texas and sell their property if they owned a home.  At least in the beginning a lot of wingnuts would be wanting to move there and it might even drive property values up.  Later I have no doubt Texas would have to build a wall around the state to keep people in.

Again, we’re not talking about just a few hundred people, or even a few thousand people.  The myth that Texas is 99% wingnut and 1% sane people is all over this thread.  While Austin is arguably the liberal mecca of the Lone Star State, do you really thinking the massive Hispanic population of Houston (or Dallas, or San Antonio) wants anything to do with secession?

We’re talking about more than ten million people all getting up and moving at once, here.  Perhaps as much as 5% of the entire U.S. population.  Many of whom probably don’t have the means to just get up and leave on short notice.

Do you honestly think that such a thing could be easily achieved without massive economic turmoil (the likes of which would have never been seen before in American history), without eventually leading to some seriously bloody chaos?

I realize that it’s funny to make light of the idiots like Perry and the teabaggers and to muse about a hypothetical United States where the biggest red state in the country will never be a factor in a presidential election again.  But getting serious for a moment, the actual reality of a Texas secession would be the biggest tragedy in America since the Civil War.  It would make 9/11 and Pearl Harbor seem like miniscule events, and would result in the completely unnecessary suffering and death for hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens who wanted nothing to do with this.

Anyway, it sort of bothers me that this thread went from, “Ha, ha… yeah, go secede” to actual discussion about why it would be good for this to actually happen as if it is a practically achievable feat (completely ignoring that it would probably be an utter disaster and would hurt a lot of our ideological allies).

Comment #65: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  02:49 PM

Rick Perry is obviously a fairly popular governor, or at least popular enough to have gotten re-elected twice.

His first re-election was soon after Bush moved into the White House, so he still had some glow left over for being “Bush’s Annointed Man in Texas.”

The second re-election, if you’ll remember, was the one that featured Kinky Friedman, running on the Jesse Ventura ticket, and Carole Keeton Strayhorn Rylander McClellan Expialidocious, better known as “One Crazy Grandma.” The nutbag quotient in that election was amazingly high, and Perry got his re-election with something like 39% of the vote.

In fact, he isn’t popular. The Republicans I know here generally think he’s a moron and a tool. He’s a good-looking guy, but he’s got the charisma of uncooked meatloaf. Kay Bailey Hutchison is gonna beat him silly, and you can take that to Vegas.

Poor Lubbock and Amarillo. Once the shit goes down, they’re gonna be left to the tender mercies of New Mexico and Oklahoma.

New Mexico ain’t so bad. I can get over the border in a couple hours, easy. The scenery’s really nice, too.  smile

Comment #66: Scott  on  04/16  at  02:58 PM

But getting serious for a moment, the actual reality of a Texas secession would be the biggest tragedy in America since the Civil War.  It would make 9/11 and Pearl Harbor seem like miniscule events, and would result in the completely unnecessary suffering and death for hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens who wanted nothing to do with this.

Thank you, DTG, for making this clear. And Opop for pointing out the refugee camps reality. Seriously, this thread is rapidly becoming full of fail if people don’t understand the basic dynamics of Texas population and demographics.

Comment #67: Essie Elephant  on  04/16  at  02:59 PM

Speaking as a native Okie and from the experience of the recent 8 years of Texas related unpleasantness, I am not sure I would object if Texas just went away.  Certainly would have a salutary effect on high school science textbooks.

Comment #68: DrDick  on  04/16  at  02:59 PM

Shorter précis:  “Ever heard of Texas v. White? Well, Texas lost that one too.”

My general take, though, is that the western expansion of the US in the 19th century parallels European colonial expansion across Africa and Asia, and that the shape and size of the country is a bit of a historical anomaly. Just because the map of the lower 48 has been more or less fixed for the past century doesn’t mean that it was inevitable that the edges of the US would look that way. But as others have said, partition rarely happens smoothly or peacefully.

Comment #69: pseudonymous in nc  on  04/16  at  03:05 PM

So, as a Texas Native, what do I have to do to get a Green Card into the United States again?  Both my parents are northerners, does that help?  Can we all just move to Austin and pull a double reverse unsecession?

Comment #70: Zifnab  on  04/16  at  03:06 PM

One other thing… if the U.S. did actually allow Texas to secede, how long until bordering Oklahoma, the second reddest state in the country (behind Wyoming), a state so red that it makes Texas seem like Massachusetts, decides it wants to go, too?

Texas being the biggest red state in the country does not mean that it is the most red state in the country.

14 states - West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska - all voted more red in the 2008 election than did Texas.

Do we let all of them secede, too?

Comment #71: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  03:07 PM

I don’t see any other way to read the second q & a.  “How do you know Texas doesn’t have a right to secede?  Because they tried once and were whipped.” Really?  You don’t see how that comes across as might makes right?

It’s a freaking joke jackass.

Comment #72: atheist  on  04/16  at  03:08 PM

Isn’t secession just Going Galt for the lower classes?

Comment #73: paul  on  04/16  at  03:13 PM

“Isn’t secession just Going Galt for the lower classes?”

Yes, and just as likely to actually happen. By which I mean ridiculously impossible.

Comment #74: the matthew show  on  04/16  at  03:15 PM

I don’t think anyone seriously thinks it would be a good idea.  It’s just that the “FINE.  LEAVE.” remarks were being targeted as hateful.

There are not enough wingnuts to take over any state.  Alaska and Hawaii have the best chance, seeing how they are far far away from the contiguous 48, but there’s no way we’d open a border to a hostile/semi-hostile nation.

No.

It’s why that Russian prof wth the “US is busting into 6 parts” theory is so funnny.  Most Americans think of themselves as Americans, not as Illinoisans and Minnesotans.  Our state borders are so porous that the idea of moving across the country isn’t alien at all. 

The NeoCons have tried very hard to divide us into Red and Blue, and I’ve be dismayed at how well they’ve succeeded, but that success is with the whackadoodle 29%ers, who themselves are a whole bag of different crazies who won’t and can’t unite.

Secession talk should be ridiculed.  Hard.  Doing so is not violating anyone’s free speech.  It’s responding to it.

Comment #75: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  03:15 PM

I judge my leaders by, among other things, the enemies they make and the anger they engender—it’s not a perfect rubric for determining whether someone’s doing a good job, but it’s not a bad one. 

Of course Texas shouldn’t secede.  But to the extent that it is a topic on the table, as it were, it is indicative of the deep frustration that the far right feels.  And that frustration is, one hopes, rooted in the sense that they are marginalized as they haven’t been before by a progressive president.  This is all good news.

Comment #76: Hugo Schwyzer  on  04/16  at  03:16 PM

I think the reality would probably be not unlike Partition was in India/Pakistan.

Worth remembering that Musharraf was born in what is now India, and Manhohan Singh was born in what is now Pakistan. That childhood experience defines so many of their generation.

Comment #77: pseudonymous in nc  on  04/16  at  03:17 PM

Amanda, you’re apparently unaware of the vast body of scholarship on whether or not states have the right to secede.  See, e.g., Sanford Levinson ‘“Perpetual Union,” “Free Love,” and Secession: On the
Limits of the “Consent of the Governed”‘ (2004) 39 Tulsa Law Review 457 and this response: http://www.ius.bg.ac.yu/Anali/Annals 2008/Annals 2008 p 274-276.pdf

Texas is unlikely to try to actually secede, but the bottom line is that whether a state has the right to secede is an open question.  How you could purport to write a ‘response’ to people debating the issue without doing ten minutes of research is beyond me.

Comment #78: Allen  on  04/16  at  03:18 PM

I admit there is a certain poetic justice in the good ole boys suddenly finding out just how much of their economy is based on immigration (everything from the Asian engineers to Latinos, immigrant or not, in virtually everything). As well as the vast number of liberals, all African Americans, or just sane people fleeing the embryonic fascism of the Second Texas Republic.

They’d learn the same painful lesson as former European colonies that lost or drove out expatriate Europeans, or the lesson Idi Amin learned when he drove Indians out of Uganda.  Losing the bourgeoisie, the educated class, the creative class, and the people who run the country fucking hurts.  The economy collapses and it becomes difficult or near impossible to keep the water clean, the lights on, and the hospitals and schools open.

Comment #79: keshmeshi  on  04/16  at  03:19 PM

DTG in STL

Maybe Louisiana could end up as the Kashmir-like area faught over between the Republic of Texas and the USA. Nuclear standoffs are the shit!

Yeah, obviously Texas seceeding is a horrible & dangerous idea, and Rick Perry is a freaking idiot, and so’s Chuck Norris. What are they smoking?

Comment #80: atheist  on  04/16  at  03:22 PM

We got uncomfortably close to Quebec leaving, but it was largely because the separatists wanted to essentially be sovereign but still get all the advantages of being in Canada, and told their supporters that was somehow possible.

Well, to be fair, they couldn’t know sovereignty-association would be such an impossibility. They didn’t have the 20/20 hindsight that allows us in 2009 to see how the European Union, which tried to arrive at the same arrangement from the opposite direction of already sovereign nations ultimatly sharing a common currency and economic bloc, would fail miserably…

Wait, what? The EU is a success? Well, I’ll be damned!

Parizeau charmingly blamed “money and the ethnic vote” for their 1995 loss.

A proper (non-partisan) translation would have been “money and ethnic votes”. The CBC, unsurprisingly, used a translation that has the connotation that all non-‘pure laines’ were blamed for the loss, when in fact Parizeau was speaking of a few, mostly anglophone, cultural communities of Quebec (francophone immigrants usually favored the Yes vote).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_and_the_ethnic_vote

Money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079036361116_74445561///?hub=Canada
http://www.anticorruption.ca/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5183&sid=0f904ab068b95ec5a9382ae6cbe702e8

As for the ‘ethnic vote’, I have direct experience of friends in college who had been fast tracked through the immigration system in order to have the right to vote on the referendum, and being heavily pressured by the immigration officials to vote No (being told, for instance, that they were giving an oath of allegiance to Canada and/or the Queen and that they should vote No as a sign of good will, or other ham fisted scare tactics like saying they could be deported if the Yes vote won, when many of them had very little information about what the deal was about). If anything, the only problem I have with this statement is that it seems to blame the immigrants rather than the federal government who has cynically used them through fear tactics and strong arming.

Are there chauvinists and racists in the separatist movement? Yes. Is this movement a whole lot too coddling of them because they fear that they will turn on them if they don’t cater to the ignoramus vote? Yes. That’s why I’m not a separatist, that’s why I have undying hatred for this whole mess in the first place. But I’m not duped by the propaganda of the federal (anglo-colonial) government either.

Comment #81: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  03:27 PM

Texas is unlikely to try to actually secede, but the bottom line is that whether a state has the right to secede is an open question.  How you could purport to write a ‘response’ to people debating the issue without doing ten minutes of research is beyond me.

Allen, how about we dispense with the “legal questions” and get right to the point: it would be incredibly fucking stupid, costly, dangerous, and deadly. In the extremely unlikely event that it succeeded, both the new states would find themselves in weaker strategic positions in the North American context. No, it’s crazy and stupid.

Comment #82: atheist  on  04/16  at  03:28 PM

I didn’t interpret most of the above thread as actively encouraging Texas secessionism, merely pointing and mocking it.

Frankly, the “idea” of secession doesn’t deserve anything more than mockery. After eight years of having these guys question our love of country for suggesting that—say—torture is un-American or that we shouldn’t try fighting two unrelated wars at once for no very good reason, it would require saintly forbearance not to laugh as they start talking secession all of five months after losing a single presidential election.

Comment #83: Llelldorin  on  04/16  at  03:29 PM

Speaking as a native Okie and from the experience of the recent 8 years of Texas related unpleasantness

Oklahomans don’t have much room to cast dispersions on the wingnuttery that exists in Texas.

Oklahoma is the second most Republican state in the country.

McCain’s margin of victory in Texas was 11.7%.  In Oklahoma, it was nearly triple that, 31.2%.

And yet, if it were Oklahoma we were talking about instead of Texas, I would still defend the 1/3 of Oklahomans who aren’t wingnuts from having to suffer through the hell that a secession would cause.

I’m not even a Texan, but speaking as someone from a state where McCain won by barely 0.1% (his smallest victory in the nation), I get really peeved whenever people look at electoral maps and decide that if your state is red, no matter how marginally red, your whole state sucks (even if 49.9% of you supported the Democrat) and 99% of the people who live there are inbred mouth-breathing wingnuts.

1,441,911 Missourians voted for Barack Obama.
1,445,814 Missourians voted for John McCain.

We’re not even a consistently red state… we voted for Clinton (both times), Carter, LBJ, JFK, Truman, and FDR.  We vote red a little more often than blue, but we’re still overall a purple state, and given how close it was this past year, it is very likely that Missouri will be blue again in 2012, assuming Obama is still nationally popular when the next election comes around.

Does the fact that 3,903 more people (out of nearly 2.9 Million) in my state voted for McCain than did for Obama mean that my whole state deserves to be branded wingnut heaven?

Comment #84: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  03:32 PM

@Essie E,

There was massive immigration to the ROT after independence, somewhere around 10% per year and if we count only free non-Indian population the number was closer to 20% in the first few years. Tens of thousands of people wanted to get in on a new country that they felt afforded them economic opportunity and freedom from unresponsive faraway governments. That economic opportunity of course meant “empty” land. In fact, any time in U.S. history that there has been “empty” land people scramble to get it. There was no empty land in SC in 1861 and the economic system that the secessionists were fighting to preserve required massive amounts of land. Of course they wouldn’t go to South Carolina.

Most of today’s secessionists aren’t fighting to preserve an economic system that depends on land tenure.* They are advocating a rainbow and fairy dust version of industrial capitalism. For wingnuts today, (excepting the wingiest and nuttiest who reject industrial capitalism and who still really want land) economic opportunity just means minimal taxes and no government regulation. There’s no reason to believe that massive numbers of them wouldn’t move to take advantage of that in Texas, especially if it comes with a white president, creationism, and guns.

Not everyone winger will move, but there is incentive for many. If you own a farm or real estate or a brick and mortar store you are less likely to get up and move; I’m certainly not disputing that. But if you are a worker or professional or own a fleet of trash trucks, why wouldn’t you move to a place with more opportunity for your business to thrive and for you to enjoy freedom. Millions of people move to other countries every year for just those reasons. That’s how my ancestors and millions of other ended up in the United States. They were fleeing religious persecution and lack of economic opportunity. All of those Christians who have to suffer the injustice of gays getting married and schools teaching science as well as their bosses having a 4% marginal tax increase can flee to the Republic of Texas.

*actually, of course, they’re not fighting at all and if they were it wouldn’t be for anything other than not having a black guy as president and the gays flourinating the water, but let’s not let that get in the way of a fun discussion.

Comment #85: Babieca  on  04/16  at  03:33 PM

I’m really unclear on why Texas should not be allowed to secede if a majority of its citizen decide that is the proper course of action?

I have no problem with it.

Comment #86: ice weasel  on  04/16  at  03:34 PM

Oh yeah, and comparing us to fucking Texas secessionists is low. Texas is not a colonized, second-class nation within the United States, and it never was. Quebec was, and some would argue still is (though I’m pretty skeptical of these claims).

Anglophone dominance in Quebec has arguably been gone for only about a generation/a generation and a half. It existed still during the USA’s civil rights fights (the left-wing of the FLQ was in contact and sympathized with the Black Panthers, for instance). Things are undoubtedly better than they were, for both Quebecois and POC in America, but nobody except right-wingers would say that the legacy of pre-civil rights era is completly gone and hasn’t affected the current generation of black youths, or their prospects in life.

Comment #87: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  03:35 PM

I’m really unclear on why Texas should not be allowed to secede if a majority of its citizen decide that is the proper course of action?

Seriously?  Once you sign the papers you’re in forever.  The Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.  If states were allowed to secede on a whim there would be now stability for any of us.  Once we let you in we’re telling you, “O.k., but now we’re depending on you.”

Comment #88: Magis  on  04/16  at  03:48 PM

How you could purport to write a ‘response’ to people debating the issue without doing ten minutes of research is beyond me.

Secessionist America-hating troll is a secessionist America-hater.

Comment #89: Scott  on  04/16  at  03:50 PM

I’m really unclear on why Texas should not be allowed to secede if a majority of its citizen decide that is the proper course of action?

Well, first off, I think we both know that if it were actually put to a vote with all of the ramifications of a secession laid out on the table, Texans would probably not vote to secede from the U.S., not if they actually knew the true cost of secession.

Second, I disagree with the logic of a majority always being morally right.

Interracial marriage was legalized because a few rational judges were able to see that laws barring it were manifestly unjust.  Had Loving vs. Virginia been decided at the ballot box instead of the courtroom in the late 1950s, interracial marriage would have remained illegal at that time.

Which brings us to gay marriage.  While I think the tide is decidedly moving in a progressive direction on this front, I wouldn’t want to see a national ballot issue that would decide the fate of gay marriage today.  Because gay marriage would lose.  Gay marriage lost on the ballot in one of the most progressive states in the country when it was put on the ballot just five months ago - do you really think it would fare better if put to a vote for the whole country, which is decidedly less progressive collectively than California alone is?

The majority is not always right.  Oftentimes, they can be quite wrong.

Comment #90: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  03:55 PM

Babieca also has a point in that people from more economically depressed parts of the US, especially parts which are in somewhat close proximity to Texas, are full of people who are champing at the bit to relocate to Texas even now.  The Houston and Dallas metros have jobs.  They have neato suburban landscapes full of malls and multiplexes and mcmansions.  Texas looks positively civilized when you’re from Nowheresville, Arkansas. 

Of course the reality is that if Texas were to secede, all that would dry up as companies relocated out of state.  In fact, the smart money would be on selling your smaller southern or western city as a great relocation point—Baton Rouge, Little Rock, or Roswell would start looking like prime real estate.

Comment #91: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  03:56 PM

Oh yeah, and comparing us to fucking Texas secessionists is low. Texas is not a colonized, second-class nation within the United States, and it never was.

Teabagging Texans like Perry are making the argument that they (white Xtians) are becoming a colonised, second-class nation within Blackazoid’s United States. It’s a combination of bedwetting nonsense and dangerously cynical populism, to be sure, but that is what they’re basing their secessionist threats on. If there’s any comparison being made by the commenters here, it’s one between Texans like Perry and Quebecers like the die-hard separatist politicians, both of whom disingenuously claim that they’re being oppressed.

Comment #92: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  03:59 PM

Why, oh why, if they were going to secede, couldn’t they have done it ten years ago?

Comment #93: Punditus Maximus  on  04/16  at  04:01 PM

Of course the reality is that if Texas were to secede, all that would dry up as companies relocated out of state.

Another good point of comparison with Quebec. Even the threat of secession there during the ‘70s prompted a mass exodus of corporate HQs from Montreal to Toronto. I can only imagine what would have happened if the separatists had succeeded in their ultimate goals.

Comment #94: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  04:04 PM

Just btw, it’s probably not a good idea to judge the red/blue quotient of a state by the Obama/McCain vote, unless by red you mean “either a completely loony nutbag or a self-destructive racist or both” and by blue you mean “a sane person”. Plenty of republicans, and even some self-identified conservative, voted for Obama.

Comment #95: paul  on  04/16  at  04:06 PM

I think too much time is wasted on these nutjobs. I wish someone in the media would instead of lauding these lunatics (Fox) or disparaging them (everyone else) would show just where they really stand. To disagree with an earlier commenter, these fools do not make up 25% of the U.S. population. They probably don’t even make up 10%. They just have their own TV network so it seems that way. What I would like to see is a comparison and contrast of every single tea party site with an Obama campaign rally. He went to most of the tea bag sites last year, but so far I’ve only seen one photo that compared the tea baggers less than 500 people with Obama’s 100,000 in St. Louis. That alone is cause for hope that the sane, rational people in America are the overwhelming majority.

Comment #96: DC Fem  on  04/16  at  04:09 PM

<blockquote>Of course the reality is that if Texas were to secede, all that would dry up as companies relocated out of state.

Another good point of comparison with Quebec. Even the threat of secession there during the ‘70s prompted a mass exodus of corporate HQs from Montreal to Toronto. I can only imagine what would have happened if the separatists had succeeded in their ultimate goals. </blockquote>

Capital flight? How surprising! I’m sure they didn’t have THAT in Cuba. Or that you won’t get that if you elect a socialist president in the USA…

Contrary to Texas, Quebec is not a net drain of federal welfare money. Our economy is sound.

Comment #97: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  04:11 PM

Just btw, it’s probably not a good idea to judge the red/blue quotient of a state by the Obama/McCain vote, unless by red you mean “either a completely loony nutbag or a self-destructive racist or both” and by blue you mean “a sane person”. Plenty of republicans, and even some self-identified conservative, voted for Obama.

Definitely. Most states are either purple, pink, or somewhere in between. Understanding this, and targetting resources appropriately in every state, was one of the key factors in the Obama campaign’s strategy.

The brain-dead “red/blue” concept is a product of the MSM, ever eager to appeal to the lowest common denominator and to use it as a lazy hook for sensationalist non-stories like this one (“Will this reddest of the red states secede? Find out after the break”).

Comment #98: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  04:14 PM

Texas is not a colonized, second-class nation within the United States, and it never was.

Actually, yes, the “colonists” took over the original Spanish/later Mexican colony, and even as a son of a native of Texas I’d have to say a place that has pockets of Prohibition (like a town in East Texas where a cousin of mine lives) is somehow not first-class.

Comment #99: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/16  at  04:14 PM

Hey now, y’all would miss us.  Remember, secession would actually be a miserable event, as the majority of people who live here (immigrants, Democrats, non-voters, non-white people) would suddenly be in a situation where we had to get the fuck out or be treated like traitors to the secessionist cause.

Sounds like something that would blow for the people who had to move, but wouldn’t really matter for those of us on this side of the border. I don’t mind spending some extra money for a few years to help people get back on their feet. Besides, regardless of the nativist fever-dreams of the racist right, this country has never had any problems assimilating new immigrants. So hey, throw open the gates and say “welcome to the land of opportunity, Texans. We’re happy to have you here. More happy to have them over there, but you will be too once you get settled in.”

Comment #100: Sherm  on  04/16  at  04:16 PM

Dark Avenger: If the Mexican/Spanish native Texans want to take over the state of Texas and secede, more power to them. smile

I was speaking of the anglos who are the ones actually kvetching for secession.

Comment #101: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  04:18 PM

I am EXTREMELY proud of where I was born, but I’m an American first and a Texan second.  There are a handful of Texans that make me want to stand up and shout, “These idiots aren’t REAL Texans!  We love America!”  They’re ruining it for the rest of the state (the majority of which would NEVER secede).  And the rich Republicans in Texas would NEVER back this, because they know the economic (to say nothing of the human rights) disaster this would be.  So it ends up being a handful of blowhards saying “Secede!” after Perry eggs them on and Chuck Norris jumps in like the moron that he is.

The real problem that might come from this secessionist crap from Perry is that some ultra-right loony decides to blow up something or shoot someone.  The traitorous right-wingers are inciting violence.  They are treasonous just like the Confederates were 150 years ago.

Comment #102: bouj  on  04/16  at  04:26 PM

@Dark Avenger,

I think you mean to say that first the Spanish/Mexicans claimed the Native lands in what is now Texas (but never colonized most of them in any meaningful way) and then the Anglos fought a war with the Mexicans and claimed those lands and murdered or removed to reservations the actual colonized people.

The people who live in Texas today are not a colonized nation, though you could make the argument that there is still internal colonization of Mexicans (rather than Tejanos) and African Americans, but that isn’t really unique to Texas.

Comment #103: Babieca  on  04/16  at  04:27 PM

Capital flight? How surprising! I’m sure they didn’t have THAT in Cuba. Or that you won’t get that if you elect a socialist president in the USA…

Exactly, but it’s less about specific ideology and more about the fact that, while oligarchs and plutocrats everywhere and throughout history enjoy tricking Know-Nothing populist marks into furthering their own aims, they get very nervous when the Know-Nothing populists actually take power.

I doubt that the German and Italian plutocrats who supported corporatism/fascism were, after the fact, a whole lot happier with the final results than were the Russian plutocrats who opposed communism a generation earlier. Although at the moment the Italian business elite seems to be forgetting the lessons of history.

I doubt even the most revanchist Texas oilman wants to see the fate of his profits resting in the hands of a rabble-rousing yahoo like Perry.

Contrary to Texas, Quebec is not a net drain of federal welfare money. Our economy is sound.

Mainly, as I understand it, because it took the better part of a generation to re-build, and because the separatist party lost power in the interim. But bad economic times provide opportunities for bad actors.

Comment #104: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  04:28 PM

Sounds like something that would blow for the people who had to move, but wouldn’t really matter for those of us on this side of the border.

Wow, you have no idea how this sort of thing usually works, do you?

I suppose that the US Northeast and Northwest might escape visible evidence of the split.  Assuming that we didn’t fight a second Civil War over it, of course.  People in Portland, Oregon, or Burlington, Vermont, would only see a few mainly well-off refugees, sacrifice a little tax money, and might have to change some vacation plans.  But it would severely destabilize southern and western states as refugees flooded in.  States bordering Texas (New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana) would be absolutely overwhelmed, and would probably become unstable border zones to boot (again, assuming we didn’t fight a war over this—in that case, they’d become the front lines). 

Even Northeasterners and Northwesterners would be scarred by things like friends or family members who were living in Texas being massacred based on political party affiliation.  Sectarian violence spilling over the border and affecting parts of the south, west, and midwest.  Politically conservative family members deciding to throw their lot in with the Texans, or, if things got really bad, kicked out of their homes and made to throw their lot in with the Texans.

Comment #105: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  04:31 PM

BB, here in the states, that’s known as the Atzlan conspiracy:

The concept of Aztlán as the place of origin of the pre-Columbian Mexican civilization has become a symbol for various Mexican nationalist and indigenous movements.

The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano independence activists led by Oscar Zeta Acosta during the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They used the name “Aztlán” to refer to the lands of Northern Mexico that were annexed by the United States as a result of the Mexican-American War. Combined with the claim of some historical linguists and anthropologists that the original homeland of the Aztecan peoples was located in the southwestern United States, Aztlán in this sense became a symbol of mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land.

Of course, there are those who fear the worse:

In The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler speculates on the impact of peak oil on the “Aztlan” region of the United States (which he describes as a region encapsulating California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and parts of Colorado), describing the area as a site of initial political and violent conflict followed by depopulation as without electricity, the desert area will be unable to maintain living conditions for humans.[8]

I’ll be in the southern Sierras’, relocating the redwoods to the higher elevations, following the water.  wink

Comment #106: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/16  at  04:35 PM

And if you want to see some of the most hateful, vile speech imaginable on the subject, just go read the comments section of the Houston Chronicle’s article on Perry’s comments.  A couple of commentators openly call for the ethnic cleansing of the non-whites in Texas as a precursor to secession.

Comment #107: bouj  on  04/16  at  04:35 PM

Governor Rick Good Hair Perry (Molly Ivins’ description) of Texas is just trying to out-Loon Governor Mark My Words Not My Actions Sanford of South Carolina, preening recklessly (as in endangerment) for the base of the Republooncan Party.

Indeed, Perry’s stunt could easily put him at the forefront of the 2012 Republooncan Presidential sweepstakes, despite the fact that the majority of Americans have subliminably made an indelible note to itself to never, ever, EVER elect a Texan Commanderer-in-Chief ever EVER again.  I, myself, resident of Austin, would support a constitutional amendment to that effect, or perhaps an Obamacan executive order (after all, Barack’s The Decider now).

And what’s with the ballcap over all that Good Hair, Perry?  Trying to be a bubba of the people?  Hey, real bubbas wouldn’t pull the nonsense you did the other day.  They have better sense than to inject the Civil War (and by inference, racial issues and slavery) into the national conversation.

Comment #108: News Nag  on  04/16  at  04:35 PM

I see a lot of use of the term “Texas” when most people mean “a scared, gutless Republican governor who’s trying to futilely shore up his minuscule base before getting his ass kicked in the upcoming primary.”

Comment #109: norbizness  on  04/16  at  04:36 PM

OK, now that my imagination is turned on about this, there’s a part of me that wants to write some sort of speculative fiction / alternate “history” wherein this really happens.

Though I guess you could also call it “NWFP: News At Eleven”.

Comment #110: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  04:42 PM

An interesting discussion in some ways.  Amanda wrote:

Texas tried (secession) once, and that didn’t work out so well.  Surely you remember the Civil War, since most of you idiots have a Confederate flag somewhere in your possessions.

Except, of course, Texas tried secession twice, the first being from Mexico.  Y’all are one-for-two on succeessful secessions.  smile

And in the comments, she wrote:

Might doesn’t make right.  But the notion that the Confederates lost because they were In The Wrong, not because they were overpowered, is magical thinking.  And offensive to those who were in the right and unable to win a war despite it.  Say, Native Americans, for instance.

As nearly as I can tell, our hostess is saying that yes, secession is a right, and that Texas’ failed secession in 1861 was a failure only because she was defeated militarily.

The United States has a long history of supporting the right of people to secede from a government they consider oppressive: the US supported independence for Texas from Mexico, supported the secession of Cuba from Spain, of Panama from Columbia, of Mexico from Spain, of the old Soviet Republics from Russia, of West Virginia from Virginia, and, a rather big one, of thirteen colonies from Great Britain.  In fact, about the only secession of which I can think that the United States opposed was the one in which the party being seceded from was the United States.

Comment #111: Dana  on  04/16  at  04:46 PM

Of course, there are those who <strike>fear</strike> anticipate with relish the worse:

Fixed that up a bit. This is Kunstler we’re talking about, after all. The man consistently starts out making excellent points, before lapsing into rhapsodies about the joys of pre-industrial manorialism, and cranky rants against tattoo parlours as signs of the end times.

Comment #112: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  04:47 PM

Second, I disagree with the logic of a majority always being morally right.

Interracial marriage was legalized because a few rational judges were able to see that laws barring it were manifestly unjust.  Had Loving vs. Virginia been decided at the ballot box instead of the courtroom in the late 1950s, interracial marriage would have remained illegal at that time.

Which brings us to gay marriage.  While I think the tide is decidedly moving in a progressive direction on this front, I wouldn’t want to see a national ballot issue that would decide the fate of gay marriage today.  Because gay marriage would lose.  Gay marriage lost on the ballot in one of the most progressive states in the country when it was put on the ballot just five months ago - do you really think it would fare better if put to a vote for the whole country, which is decidedly less progressive collectively than California alone is?

The difference is that these are human rights.  The USA is not a human, and has no rights. There’s not even a collective right to belong to a particular polity.  In theory I think Texas has the right to secede if it wanted to.  I am particularly thinking of Yugoslavia as an example - was there any right for a Serbian dominated state created by force to keep itself intact by force?

Take a look at the declerative theory of statehood
- permanent population
- defined territory
- government
- ability to enter into international relations

I might add a few other due to personal bias:
- A modicum of political stability
- The ability to transfer political power peacefully.
- Economic viability
- Basic protection of human rights within its borders.

texas can meet these criteria easily. This is in theory.

In practice it would involve refugees and even ethnic cleansing.  It would only be moral if, say, a substantial part of Texas - say two thirds of all adult citizens (not just two thirds of those voting) agreed, in full knowledge of what would happen.

And if that happened, the United States would be better off letting them go.  You’re supposed to be a republic, but this thread has an awful lot of people sounding like they think you’re an empire.

IF they wanted to go (which they don’t; it’s only a few loudmouths), you should let them go.

Comment #113: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  04:50 PM

Sounds like something that would blow for the people who had to move, but wouldn’t really matter for those of us on this side of the border. I don’t mind spending some extra money for a few years to help people get back on their feet. Besides, regardless of the nativist fever-dreams of the racist right, this country has never had any problems assimilating new immigrants. So hey, throw open the gates and say “welcome to the land of opportunity, Texans. We’re happy to have you here. More happy to have them over there, but you will be too once you get settled in.”

If your argument is that Texans would suffer a hell of a lot more from a Texas secession than would the rest of the country, I agree.

But if your argument is that there would be no bad consequences for the rest of the U.S at all if this happened… wrong.

The cost of repatriating tens of millions of dislocated Texans who wouldn’t want to stay in Texas post-secession would send us into an economic tailspin worse than the Great Depression.

Not to mention the fact that if you let Texas go, it won’t be long until another state decides that they want to secede, and then you have bloody chaos breaking out everywhere in the country as many other states start fighting for their sovereignty.

There is no rational argument that allowing Texas to secede so it can become a white Christianist nation would in any way be beneficial for ANY of the parties involved, be it Texas or the rest of the country.

Comment #114: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  04:52 PM

Dana, I don’t think the first one worked out too well either. They only lasted 9 years.

Comment #115: Babieca  on  04/16  at  04:53 PM

If people want to go Galt, best of luck to them.  If they want to make a lot of noise about secession, they can shout themselves hoarse.  If Texas actually does secede…. well, we’ll just have to go all William Tecumseh Sherman on them.  Of course, that wouldn’t be hate, that would be heritage.

Comment #116: Audie  on  04/16  at  04:54 PM

I would also point out that an independent Texas does not necessarily preclude arrangements easing citizenship.  You’d be closer than Australia and New Zealand, and these two countries allow each others citizens to travel and live in each other freely, including receiving welfare payments.

Comment #117: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  04:56 PM

Mainly, as I understand it, because it took the better part of a generation to re-build, and because the separatist party lost power in the interim.

Lucien Bouchard took over from Parizeau, which marked the takeover of the PQ by its right-wing (Bouchard was a Conservative before he joined the Bloc Quebecois). They spent the next few years they had in power gutting our social security net and chasing zero deficit in order to ‘secure the economy’ for their next attempt (i.e. bend over backwards to our corporate masters). Forced hospital system fusions and early retirements for nurses to cut down on spendings resulted in my mother (head of her union) falling into depression from the stress when all the unions started eating up each other’s members to survive the crunch. Then the Liberals took over (but by then we had two right-wing parties in the province anyway, so who noticed the difference?) and cut back even more into social programs and gave tax cuts to the wealthy.

So yeah, this ‘rebuilding’ you’re speaking of, I think that’s a bit relative.

Comment #118: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  04:57 PM

As nearly as I can tell, our hostess is saying that yes, secession is a right, and that Texas’ failed secession in 1861 was a failure only because she was defeated militarily.

I think, as usual, you’re misreading her. She’s simply saying that winning by might doesn’t necessarily make one’s cause right or wrong, and that losing on the same terms also doesn’t necessarily make one’s cause right or wrong.

In other words. she’s separating the legitimacy of a secession movement (particularly in its underlying claims and complaints) from its ability to win or lose. There’s not a whole lot of legitimacy in Perry’s Teabagger claims, just the usual fantasy and false victimhood (see also: “them thar yankees wanna take away the slaves that form the basis of our modern economy”).

As always, though, a nice try.

Comment #119: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  04:59 PM

Don’t compare Quebec and Texas.  Texas threatening to leave is like your psychotic Uncle Earl (you know, the one with the gun collection, the submissive wife, seven kids, two of whom are nice and the other are even crazier than he is) threatening to leave the family.  Quebec is your fascinating, beautiful wife threatening to go, insisting that she gets to keep most of your stuff and your credit cards.

Very different.

Comment #120: seeker6079  on  04/16  at  05:00 PM

Can somebody explain how a VERY RECENTLY elected president and congress are “thumbing their nose at the American people”?

Comment #121: Ms Kate  on  04/16  at  05:00 PM

And BTW, we’ve had a shortage of nurses for years now. Ever since the forced early retirements. Stupid right-wing bullcrap.

Comment #122: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  05:00 PM

Texas threatening to leave is like your psychotic Uncle Earl (you know, the one with the gun collection, the submissive wife, seven kids, two of whom are nice and the other are even crazier than he is) threatening to leave the family.  Quebec is your fascinating, beautiful wife threatening to go, insisting that she gets to keep most of your stuff and your credit cards.

So, in this analogy, would you say the federalists are MRAs? wink

Comment #123: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  05:02 PM

In theory I think Texas has the right to secede if it wanted to.

For a few weeks after the Confederacy seceded, the US government didn’t know what to do, you know, “in theory”.  Then they tried to go in and secure US property in South Carolina and were attacked.  And in that moment, the issue stopped being theoretical.

No state has the “right” to secede.  Period.  The end. 

Did we assert this via “might makes right”?  The minute we start a war over it, we are at the level of using ‘might makes right’ to answer a question.  Had the CSA paid the US for all American property and surrendered all weaponry and assets, without a fight, we might never have found ourselves deciding this question that way.  But that’s not what happened.  What actually happened is that we fought a war over whether states could secede, and because the Union won, the answer was “no”.

More details can be found here.

Comment #124: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  05:07 PM

So yeah, this ‘rebuilding’ you’re speaking of, I think that’s a bit relative.

To be clear, we were speaking about the re-building of their private capital base after the earlier flight of capital.

The public base is another matter, and is relevant, too. In Texas they have nowhere near access to the social security net that was in place in Quebec prior to the separatists taking over. Can you imagine what would happen there if Galtian supermen like Perry were able to separate? We’re talking banana republic conditions that would make even the current American health-care and welfare systems look “socialist.” Which, I suppose, is part of the point of Perry’s nonsense.

Comment #125: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  05:07 PM

Seeker,

I really like the analogy. However, “fascinating and beautiful” doesn’t preclude a touch of Teh Crazy.

Comment #126: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  05:10 PM

(Laughing.)  Nah, BlackBloc, I always see English Canada as a fairly reasonable, often dull, frightfully linear, excessively patient but frequently clueless loyal husband, to tell the truth: essentially decent, a bit slow on the subtleties and perpetually inches away from apoplexy after being on the receiving end of the umpteenth tantrum about how much she isn’t appreciated even when she is visibly spoiled.

Comment #127: seeker6079  on  04/16  at  05:11 PM

“I really like the analogy. However, “fascinating and beautiful” doesn’t preclude a touch of Teh Crazy. “

Oh, believe me, a strong streak of the irrational runs right through the middle of a lot of Quebec nationaliste thought.  And I’ve dated fascinating and beautiful women who had more than a touch of Teh Crazy.  It does go a very long way to making Quebec far easier to understand.

Comment #128: seeker6079  on  04/16  at  05:13 PM

We’re talking banana republic conditions that would make even the current American health-care and welfare systems look “socialist.”

Touche.

Comment #129: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  05:13 PM

seeker: After you’ve read a few National Post articles or listened to Don Cherry, it’s hard to think of English Canada as the rational party in this mess…

Also, I’ll see your depiction of Quebec’s nationalists and raise you… most of Alberta. raspberry

Comment #130: BlackBloc  on  04/16  at  05:17 PM

I’ve always felt that 1992-2000 were the Golden Age, what with the black helicopters, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, the Salt Mines of Utah, etc., etc., etc.

Your first instinct was correct. That really was the Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories. What you’re seeing now is the right-wing Conspiracy Theories entering its Baroque period.

Comment #131: Tyro  on  04/16  at  05:22 PM

The secession of Texas would go down like the secession of Virginia: loyalists to the DC government would fight to stay, plus there’d probably be some kind of India/Pakistan-like population exchange in which the loyalists and secessionists migrated to opposite sides of the state in order to form contiguous, defensible enclaves. I suspect that texas would lose much of its strategic coastline in a partition that went down like that.

Comment #132: Tyro  on  04/16  at  05:29 PM

Ms Kate: “The American People”, as used by guys like Perry, means “white conservative southerners” if they’re in an expansive mood, and “fucking CRAZY white conservative southerners” the rest of the time. Obama and the congress are spitefully and with malice aforethought following through on some of their campaign promises, instead of doing the usual Democratic pre-surrender deal.

Compare the current Senate (to which I’ll attach Franken, which is at this point looking inevitable) to the first-term Senate majority under Bill Clinton. In the 103rd Congress, the Senate was 56-44 Democratic, but that majority relied on 15 southern Democratic senators who were as a group very conservative on social issues (they weren’t the only conservative Dems, either). (Remember, back then the Democratic party was economically liberal but was split on social issues. It’s only since the rebuild over the last decade that we’ve become a socially liberal, economically split party.) By comparison, the 111th congress is 57-1-1-41, with only 7 southern Democrats (some of whom are quite liberal, thanks to the slow bluing of Virginia).

It’s quickly dawning on the wingnuts that not only has their party lost the election, but that they don’t have any real handles on the Democratic Party, either. Since they think of themselves as being the only America that really counts, they’re furious.

Comment #133: Llelldorin  on  04/16  at  05:29 PM

Can somebody explain how a VERY RECENTLY elected president and congress are “thumbing their nose at the American people”?

I believe it’s yet more code for “uppity.”

Comment #134: annejumps  on  04/16  at  05:42 PM

...

Or what annejumps said.


(8 words that work better than my 218.)

Comment #135: Llelldorin  on  04/16  at  05:44 PM

In the 103rd Congress, the Senate was 56-44 Democratic, but that majority relied on 15 southern Democratic senators who were as a group very conservative on social issues

And one of those 15 Democratic Senators in 1993 is still a Senator in 2009, though he decided in 1994 that his heart belonged to God’s Own Party - Richard Shelby, Republican (formerly Democratic) Senator from Alabama.

Comment #136: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  05:48 PM

Except, of course, Texas tried secession twice, the first being from Mexico.

This is true.  It is likewise true that much of the impetus for each secession was that the country they were seceding from was threatening to abolish slavery.  This time, the impetus seems to be that the Union now has a black man at the head of the executive branch.  It’s just this sort of thing that makes me proud, </i>proud</i>, to be a native-born Texan and a blonde-haired blue-eyed white girl.  I got the sniffles now, ‘scuse me.

Comment #137: kaninchen  on  04/16  at  05:49 PM

“There is no rational argument that allowing Texas to secede so it can become a white Christianist nation would in any way be beneficial for ANY of the parties involved, be it Texas or the rest of the country.
DTG in STL on 04/16 at 03:52 PM”

Sure there is. We could nuke what’s left with a clean conscience. I really don’t want to share air with these “people” anymore. We’ve got a big house and no kids; we’ll welcome a dozen refugees, as long as they agree not to whine about Chicago winters.

Comment #138: Volodya  on  04/16  at  06:06 PM

Atheist—Whether an entity has the legal right to do something is completely independent from the merits of doing it.  I have the legal right to invest my money in string art.  Doesn’t make it a good idea.  Texas may or may not have the right to secede, but Amanda’s argument apparently is that it can’t secede because it’s a bad idea and because it was on the losing side in a war.

Scott—I’m so glad asking questions about constitutional interpretation means I hate America…

Comment #139: Allen  on  04/16  at  06:30 PM

After you’ve read a few National Post articles or listened to Don Cherry, it’s hard to think of English Canada as the rational party in this mess…

Yeah, okay, well, using that as a basis for comparison I can see where a problem might come up, given that very few people take Don Cherry seriously and fewer the National Post.

And I reject the analogy of the spouse who wants to leave and keep the credit card and take your stuff.

It’s really that they wants a divorce, but still wants to stay in the house, use the credit cards, have ownership of your stuff, raid the refrigerator, and oh, gets to take the car for a night out.

Comment #140: KeithM  on  04/16  at  06:34 PM

No state has the “right” to secede.

You sure about that?

Would you support Russia invading the Ukraine?  Serbia invading Bosnia?  Do you support China’s occupation of Tibet?  How did you feel about the ethnic Russians in the Baltic States when they went independent?

Explain to me why the US had a right to rebel against the UK, but why Texas cannot (in theory, should a substantial majority actually want it) seek as peaceful as possible a secession from the US.

Comment #141: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  06:45 PM

Because Texas isn’t a colony?

Comment #142: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  06:49 PM

There is no rational argument that allowing Texas to secede so it can become a white Christianist nation would in any way be beneficial for ANY of the parties involved, be it Texas or the rest of the country.

Sure there is. We could nuke what’s left with a clean conscience. I really don’t want to share air with these “people” anymore. We’ve got a big house and no kids; we’ll welcome a dozen refugees, as long as they agree not to whine about Chicago winters.

OK, well there’s 12 refugees taken care of.

Now, who plans on putting up the other 14,999,988 refugees left?

I do hope you were being snarky.

Comment #143: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  06:58 PM

seeker: After you’ve read a few National Post articles or listened to Don Cherry, it’s hard to think of English Canada as the rational party in this mess…

ahh, but blackbloc—neither cherry nor conrad black have ever been elected premier of any english province. parizeau, on the other hand…

Comment #144: sophiefair  on  04/16  at  06:59 PM

sorry, i know—ralph klein…
damn alberta wingnuts.

Comment #145: sophiefair  on  04/16  at  07:00 PM

Explain to me why the US had a right to rebel against the UK, but why Texas cannot (in theory, should a substantial majority actually want it) seek as peaceful as possible a secession from the US.

1. What Caren said.

2. The Civil War.  Seriously.  Maybe it’s not as clear to you because you didn’t grow up here getting this stuff drilled into your head year after year in school.  But the American Civil War decided once and for all whether secession is legitimate.  And the answer is no.  Whether one likes it or not.  Again, had the outcome been different in any of a lot of ways, this question might have a different answer.  But the Civil War happened, and its defining issue was whether states had the “right” to secede or not, and it was settled as “no”. 

3.  Invasions of sovereign territory aren’t a great analogy here because Texas is not currently sovereign territory and does not have a long history of being a sovereign territory (a few months back in the early 19th century does not really present a strong claim for sovereignty).  The United States has never preemptively invaded Texas’s territory and conquered it.  Thus your scenario does not apply.

4.  Texas VOLUNTARILY joined the United States of America.  It was never conquered as a colony of the United States, or merged with the US by imperial fiat.  It’s not so much like the US casting off Britain, it’s more like if Cornwall decided it wanted to be a separate country.  It’s also not like Yugoslavia dissolving; more like France dissolving.

Comment #146: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  07:04 PM

Well, to be fair, they couldn’t know sovereignty-association would be such an impossibility. They didn’t have the 20/20 hindsight that allows us in 2009 to see how the European Union, which tried to arrive at the same arrangement from the opposite direction of already sovereign nations ultimatly sharing a common currency and economic bloc, would fail miserably…

Wait, what? The EU is a success? Well, I’ll be damned!

not quite an accurate comparison, since countries joining the eu have to be approved by the existing members, and the separatists had no support for their belief that the rest of canada would be happy to accomodate separation in such a manner.

and i would quibble with your understanding of parizeau’s infamous remark. from what i understand, this was not his first gaffe of that nature.

Comment #147: sophiefair  on  04/16  at  07:08 PM

Ukraine wasn’t a colony.  It had been part of Russia for ages.  Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia - until it wasn’t.  Poland was part of Germany, until it wasn’t.  The Czechs and Slovaks had been part of the same country dating to before Texas joined the union - earlier part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then their own shared country.  Calling Ireland a ‘colony’ would be pushing it - the Irish are no more ‘diverse’ from the English than the Scots or the Welsh are, Ireland just won its war of independance, finally.  In general, when one region of a country overwhelmingly requests a divorce from the rest, the first instinct of friends of human freedom should be to support it unless there is a good reason not to.  (For an example of a potentially good reason not to, see America, Confederate States of.)

Texas WAS a colony, by the way.  Just because it has been integrated into the US for a measly century and a half (ask a Basque how long a century and a half is) doesn’t mean it didn’t start as a colony.  We perceive it as just part of the US simply because that is the way history had it.  Had the Revolution or War of 1812 swung just a little differently, we might be chatting here about how people in the US state of Quebec are agitating for independence, and how loony that is.  Or, for that matter, we might be discussing how appalling it is that American National Party members of Parliament should call for a no-confidence vote on the Labour Prime Minister, and sniggering about those idiots who support an actual vote on American independence, while other threads discuss a vote in the Republic of Scotland about joining the Euro.  Culturally, ethnically, religiously, the American colonies were (and the United States today are in many ways) more “English” than Scotland or Wales ever have been.  Washington DC to Austin is farther than Warsaw, Poland, to Rome, Italy, and Vienna is far closer to Istanbul than DC to Texas.

Comment #148: rvman  on  04/16  at  07:14 PM

Here’s some math.

As of 2008, Texas has 24.3 Million people (2nd most populous state in the U.S.).

According to 2007 U.S. Census data, only 47.9% of Texans are non-Hispanic whites.  Everyone else is either a Hispanic white, black, Asian, or some other racial minority.

It’s probably a safe assumption that 90% of the racial minorities would want no part of a seceded Texas as folks like Rick Perry and the teabaggers envision it.

It’s also probably a safe assumption that 60% of the non-white Hispanics who are either liberals, Democrats, moderates, or moderate Republicans would want no part of this new Texas, either.

So that leaves you with 24% of the current residents of Texas wanting to stick around after the revolution, and 76% wanting no part of it.

76% of 24.3 Million people is 18.5 Million people, roughly 6% of the ENTIRE U.S. population.

The secession of Texas would likely result in 18.5 Million people wanting to leave that state.

Think about that number before trying to argue for the plausibility of this ridiculous proposition.

Comment #149: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  07:25 PM

Ukraine wasn’t a colony.  It had been part of Russia for ages.  Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia - until it wasn’t.  Poland was part of Germany, until it wasn’t.  The Czechs and Slovaks had been part of the same country dating to before Texas joined the union - earlier part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then their own shared country.  Calling Ireland a ‘colony’ would be pushing it - the Irish are no more ‘diverse’ from the English than the Scots or the Welsh are, Ireland just won its war of independance, finally.

You’re being extremely disingenuous about all of this. 

Ukraine was colonized by several different European empires until finally being colonized by Russia in the 19th century, only joining the USSR after decades of fighting for its independence.  Even as a Soviet Republic, I don’t think anyone who isn’t a complete moron would have considered it “part of Russia”. 

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were created in the aftermath of WWI out of Austro-Hungarian territory - none of those various territories had a long history as cohesive nations in the way they were put together after the Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed, aside from their status as part of said empire. And Czechoslovakia dissolved peacefully anyhow (I don’t think there is anyone here saying that if a territory decides to split and everyone is satisfied with that outcome, it would still be wrong).  Btw, both Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia existed as sovereign nations for less time than Texas has been part of the US.

Poland had a long history as a sovereign nation before being swallowed up by Germany. 

Ireland very much was colonized by Britain, which began circa 1600 with the Plantation of Ulster.  You’re right that Britain held on to Ireland for a damn long time—but no, it was in no way just another part of England or anything of the sort.  It was always a colony.  Britain is also an interesting case, because several semi-sovereign nations form the United Kingdom.  Scotland splitting off is a whole different deal than Lancashire deciding it wants sovereignty out of the blue.  Though arguably even Scotland splitting away from the rest of the UK would be frakking HUGE, and probably not a good thing.

Had the Revolution or War of 1812 swung just a little differently, we might be chatting here about how people in the US state of Quebec are agitating for independence, and how loony that is

So?  Had a certain play at Ford’s Theater ended differently, we might be chatting about which suburb of Moon City we were most interested in moving to.  Butterfly effect and all.

Comment #150: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  07:36 PM

Oops, I meant to say non-Hispanic whites in my fifth graf above, not non-white Hispanics.

I find it utterly bizarre that the U.S. Census Bureau classifies someone of Mexican or Cuban descent as a white person, given the fact that they receive absolutely no cultural benefits of white privilege.

Comment #151: DTG in STL  on  04/16  at  07:38 PM

Per the Texas Constitution, Texas has to remain within the Union unless the Feds take away their right to govern themselves, which right is inalienable. But apparently the people of Texas can revolt against the government of Texas at any time. Carpe diem, Amanda! Because there’s no way you can hold state office in Texas in the ordinary way unless you acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free
and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and
the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend
upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all
the States.
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM
OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefi t. The
faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican
form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times
the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner
as they may think expedient.
...
Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as
a qualification to any offi ce, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be
excluded from holding offi ce on account of his religious sentiments, provided
he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Comment #152: Hector B.  on  04/16  at  07:39 PM

Piotr is a ferrigner, so I should probably have been less concise, but comparing individual states to countries, like the EU, just isn’t a good comparison.

The USA is very very big.  Our states do not function as individual countries/states within a union, like the EU.  We’re ONE.  E pluribus unum.  Rivalries between states are like high school or college rivalries taken a step bigger. 

For instance, Illinoisans call Wisconsinites “cheeseheads” and consider Green Bay to be our ultimate rival in football.  That doesn’t mean Illinoisans won’t move to Wisconsin, go to school in Wisconsin, vacation in Wisconsin, go see a concert in Wisconsin (like I did this weekend), or anything of substance.  It does mean that Chicagoans going to watch the Cubs play the Brewers try not to speed b/c their IL license plates stick out in a pack of speeders.

I grew up in Indiana.  I went to school in California.  I now live in Illinois.  I have a sister in Wyoming (who, victimized by her own politeness, once shook Dick Cheney’s hand!!!!)  A mix of red and blue states…and no big deal moving around them.

There’s not a state that would take up arms against another.  That’s just crazy talk.

Now I do find it funny that we’re talking about border issues and refugees and other real effects that would happen should a secession occur.  Mostly b/c the assholes who cry “SECEDE!” are not living in a fact-based world and have not even begun to think about how to handle any of the practical manners of independence and secession.

Really, you can’t think about the realities or mundanities, b/c as soon as you try, you realize what an incredibly stupid idea it is.

Comment #153: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  07:39 PM

The secession of Texas would likely result in 18.5 Million people wanting to leave that state.

Of course, most realistically, what would result would be Rick Perry getting marched out of his office in handcuffs after, oh, let’s say three days, max. Not a bad result, actually.  smile

Comment #154: Scott  on  04/16  at  07:47 PM

But the American Civil War decided once and for all whether secession is legitimate.
[...]
The United States has never preemptively invaded Texas’s territory and conquered it.

You don’t see a problem with these two statements put together?

Or, you know, are you playing games with ‘preemptively” - “they forced us to invade by maliciously declaring their independence”...?

But the Civil War happened, and its defining issue was whether states had the “right” to secede or not, and it was settled as “no”.

That’s a “might makes right” argument. By that logic, if Texas sedes and holds the US off by threatening to turn the East Coast into a glass wasteland (how many Texans serve in the submarine service, I wonder), then they then have the right to leave.

You seem to be engaging in special pleading, as rvman is implying (from my reading).  Again - Tibet and China. Poland and Germany.  The Ukraine and Baltic States and Russia.

On what principle do you declare “Texas is now, and shall be, and will forever be part of the USA”?  What principle, mind you?  The American Civil War did not set a principle - it decided a political question by dint of brute force.  If the Texas Independence Party got hold of enough nukes to wipe out the rest of the US and demanded a referendum on secession, on what basis would you say that they were wrong to do so?  Because using force to decide a political question was wrong?

Maybe it’s not as clear to you because you didn’t grow up here getting this stuff drilled into your head year after year in school.

Maybe it’s because I didn’t get this drilled into my head as a kid that I can see certain parallels between this (putative) call for Texan independence and the number of other such calls around the world.  There’s no reason for me to consider the US any more special, inevitable, or blessed by God than the USSR, Germany, or Yugoslavia…

Comment #155: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  07:48 PM

Think about that number before trying to argue for the plausibility of this ridiculous proposition.

Oh, I don’t think it’s plausible, and I think the people pushing it are ridiculous.

But there’s a whopping big blind spot in some people’s thinking being exposed here, and that’s kinda amusing…

Comment #156: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  07:50 PM

Ukraine was colonized by several different European empires until finally being colonized by Russia in the 19th century, only joining the USSR after decades of fighting for its independence.

Yeah, I can see that that is totally different from Texas. Remind me again what the Alamo was about?

Comment #157: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  07:54 PM

But there’s a whopping big blind spot in some people’s thinking being exposed here, and that’s kinda amusing…

It’s a bit irritating, after spending the past year reminding people that, for instance, shutting down the auto plants in Detroit would cause economic shockwaves very, very far from Detroit, that people still don’t realize that we live in a world where catastrophic changes in one place will end up affecting everyone.

Comment #158: Scott  on  04/16  at  07:56 PM

I’m really unclear on why Texas should not be allowed to secede if a majority of its citizen decide that is the proper course of action?

I have no problem with it.

Because I’m here, and a lot of people I love are here.  Seriously, don’t act like we’re disposable; it’s upsetting enough that we have so many people here who are stupid, but please don’t even joke about throwing us to the wolves.  That’s really upsetting.

Comment #159: Atheist Feminazi  on  04/16  at  08:20 PM

As nearly as I can tell, our hostess is saying that yes, secession is a right, and that Texas’ failed secession in 1861 was a failure only because she was defeated militarily.

Nope, and you’d really have to be dense and stuck in the land of wishful thinking to think that.  I said that Texas doesn’t have the right to secede.  Also, if they try to lay claim to a right they don’t have, it won’t work out any better than it did the last time.  It was brief, but I respect the claims of Shakespeare when aiming for humor.

Comment #160: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/16  at  08:23 PM

Rick Perry and DeLay are living in fantasy land. Though in almost any other state Perry would be facing Articles of Impeachment right about now for even pretending to be serious about treason. Governors swear to uphold the federal Constitution, too.

Comment #161: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  08:31 PM

Phoenician—

Texas v. White.

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

It declared secession to be illegal.

There is a legal “secession” of kind, whereby 3/4 of the state legislatures would vote to dissolve the Constitution (and therefore the federal government), but secession by a single state unilaterally is illegal.

Comment #162: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  08:33 PM

BTW, the Soviet constitution explicitly gave the constituent Republics the right of secession (though of course they weren’t dare allowed to exercise it until 1991, anymore than the Soviet could exercise the right of free speech supposedly given to them in their constitution. But the Soviet Union was never called “perpetual”). So Ukraine had much more of a legal argument than Texas.

Comment #163: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  08:49 PM

Ben D.—There’s nothing quite like citing a decision from 50 years before Lochner as authoritative.  I take it you didn’t read the links I sent above?  The right of secession is an open question, debated by academics.  You could make the argument either way, which Amanda refuses to acknowledge.

Comment #164: Allen  on  04/16  at  08:55 PM

On what principle do you declare “Texas is now, and shall be, and will forever be part of the USA”?  What principle, mind you?  The American Civil War did not set a principle - it decided a political question by dint of brute force.  If the Texas Independence Party got hold of enough nukes to wipe out the rest of the US and demanded a referendum on secession, on what basis would you say that they were wrong to do so?  Because using force to decide a political question was wrong?

What “principle”? Are you serious? You want to talk about “rights”?

If you have a gun pointed at my head, then you have a right to pull the trigger. This is on the principle of “the guy with the gun gets to do what he wants”. If you do pull the trigger, then I no longer have a right to be alive. This is on the principle of, “people who are shot in the head die”.

In my opinion, these are the only kinds of principles and rights that obtain in the situation of Texas seceeding from the USA. The rights and principles which derive from law, I think you might find, would have little to no application in such a situation.

Comment #165: atheist  on  04/16  at  08:58 PM

DTG -

Lighten up, it was a fucking joke.  Secession is an outstandingly stupid idea, one of the things for which “Good Hair” Perry is justly famous.  I agree about the degree of insanity in my native state, which embarrasses and saddens me.  It also make me glad I left more than 20 years ago.

Comment #166: DrDick  on  04/16  at  09:05 PM

Atheist—So, if Texas sues for the right to secede and the Supreme Court rules that it has that right, should Obama send in the army because the real rights and principles derive from a gun?  What you seem to be advocating is the exact opposite of a code of laws.

Comment #167: Allen  on  04/16  at  09:24 PM

Atheist—So, if Texas sues for the right to secede and the Supreme Court rules that it has that right, should Obama send in the army because the real rights and principles derive from a gun?

If they want to take it to SCOTUS, and in some bizzaro fashion they say the Constitution gives a state a legal right to secede (I don’t think they would, or just plain refuse to hear the case because it’s so ridiculous) AND then their state legislature voted to seceded then they’d have a right to leave.

Comment #168: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  09:32 PM

Ben D.—I’m glad we got that settled!  Now change the order a little: If they secede before a court proceeding deciding whether secession is a valid state power, should the federal government sue to say this has no effect and work it out that way, or send in the army?

Comment #169: Allen  on  04/16  at  09:47 PM

I don’t think it would work out even slightly well.  We’d become like the former Yugoslavia.
DTG in STL on 04/16 at 08:34 AM

You see, this is the kind of thing I wrote on the previous secession thread, when someone said they always enjoyed those (the threads, I trust, and not at all actual civil wars). I mentioned nukes, and General Jack D. Ripper, and stuff like that, and I decided I was being too heavy-handed and just left it at Xander Harris’s father’s saying:

“It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye…”

Comment #170: Mark Foxwell  on  04/16  at  09:50 PM

PITAR-

The “Alamo” was a fight where the Texans fought the Mexicans.  Texas voluntarily joined the US.

Comment #171: Antigone  on  04/16  at  09:56 PM

Ben D.—I’m glad we got that settled!  Now change the order a little: If they secede before a court proceeding deciding whether secession is a valid state power, should the federal government sue to say this has no effect and work it out that way, or send in the army?

They shouldn’t attack anybody unless attacked first by the secessionists. But until the Courts settle it the feds get to retain all military bases, post offices, federal land, etc, in the seceding state.

Comment #172: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:05 PM

On that note, I’m wondering why the hell the CSA didn’t take their case to the Supreme Court rather than start shooting up federal property! We’re talking about the same southern and doughface-dominated Supreme Court that gave the Dred Dcott decision, for God’s sake.  They probably would have had a decent shot at getting secession declared legal at that time.

Comment #173: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:08 PM

PITAR -

The principal is the survival of republican forms of government - or, at least, that was the principal at stake in the US Civil War.  Which, at the time, was clearly understood by most - especially a significant percentage of the overwhelmingly literate soldiers of the Union Army - whose extant letters attest to that (the best book on this by Civil War historian James McPherson: For Cause and Comrades).  Good Hair Perry and the modern ‘secessionists’ essentially want to invalidate the results of the recent federal election - in which they took part - because they don’t like the guy who won.  Or his party, which has enough seats in Congress to—within certain limits—to push their own plans.

In our Civil War era, the reasoning went more or less as follows:  if a republican state allows every minority party who loses an election and hates the outcome to quit playing the game, taking their marbles (territory) and going home (into a new ‘country’) *after* agreeing to and playing by the rules as long as they felt the benefited by them - then you have essentially denied the possibility of republican forms of government ever surviving more than a few generations - which was their fate between the rise of Caesar up to to this most recent 200+ years of experimentation with the form.

Obviously, modern notions of ‘self-determination’ conflict with this up to a point (but then you have the whole nasty problem of the rights of minorities within the new state: see, ethnic cleansing), but you asked for a principal on which to deny a state in the United States of America to secede - and here is one.

Comment #174: nell  on  04/16  at  10:10 PM

In my opinion, these are the only kinds of principles and rights that obtain in the situation of Texas seceeding from the USA. The rights and principles which derive from law, I think you might find, would have little to no application in such a situation.

Would that this were true for discussions involving kāwanatanga vs tino rangatiratanga…

Texas voluntarily joined the US.

So a state has the right to enter if it so votes, but not to leave if it so votes?

What “principle”? Are you serious?

I seem to recall the US being willing to spill blood on this issue to defend, say, Kuwait’s independence from Iraq.  Are you telling me that the idea of national independence, of the right to freedom for nations and peoples actually has no meaning in the US?

Comment #175: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  10:11 PM

I seem to recall the US being willing to spill blood on this issue to defend, say, Kuwait’s independence from Iraq.

The correct analogy wouldn’t be Iraq and Kuwait, it would be more like going to war to force an independent Kurdistan.

Comment #176: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:15 PM

Or not even that, really, since there’s no “Texan” ethnicity or separate language, and no ethnic cleansing is happening there last time I checked.

It’d be like going to war to force and independent Flanders, or Quebec.

Comment #177: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:17 PM

In our Civil War era, the reasoning went more or less as follows:  if a republican state allows every minority party who loses an election and hates the outcome to quit playing the game, taking their marbles (territory) and going home (into a new ‘country’) *after* agreeing to and playing by the rules as long as they felt the benefited by them - then you have essentially denied the possibility of republican forms of government ever surviving more than a few generations - which was their fate between the rise of Caesar up to to this most recent 200+ years of experimentation with the form.

Reasonable, except that we’re not talking about a minority party in this hypothetical, but a discrete political unit with a contiguous and understood territory, capable of operating as an independent government (and, indeed, with a history of doing so), and viable as an independent nation.

If the basis for a legitimate government is the consent of the governed, then (given this hypothetical of a significant majority voting for independence), wouldn’t the Texas Government be more legitimate than the United States Government for the area covered by the current State of Texas?  Or are you claiming that the legitimacy of government is determined by overwhelming force, or by history, or by some other means?

How does it go again:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 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.

Of course, this also shows how ridiculous the current wingnuts are - they’re claiming that a plan for deficit spending to deal with economic recession constitutes “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”.

Comment #178: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  10:25 PM

Ben, are you arguing against my case or for it?

Comment #179: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/16  at  10:27 PM

I think that if a majority of them voted for it, and the Supreme Court said it was ok, they should be allowed to go.

Comment #180: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:30 PM

Phoenician, your argument is why I’ve always hated the notion of self-determination of peoples.

In principle, it looks pretty—why should a people have to submit to rule as part of a larger unit if they don’t so choose?

In practice, it’s a nightmarish mess, because “a people” is usually undefinable. Let’s play a mental game for a moment, and suppose that Perry actually got 50.0001% of the people of Texas to agree to secession. Do the 49.9999% of loyalist Texans constitute a separate people? What if they’re geographically concentrated? Does the city of Austin remain within the US? How do you defend their oppressive domination by rural Texans? Would we go to war to protect the self-determination of the city of Austin?

Comment #181: Llelldorin  on  04/16  at  10:31 PM

However, I don’t think, under normal circumstances (a highly developed democracy w/out violent ethnic strife) separatist movements are very popular or successful.

See: Quebec, Flanders.

Comment #182: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:35 PM

So, if Texas sues for the right to secede and the Supreme Court rules that it has that right,

Hold there. Based on what, exactly? It was one thing for Texas to issue a grievance in the 19th century based on the debate over whether a slave was equivalent to a person or property under terms of the Constitution, because by the standards of the time that was open for debate.

The grievance here seems to be that an illegitimately elected Federal government is raising taxes for the majority of Texans, even though the exact opposite on both counts is empirically true—that’s not open for debate by the standards of any time, except in the parallel Bizarro universe (which would go a long way toward explaining the diction of many Teabaggers).

But ok, let’s assume these idiots want to go forward. The first steps are the responsibility of the Texas governor and/or legislators or citizens—on a serious issue like this, a 3/4 majority clearly-worded plebescite detailing the complaint and stating the desire for secession is the way to go. It would likely satisfy Constitutional requirements.

Now let’s assume that 3/4+ of Texans are idiotic enough to vote to leave the union on the basis of a counter-factual grievance. At that point, it’s up to the Federal government (likely the SCOTUS) to decide whether to accept the will of the apparently moronic state of Texas and let them leave, or point out the absurdity of their claim and refuse them.

If they let the morons go, it turns into a divorce negotiation (with rather unfortunate terms for Texas). If they insist that they stay, or if the Texas Teabag Party gets impatient, I suppose that “President” Perry gets to see how many of his citizens are willing to die for an non-existent grievance as readily as they voted for it.

If they secede before a court proceeding deciding whether secession is a valid state power, should the federal government sue to say this has no effect and work it out that way, or send in the army?

The Feds can’t just “send in the army” due to posse comitatus. They can try to activate the Texas National Guard in case of serious unrest resulting for secession (e.g. attacks upon or occupation or appropriation of Federal property; mass resistance against tax collection sanctioned by Texas; etc.). If the governor refuses to activate the Guard, there are ways of resolving that, too (the names Wallace and Kennedy come to mind here).

The point is that, despite the fantasies of free-stater Libertarians and militia types and tea-bagging CSA revanchists, we are no longer living in the mid-19th century (and even back then, it took years of debate in Congress and other venues before the Union resorted to force of arms).

So there, we’ve discussed grievance/cause for action, as well as possible legal mechanisms for secession. Now let’s hit the moral argument that PIATOR is putting forward.

Unlike Ukraine, Tibet, Ireland and the like, Texas entered the Union (and therefore accepted the Constitution as supreme law) voluntarily. It thereby also voluntarily entered into a mutual contract with the Federal entity. Absent coercion, that moral argument is thus a non-issue in this case, not because of any sort of divine exceptionalism but because of legal facts.

So a state has the right to enter if it so votes, but not to leave if it so votes?

No, but if it’s exercising an escape clause in a mutually agreed-upon voluntary contract, it’s expected to provide a reality-based case (by the standards of the time) for doing so, and to conduct itself in a peaceful and orderly fashion in the process. Unfortunately for guys like Perry, the standards of the time are very hard on fantasy-based claims, and very reluctant to resort to force of arms.

Comment #183: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  10:38 PM

A state shouldn’t be allowed to secede on its own, but the other states should be able to kick it out if it becomes too much of a pain in the ass…or let it go if it asks nicely and presents a compelling argument…

Comment #184: MikeEss  on  04/16  at  10:39 PM

However, I don’t think, under normal circumstances (a highly developed democracy w/out violent ethnic strife) separatist movements are very popular or successful.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but for most of the world for most of history a highly developed democracy w/out violent ethnic strife is not “normal circumstances.” Unfortunately, that holds true today.

Comment #185: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  10:40 PM

Yeah, “normal circumstances” was an unfortunate choice of words. I should have said normal circumstances for the developed world.

Almost every big country that dissolved due to secession or civil war was a basket-case with little tradition of democracy, the rule of law, or national unity (Yugoslavia, the USSR, Austria-Hungary). They were also dominated by a single part of the state (Serbia, Russia, and Austria respectively).

This is entirely unlike the USA. There’s a tradition of democratic governance and law, no one dominant state (just a handful of big ones, a bunch of medium sized ones, and some small ones).

So I don’t think America isn’t going to come apart because it’s “blessed by God” or whatever, I don’t think it will happen here for the same reason it hasn’t happened to Canada or Belgium.

Comment #186: Ben D.  on  04/16  at  10:45 PM

On what principle do you declare “Texas is now, and shall be, and will forever be part of the USA”?

On the principle that, following the Civil War, 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of all scholars, politicians, analysts, opinion writers, and basically everyone who has any expertise on the matter at all have all agreed that the separate states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.  This is Junior High Introduction To American History material.  Everyone knows this, except for a few batshit know-nothing hicks who were obviously sneaking cigs in behind the fieldhouse that day in history class.

You are not from the states and thus are not expected to know this small fact of our history.  That’s OK.  But it would be good of you to defer to us when we tell you this.  Just as we’d all defer to you when you corrected us that New Zealanders don’t all have pet kangaroos.

Comment #187: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  10:54 PM

Oh, and also the reason I specified that the US had never preemptively invaded and conquered Texas is that, on the face of it, they. Just. Haven’t.

The Confederacy “fired the first shot” in the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter.  There is no way you can call the US the aggressor in the Civil War.  Period. 

It is true that Lincoln took a strong stance against recognizing the CSA as a sovereign nation and working to coexist peacefully with them?  Sure.  And once the Confederacy started the war, he refused to let them out of it.  Yeah, it’s true, Lincoln wasn’t Jesus or Gandhi.  But that is not at all the same thing as waging a preemptive war, and I think you know that (well either that or you’re way out of your depths in terms of US history and should probably take our word for it).

Comment #188: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  11:02 PM

On the principle that, following the Civil War, 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of all scholars, politicians, analysts, opinion writers, and basically everyone who has any expertise on the matter at all have all agreed that the separate states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.

While you’re describing custom rather than law, custom is nothing to be dismissed lightly. In this case, hundreds of thousands of deaths during the Civil War have made this particular “no secession” custom especially powerful with most Americans.

I can understand how PIATOR might not take that into account. What’s less understandable is how self-described “patriotic Americans” don’t give a very positive and healthy custom the weight it deserves, and instead go looking for sneaky legal loopholes to undermine it and support their “free-state” fantasies.

Comment #189: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  11:04 PM

In practice, it’s a nightmarish mess, because “a people” is usually undefinable.

Exactly.  My roommate and I have an inside joke, spawned from chats about self-determination wrt South Asia (which, thanks to the precedent of Pakistan, basically means “every minority group decides they need their own country and is willing to periodically blow people up in service to this totally pointless and impossible cause”), that we’ve declared our apartment a sovereign nation.  Everything was hunky dory until there were disputes over who would be president, and so I decided to secede.

Comment #190: The Opoponax  on  04/16  at  11:14 PM

f Texas sedes and holds the US off by threatening to turn the East Coast into a glass wasteland (how many Texans serve in the submarine service, I wonder), then they then have the right to leave.

See?  Right here we have a failure to comprehend.

Texans in the Navy do not think of themselves as TEXANS.  They think of themselves as Americans.  Americans from Texas, but Americans first and foremost.

Especially since, as members of the Navy, they are going to be shipped around the world and to bases around the country.  “Home base” might never mean “Texas” again, and they know that going in.

My cousin joined the Navy.  He was from Florida.  He trained up here at Great Lakes.  He served overseas mostly, but was based in Virginia.  He now lives in Mississippi, and I’m still not sure how that happened.

At no point would the idea of mutiny for Florida have crossed his mind.  It’s just an alien concept, which probably is why you seem to think it plausible.  You’re not from here, and to outsiders, I suppose the fact that there are 50 states might look like we really are a bit more split than we are.

 

And yeah, once you sign up for statehood, you’re stuck.  You should really consider whether or not you want to join, since “divorce” is not simple nor likely.

Comment #191: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/16  at  11:21 PM

And yeah, once you sign up for statehood, you’re stuck.  You should really consider whether or not you want to join, since “divorce” is not simple nor likely.

The same with U.S. citizenship, by the way. Compared to other countries, it’s very difficult to renounce it, and I’m now wondering if the experience of the Civil War didn’t inform a big part of that situation.

Comment #192: Gracchus.  on  04/16  at  11:32 PM

not quite an accurate comparison, since countries joining the eu have to be approved by the existing members, and the separatists had no support for their belief that the rest of canada would be happy to accomodate separation in such a manner.

You know what? Screw what the rest of Canada wants to ‘accomodate’. Quebec did not join the Confederation of its own consent. It was conquered.

Comment #193: BlackBloc  on  04/17  at  12:04 AM

You know, this is one reason why Puerto Rico is not a state.  They worry about preserving their Spanish.  They worry about what they might lose as well as what they might win by jumping all the way on board.

They are not taking statehood lightly.

Assberets in Texas need to stop taking it lightly as well.  Are you with us or against us?  And if you’re against us as a country and don’t feel like you can work within a democratic republic b/c your views are so extreme, go ahead and get the fuck out.  You don’t get to steal the land.

Comment #194: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/17  at  12:12 AM

I would also point out that an independent Texas does not necessarily preclude arrangements easing citizenship.  You’d be closer than Australia and New Zealand, and these two countries allow each others citizens to travel and live in each other freely, including receiving welfare payments.

Ah but PIATOR you’re forgetting that we could have been the same country but for the fact that you buggers pulled out of the deal at the last moment wink These arrangements are just a backdoor method of achieving the same ends.

Comment #195: JC  on  04/17  at  12:31 AM

You could make the argument either way, which Amanda refuses to acknowledge.

Some accusations can be answered in depth, or I could just point out that you’re asking from me a level of suckitude and dorkiness I’m not prepared to embrace.

Comment #196: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/17  at  12:46 AM

Oh no!  Quebec doesn’t want anything to do with the likes of Texas.  Please, please give it back to Mexico.  Let them deal with the wingnuts.

Comment #197: AlisonS  on  04/17  at  01:21 AM

You know what? Screw what the rest of Canada wants to ‘accomodate’. Quebec did not join the Confederation of its own consent. It was conquered.

i absolutely agree.  although quebec was not conquered by canada, but rather by the english… and the government of lower canada (i hate that term!) was absolutely a party to confederation. i will grant that the earlier union act was reprehensible, but as far as any of the governments participating in the charlottetown conference were representative (they weren’t—no universal suffrage in 1864), “quebec” (which didn’t exist under that name) was represented.

at any rate, that doesn’t mean that quebec can unilaterally dictate the terms of its secession. which was my point. canada would have a say as to what rights/privileges of canadian citizenship they would wish to extend to citizens of quebec. it is naive (and on the part of sovereigntist politicians, i think, disingenuous) to believe that the federal government would say, “oh, you’re leaving? alrighy then—nothing is going to change.”

quebec absolutely can leave. they have that right. but sovereignty association, or any other “special relationship” with canada would have to be negotiated by both parties—like the eu.

Comment #198: sophiefair  on  04/17  at  01:31 AM

I take it you didn’t read the links I sent above?

Allen, you provided one link in your previous comment, and it’s broken.  I’d have liked to read it, though.

Also, what Caren said.  PiatoR asks what principle informs the absense of a right to secede- I thought the answer Nell gave regarding the survival of a republican form of government was pretty good. 

The question of secession is one that affects the entire nation, not just the state considering it.  A majority, even a supermajority, of one state’s voters, even if the SCOTUS went along, shouldn’t be able to change the nature, future, and shape of the US as a whole.

(Which is why we should have long ago scrapped the Electoral College, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.)

I wonder on what principle should the fate of the entire nation reside in the hands of Texas voters, considering the far-reaching consequences of humanitarian crises and economic disruption, if not outright war, for the rest of us?  It would set a precedent that would be followed by numerous other states, not just in the south, that would ultimately end the existence of the USA as we know it. 

Just saying, if we all actually did decide that, hey, this whole USA experiment has run its course, then the whole USA has to have a hand in that decision.

Comment #199: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/17  at  01:36 AM

I just have to say, I am a sixth-generation East Texan and also a vegan atheist feminist.  Of course I moved to Austin.

I LOVE Texas.  Fuck Rick Perry.

Aunt Twisty for President.

Comment #200: StellaTex  on  04/17  at  01:46 AM

Also, @benvolio

The Alamo is not part of the National Park Service.  It’s run by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas who, incidentally, saved the Alamo from demolition around the turn of the last century.

Comment #201: StellaTex  on  04/17  at  01:54 AM

All this is nonsense.Texas pays more in taxes than it recieves in federal expenditures. This is just like every other blue state, and Texas will be blue before you know it. Bill White will become governor and TX aill be a swing state in the 2012 presidential election.

Comment #202: Bacopa  on  04/17  at  02:51 AM

In practice, it’s a nightmarish mess, because “a people” is usually undefinable. Let’s play a mental game for a moment, and suppose that Perry actually got 50.0001% of the people of Texas to agree to secession. Do the 49.9999% of loyalist Texans constitute a separate people? What if they’re geographically concentrated? Does the city of Austin remain within the US? How do you defend their oppressive domination by rural Texans? Would we go to war to protect the self-determination of the city of Austin?

Is Austin a viable nation on its own?

Ah but PIATOR you’re forgetting that we could have been the same country but for the fact that you buggers pulled out of the deal at the last moment These arrangements are just a backdoor method of achieving the same ends. </i.

We gave you Joh Bjelke-Petersen. There’s no way in hell you’re going to lumber us back with him posthumously.

<i>On the principle that, following the Civil War, 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of all scholars, politicians, analysts, opinion writers, and basically everyone who has any expertise on the matter at all have all agreed that the separate states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.

That’s not a principle, that’s custom.  After the first successful secession, when 99.999999999% say “Yeah, California was right to split”, where exactly will your principle be?  Or do you believe the USA will live forever?

Texans in the Navy do not think of themselves as TEXANS.  They think of themselves as Americans.  Americans from Texas, but Americans first and foremost.

Because wingnut seperatists do not enter the Navy, and the Navy expels anyone who might be one?

We’re seeing these morons pop up now, when we can laugh at them.  But given reports of, for example, Christian dominance of the Air Force, I’m not so sure it is a laughing matter.  It may not be secession per se - what do you do when the armed forces back a losing Republican in a “Bush vs Gore” situation, on the grounds that he/she best represents “real America”?

I wonder on what principle should the fate of the entire nation reside in the hands of Texas voters,

That the Texans do not want to rule the US against the wishes of the rest of America, but that (in this hypothetical) the Americans wish to rule Texas against the wishes of the people who live there?

considering the far-reaching consequences of humanitarian crises and economic disruption, if not outright war, for the rest of us?

Would you apply that argument to the American Revolution?

Comment #203: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/17  at  03:13 AM

In line with StellaTex and INTPagan:

I was born here. This is my home. My family lives here, and a lot of my family is buried here. My ancestors immigrated here, and the view out of my window is beautiful. I met my wife-in-two-weeks here, and we are going to build our life together here. There are good people who live here.

Quit with the othering of us, people. We’re not some damn faceless mass of wingnuts. Your states have wingnuts too. I have as much right to live here, as an American and as a Texan, as anyone else, and I am going to stay here until my marriage is legal, there is commuter rail, and Goodhair is forced to change his style because of new EPA regulations limiting the use of hairspray.

Volodya—How would you feel if someone suggested nuking YOUR home?

Comment #204: keineFurcht  on  04/17  at  03:31 AM

Not gonna happen. Texan secession will happen if and only if the business interests that run the state (the wingnuts are side dressing; how much of the infamous platform of the Republican Party has the state government pursued for all the years they’ve been in power? Ha! No, they hand out shit to lobbyists, is what they do) – when those business interests decide they have to do it. Since the big businesses are international businesses – not gonna happen.

(lived in Texas for years)

(no idea what PiatoR’s on about)

Comment #205: brandon  on  04/17  at  04:40 AM

Some accusations can be answered in depth, or I could just point out that you’re asking from me a level of suckitude and dorkiness I’m not prepared to embrace.

Word

Comment #206: atheist  on  04/17  at  07:14 AM

I seem to recall the US being willing to spill blood on this issue to defend, say, Kuwait’s independence from Iraq.  Are you telling me that the idea of national independence, of the right to freedom for nations and peoples actually has no meaning in the US?

In the US, and in my lifetime, I’ve never seen these ideas used as anything other than cynical ploys to start wars or steal someones resources. I am deeply skeptical of them. You could argue that George H. W. Bush was defending Kuwait’s right to self determination when he invaded Iraq back in ‘91. However, the argument that it was done to secure resources makes more sense to me. Perhaps this is either a blind spot of mine, or simply a different outlook on international relations.

Comment #207: atheist  on  04/17  at  07:27 AM

Attheist, consider tthat we supported, albeit lately, the right of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo to secede from Yugoslavia, and those weren’t exactly oil-wealthy states.

In our history, we have generally been on the side of the right of self-determination concerning government. That doesn’t mean we have always given military support.

Comment #208: Dana  on  04/17  at  09:00 AM

You could argue that George H. W. Bush was defending Kuwait’s right to self determination when he invaded Iraq back in ‘91. However, the argument that it was done to secure resources makes more sense to me. Perhaps this is either a blind spot of mine, or simply a different outlook on international relations.
atheist on 04/17 at 02:27 AM

Personally, I thought the main reason the invasion of Kuwait happened in the first place was that George HW Bush “needed” a “good” war.

When he came into office, in his Inaugural Address (which I watched live on TV) he spoke of “the statute of limitations on Vietnam expired long ago.” I wanted to scream “Murder doesn’t have a statute of limitations, asshole!” at him.

Throughout his administration we kept getting into macho games of chicken that to me seemed obviously designed to raise his personal street cred as a tough guy, with the larger agenda of restoring the cocky arrogance of the American Imperium, recovering the “manhood” we “lost” in Vietnam. The invasion of Panama, for instance, would have been pure comedy if not for the thousands of dead Panamanians.

Both Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein were not only largely creations of the US foreign policy establishment, but specifically the pets of right-wing “hardline” Republican wingnuts who dominate those institutions—specifically the very same people who ran both Bush administrations (and of course were ubiqutiously present even in the Carter and Clinton admins and of course Reagan’s). Since Osama bin Laden also owed much of his rise to prominence within the Islamic right wing to US taxpayer largesse, I often point out that when these crusaders for Frequent Manhood* in America look for some plausible enemies to smear, their own proteges come up on the short list.

So, it is plausible to me that Saddam Hussein was given a green light by back channels he had reason to think were authoritative, to go ahead and annex Kuwait. Actually the story I have often heard is that it was the front channel, the formal US Ambassador, April Glaspie, who assured him the US valued his alliance and deplored the grievances he had against Kuwait. And she would not have done that without clear orders (perhaps informally delivered with winks) from Washington. (Later of course she personally took the fall for “screwing up,” thus not only serving as a scapegoat but ridding the reactionary State Department of an uppity woman who dared horn into the prestigious Middle East division on sheer competence…) Hussein would have had the example of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the green light that got from the Ford and subsequent US administrations, to indicate how flexible our policies re sovereign nations were. There were certain parallels after all—both East Timor and Kuwait derived their territorial distinctiveness from prior colonial regimes carving them out—Timor by Portugal holding it apart from the surrounding Dutch East Indies, Kuwait by administrative fiat within the British colonial system.

I always felt the bottom line in 1990 was that George HW Bush “needed” a war, a big glorious war the forces he commanded could unambiguously win. Panama, it turned out, wasn’t spectacular enough to serve this purpose, so he needed something bigger. All he had to do was loosen up a bit on Saddam’s leash, and voila Desert Storm!

I daresay the notion of permanent bases in the Middle East (then, in Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait itself and other Gulf States, the former leading directly to al-Qaeda which consolidated around the goal of expelling Americans from the “holy lands”) was a goal as well.

“No War for Oil” is a good slogan, because at bottom that is what strategic dominance in the Middle East is about, but access to oil as such is pretty much a given as long as capitalism is the global order. What motivates our war wonks is not access to oil directly, but upholding the concrete military order that guarantees world capitalism by strategic means, which means bases in the Middle East.

And American war wonks want those to be US controlled bases, because they want US war industries to get the contracts and for Americans to control the oil spigots at the source.

But I still think there would have been no invasion of Kuwait if GHW Bush hadn’t had “manhood” issues, personally and on behalf of the whole American Right.

—————-

*“Operation Frequent Manhood” was GB Trudeau’s parody in Doonesbury of Gerald Ford’s “Urgent Fury,” which was a reaction to the attack on an American ship, the Mayaguez, by Cambodians in the mid-1970s.

Comment #209: Mark Foxwell  on  04/17  at  09:18 AM

Attheist, consider tthat we supported, albeit lately, the right of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo to secede from Yugoslavia, and those weren’t exactly oil-wealthy states.

Your naivete is charming as always, Dana. Yes, there was a very real human-rights justification for intervention, and yes, the Serbs behaved atrociously (but then, so did the Croats and the Muslims—this is the Balkans, where there aren’t any of those “good guys” that folks like you require).

Make no mistake, though: Bosnia and especially Kosovo were just as much about tweaking Russia’s nose and flexing muscle in NATO and Europe. There’s a whole post-Cold-War forest you can’t see as you meditate with Wilsonian wonder on the heroic American ranger tending to one damaged tree.

Comment #210: Gracchus.  on  04/17  at  09:35 AM

Is Austin a viable nation on its own?

Now who’s arguing that “might makes right”? Military arms aren’t the only way for a state (of whatever size) to express its power and viability, even in comparison to larger entities.

Or, turning things around, is Texas a viable nation on its own without Austin (or, indeed, the rest of the U.S.)?

That’s not a principle, that’s custom.

There’s a very large overlap between powerful custom and generally accepted principle. That’s where the thought about secession operates in the U.S. I’m sure there’s some sort of similar subject in NZ, but I don’t know enough to comment or judge.

After the first successful secession, when 99.999999999% say “Yeah, California was right to split”, where exactly will your principle be?  Or do you believe the USA will live forever?

Nothing lasts forever, but yes, that principle/custom is strong enough to keep Californians from splitting from the Union, absent a very strong reality-based violation of the mutually agreed-to contract. California has been a global economic powerhouse for decades, but except for a few cranks any Californian asked by you if the state should go it on its own would look at you as if you were nuts. The custom/principle is really that strong, and its only strengthened by the facts of economic and infrastructure inter-dependence with other states.

Comment #211: Gracchus.  on  04/17  at  09:38 AM

That’s not a principle, that’s custom.

No, it’s precedent.

But given reports of, for example, Christian dominance of the Air Force, I’m not so sure it is a laughing matter.  It may not be secession per se - what do you do when the armed forces back a losing Republican in a “Bush vs Gore” situation, on the grounds that he/she best represents “real America”?

Expect the other 70% of the armed forces to kick their asses hard and send them to Leavenworth.  Though to be honest, since our armed forces promise to uphold the Constitution, I’d expect the percentage to be higher.

Comment #212: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/17  at  10:02 AM

Personally, I thought the main reason the invasion of Kuwait happened in the first place was that George HW Bush “needed” a “good” war.

Nah.  It’s explained by simple geopolitics - if Iraq had gotten away with it, it would be able to intimidate Saudi Arabia and dominate oil markets.  And the Bush family has always been about the Saudis.

I can understand the practical need to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.  It’s not necessary to invoke domestic politics.

Comment #213: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/17  at  10:09 AM

I can understand the practical need to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.  It’s not necessary to invoke domestic politics.

Mark Foxwell wasn’t really invoking domestic politics. He was invoking an inner psychological need.

Comment #214: atheist  on  04/17  at  10:43 AM

I love the notion that the people of Texas are so patriotic that they have to leave the United States of America in order to show their love for it.

The very fact that people are giving this silliness credence shows just how bad our national discourse has become. As Jonathan Turley has pointed out, James Madison did not believe there was any right to secede.

As a side thought, my recollection is that were it not for US federal troops the Republic of Texas would be part of Mexico today.

Comment #215: sjk  on  04/17  at  11:33 AM

But given reports of, for example, Christian dominance of the Air Force, I’m not so sure it is a laughing matter.

Trust me, it’s a laughing matter. Do you think we’re Turkey or Egypt or something where military coups are this big threat? Uh, no. Not even in the midst of a Civil War did the military attempt a coup against the federal government.

It has about the same probability of happening as a bunch of Scots in the Royal Air Force committing mutiny and attempting to force Scottish independence. Which is to say, it’s completely laughable.

Comment #216: Ben D.  on  04/17  at  11:59 AM

In our history, we have generally been on the side of the right of self-determination concerning government. That doesn’t mean we have always given military support.

really?

is that what they teach in american schools?

really?

<gales of laughter emanate from the fair household computer>

Comment #217: sophiefair  on  04/17  at  12:26 PM

“is that what they teach in american schools?”

We Americans are no more honest with ourselves than anyone else is. 

We believe in, and talk a lot about, supporting “freedom” and “democracy” and “self determination”.  Many/most of our actions belie that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t tell ourselves how important those values are…

Comment #218: MikeEss  on  04/17  at  12:35 PM

Wait, one more thing about the Texan secessionists taking over a Navy sub and using it to insure Texas’ freedom.

I probably missed this b/c, being American, I didn’t think of it: there’s not a single sub/boat/platoon/unit/etc. comprised of any single state’s people.  It’s a national/federal army, and even if a couple of Timothy McVeigh types were in the same squadron/unit/sub, everyone else in that sub would kick their asses.

The 29%ers are not concentrated anywhere, but are spread around the country, mostly in rural areas which makes it harder to unite and defend. 

Dave Sirota lives in Montana! 

We are so much more alike than different.  Most of the people in Illinois live in Chicago and the collar counties.  That’s why how Chicago votes is how Illinois goes.  It’s also why fucking racists downstate occasionally talk about seceding or kicking Chicago out—they don’t like the fact that their red farm land is outvoted by uppity POCs and liberal elitist race traitors in the Big City.

Too fucking bad.  That’s democracy.  Majority rules, unless it infringes on a basic human right, and that is why the judicial system is set up as a check and balance.

Having a white man be your President is not a basic human right. 

Oh, and splitting into two states?  Not.  Gonna.  Happen.  Again, once you look at the practicalities, the real consequences are far too troublesome in comparison to simply disliking liberals/conservatives.  But splitting into Illinois/Chicago or Northern and Southern California is still more likely than leaving the United States entirely.

Seriously?  That’s just crazy talk.  You aren’t going to get anyone but a complete fringe element to go along with the idea in the first place, and if you try it, well, we have precedents forbidding secession.  Not to mention even the reddest states will have 25% fighting the secessionists—so, two fronts.

Stupidity.  People who bring it up should be ridiculed as the traitors they are, just as the tea baggers should be ridiculed for failing to support the troops—most of our federal taxes go to defense, you know.

Comment #219: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/17  at  12:44 PM

It’s a national/federal army, and even if a couple of Timothy McVeigh types were in the same squadron/unit/sub, everyone else in that sub would kick their asses.

The USAF does seem to attract more than its share of Xtian fantasists, and the presence of Dominonists at Colorado Springs is especially disturbing and worth keeping an eye on. That said, you’re absolutely correct about the composition of the Federal armed forces—it’s been a long time since we had state regiments.

I’d also add in an even stronger deterrent, which is how the officer corps are trained. A central point here is allegiance: unlike the officers of most other countries, they’re not swearing to defend a leader, an office, one of the 50 states, or even the nation—they’re swearing to defend the (federal) Constitution. And any service academy graduate takes that oath seriously.

Bottom line: Texas as a whole ain’t going anywhere anytime soon, and certainly not on the basis of JoeDuhPlumber fantasies and barely concealed racism. And this thread has gone on far too long.

Comment #220: Gracchus.  on  04/17  at  01:04 PM

“That the Texans do not want to rule the US against the wishes of the rest of America”

Sure they do, when ever texas republicans have had the ability, they have tried to cram thier minority idiology down the throats of the rest of the country regardless of the wishes of the majority of the people of Mass, NY, Calif, etc

“but that (in this hypothetical) the Americans wish to rule Texas against the wishes of the people who live there?”

Goddamm right, the Constitution isnt optional.

Comment #221: jefft452  on  04/17  at  01:29 PM

I probably missed this b/c, being American, I didn’t think of it: there’s not a single sub/boat/platoon/unit/etc. comprised of any single state’s people.  It’s a national/federal army, and even if a couple of Timothy McVeigh types were in the same squadron/unit/sub, everyone else in that sub would kick their asses.

Hmmm.  It starts off with a simple murder investigation, but digging deeper the detectives find that he/she has been scared for some time.  Someone was threatening him/her.  But why would anyone be doing that to a mid-level personnel director (or whatever) in the Navy?  And why exactly has the captain of one of America’s SSBNs stopped answering, replaced by his (Texan) Second Officer - is it *really* due to food poisoning?...

I can see an airport novel in this.

Comment #222: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/17  at  02:54 PM

“I can see an airport novel in this.”

I bet if you look hard enough, that novel has already been written, probably more than once…

Comment #223: MikeEss  on  04/17  at  03:20 PM

I love the notion that the people of Texas are so patriotic that they have to leave the United States of America in order to show their love for it.

Can we get off the whole “the people of Texas want secession” meme, already?

The fucknozzle governor of Texas and his racist teabagging minions may want secession, but “the people of Texas” - meaning the overwhelming majority of Texans - want nothing of the sort.

This is a poll of Texans from REPUBLICAN pollster Scott Rasmussen:

If you could vote on the issue, would you vote for Texas to remain in the United States or to secede from the United States and form an independent country of Texas?

75% For Texas to remain in the United States
18% For Texas to secede from the United States
7% Not sure

Do individual states [like Texas] have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country?

31% Yes
55% No
14% Not sure


I think the fact that 19 Million Texans want nothing to do with secession pretty much shows what a tool Rick Perry is, when 3/4 of his own constituents think he’s behaving like a lunatic with his secession talk.

Comment #224: DTG in STL  on  04/17  at  05:12 PM

Black Bloc, my post was pointing out how and why federal strategy works. You can hang onto your mythologized version of history which is so much better than Canada’s mythologized version of history if you want.

Screw what the rest of Canada wants to ‘accomodate’. Quebec did not join the Confederation of its own consent. It was conquered.

Ah yes, in the GREAT WAR OF CONFEDERATION. Oh wait, that never happened? Well, surely Quebec’s independent legislature was totally opposed to it? No?

I hate to break it to you, but the conquest happened, but Quebec actually did join confederation of its own consent. It didn’t join the British Empire of its own consent, but that happened OVER A HUNDRED YEARS earlier. Confederation was not imposed at gunpoint.

Comment #225: HonestB  on  04/17  at  06:24 PM

Eighteen percent is about the same number of people who think we never landed on the moon, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Hell, it’s well known you can get 10% of the population to answer “yes” to just about anything through sheer randomness.

Comment #226: Ben D.  on  04/17  at  06:41 PM

[I said]Personally, I thought the main reason the invasion of Kuwait happened in the first place was that George HW Bush “needed” a “good” war.[/un-me]

Nah.  It’s explained by simple geopolitics - if Iraq had gotten away with it, it would be able to intimidate Saudi Arabia and dominate oil markets.  And the Bush family has always been about the Saudis.

I can understand the practical need to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.  It’s not necessary to invoke domestic politics.
Phoenician in a time of Romans on 04/17 at 05:09 AM

Yes. If Saddam Hussein had simply invaded Kuwait one night, in a totally unforeseen bolt from the blue, I would have had to agree that the USA had to make sure he didn’t profit from that, and didn’t get any farther.

The thing is, it was hardly unforeseen. Until mid-summer 1990, I had read a lot of negative coverage of Iraq—but only in leftist,  progressive publications sharply critical of the US relationship with Hussein. Until that moment, the so-called “conservatives” and “moderates” had little to say about that relationship except that it was a good thing we had such a strong ally in the region who was so opposed to the Iranians.

The day the news broke here in America, I was on a plane going home to Southern California from Washington state. At the airport newsstand, I had bought the latest issue of Scientific American, which that month featured at least two articles (including a section of the “Science and the Citizen” column) that talked about the threat Hussein’s short/medium range missles posed—I believe the big article was about the threat of such missiles to peace in various regions in general. While the Science & Citizen section discussed the context of Iraq’s recent threats and bluster (including some serious grievances Hussein had with Kuwait).

Then I got off the plane and learned that he’d actually carried out the threats.

I submit that if a science magazine with no particular expertise in foreign policy matters (beyond hosting authors with wonky knowledge of technical arcana) was so much on top of the story, the various US bureaucracies—State, Defense, CIA, and so on—had a very clear idea what Saddam was planning.

And our relationship with Iraq was such that had we wanted to, we could have made it very clear to Saddam Hussein in advance that we would not accept East Timor as a precedent for his planned invasion of Kuwait. In addition to the stick of reversing our alliance with him and creating an international coalition to crush his forces, we could also have offered various carrots such as good offices in negotiating acceptable terms between Iraq and Kuwait. This would have been the ordinary order of business.

I have read later post-mortems from plausible sources that say that actually Hussein was getting dangerously independent at that point; perhaps if we had done our best to dissuade him from the attack he would have done it anyway; again, then, I would have had to admit that I wouldn’t expect any American President to have a different basic policy than Bush’s. (In fact it could easily have been worse—as it was under his son…)

But I think there is lots of evidence that our various agencies did not act with reasonable foresight and prudence, and as stupid as I think our high leadership often is, I don’t think they were more ignorant than the editorial staff of Scientific American—maybe not as smart in general, but certainly middling competent in their own specialized fields.

I do think that Bush (Sr) was thinking mainly of domestic American politics when he considered what to do about the evolving tensions in the Persian Gulf, and without actually uttering it (like his son) thought, “Bring it on.” And issued orders to make sure we gave Saddam Hussein as much rope as he wanted to hang himself with.

Nor do I think Bush was alone in this—his administrative staffers would have had the same idea and perhaps the President didn’t need to do anything personally.

And that brings me to…

Comment #227: Mark Foxwell  on  04/17  at  08:45 PM

Mark Foxwell wasn’t really invoking domestic politics. He was invoking an inner psychological need.
atheist on 04/17 at 05:43 AM

I’m sure you mean well by this and will think worse of me for it, but no, I say it’s both/and. Perhaps we do well to consider the Bushes to be nuts, but it’s a kind of insanity that is typical of the modern American right—indeed, I’d say, dominator societies throughout history. The notion that war is actually a good thing in itself—that it winnows out weakness, develops moral strength, and so on—is very well documented in various phases of our society and history in general, and Bush’s Republicans were and are on board with that. Many aspects of war that we would deplore (even if we accepted that this or that conflict were on the whole necessary) they welcome.

I’m cool with calling that insanity, but it’s very common. And hence political good sense for many a politician even if we suppose they are individually above the mental (if not moral) pathology.

Anyway as I said Bush Sr himself, along with many other Republican (and I suppose quite a few conservative Democrats) was frequently on the record for decades before 1990 deploring the “Vietnam Syndrome” and other aspects of our “weakness,” and people voted for him in 1988 anyway—or perhaps because of these “strong” stances. He said it again at his Inauguration, no one in the “mainstream” said boo about it, and darned if he didn’t deliver, repeatedly. And when he was voted out in 1992, no one said it was because of the Gulf War or any of his other military misadventures—to the contrary, I was not at all sure he wouldn’t get a second term on their strength, despite a miserable economy, his falling between stools between his base and Democrats, and a whole string of scandals (not to mention his roles in Reagan-era scandals and his blatant cover-ups of same). The damned war seemed like a smart move for him at the time. Evil, but not stupid.

My opinion of the father always colored my judgment on his son; it’s one reason I assumed malice instead of stupidity of W. Of course he had plenty of both, the latter being a product of the former.

Comment #228: Mark Foxwell  on  04/17  at  08:46 PM

Mark—

I can kind of buy that the invasion caught our foreign policy establishment off-guard. Remember, 1989-1990 was an extremely busy time in foreign affairs. Most people were focused on the collapse of Communism, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia and probably weren’t paying enough attention to the Middle East.

Comment #229: Ben D.  on  04/17  at  09:04 PM

Fun fact: Timothy McVeigh may have looked up to John Wilkes Booth, but John Wilkes Booth looked up to John Brown.

Comment #230: Liz212  on  04/17  at  10:44 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.