republic of texas, nationwide county by county secession (hypothetical proposal)

me | 2024-8-5 | me

[cowboyusa]

BLOAT

[Paal Gulli]

"i believe texas has explicitly reserved the right to secede when it joined the USA....

You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want, that still won't make it real.

[rfreedom4u]

In that case West Virginia was not allowed to secede from Virginia and should be a part of Virginia again.

[SteveH]

> My terminology was not meant to be pejorative, but accurate.
> If, for example, your county officially petitions the state to secede and you get everyone in your county of voting age to sign the petition, and the state says ‘No’, then anything else you do is outside the law, or extralegal.

actually that is wrong (very wrong). do you see why?

> If your county then keeps state tax revenues and fees and doesn’t pass them along to the state then that would be a violation of the law, and therefore extralegal.

> If you repurpose state property for county use, that would be an illegal taking. If your county secedes from a state organization like a School Equalization Board, Coastal Commission, etc. then that would be illegal. If you fail to yield to legal state orders, either individually or as a county, that would be illegal. Just like resisting arrest.

I would hearken back to 1776. In the DoI, he founding fathers were responding to specifics such as the tea tax and the fights for gun rights at lexington and concord.

Jefferson and the others were considered extralegal (understatement) to the british crown. would you judge their point of view unworthy of consideration by reason of their prima facie extralegality?

> And as far as pejorative terminology goes, the mention of “the availability of guns in rural versus urban areas” would be viewed as highly pejorative and threatening by any state official who opposed secession.

in many if not most cases, availability of guns for purchase is limited by state and local law. i did not consider it controversial that there are probably more guns outside of major cities than inside them. are you saying it’s ok or commendable to get angry at numbers, laws, and statistics about gun distributions? that seems very emotional. if state officials get emotional over numbers it seems to me it is a sign that they are in fact irrational. how much further would we go to avoid antagonizing such irrational state politicians. if they are angry about negative numbers, should we avoid mentioning negative numbers? how about prime numbers? what about irrational numbers? and sines and cosines? holy moly! sorry to touch on a nerve there (or not). —anyways, bad counterexample?

guns are a fact of life. 2A as an individual right has now been re-affirmed in the USSC. Sure, politicians can get angry about it, but let them channel their anger into drafting proposed constitutional amendments rather than blame legitimate gun owners exercising their 2A rights in any way (says i). full stop.

i hope you are familiar with the battle of athens.

[Paal Gulli]

No, Texas can’t legally secede from the U.S., despite a popular myth.

Texas can't legally secede from the U.S., despite popular myth

No, Texas can’t legally secede from the U.S., despite popular myth

Texas Can’t Legally Secede From The U.S., Despite Popular Myth

(four separate sources)

[SteveH]

> You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want, that still won’t make it real.

You’re saying vote fraud is neither serious nor real?

[SteveH]

illegal alien voting amounts to vote fraud

counting votes multiple times amounts to vote fraud

electronic vote count tampering amounts to vote fraud

ignoring state voting laws amounts to vote fraud

vote fraud amounts to governance without representation;

governance without the consent of the governed

that seems a decent enough reason for non violent partitioning (at a minimum)

[SteveH]

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.

— declaration of independence, para. 2

[SteveH]

a list of the 25 largest cities by population is here (encyclopedia brittanica):

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whats-the-largest-US-city-by-population

city state population: estimate population: census
Source: U.S. Census Bureau website.
1. New York City New York (2022 est.) 8,335,897 (2020) 8,804,190
2. Los Angeles California (2022 est.) 3,822,238 (2020) 3,898,747
3. Chicago Illinois (2022 est.) 2,665,039 (2020) 2,746,388
4. Houston Texas (2022 est.) 2,302,878 (2020) 2,304,580
5. Phoenix Arizona (2022 est.) 1,644,409 (2020) 1,608,139
6. Philadelphia Pennsylvania (2022 est.) 1,567,258 (2020) 1,603,797
7. San Antonio Texas (2022 est.) 1,472,909 (2020) 1,434,625
8. San Diego California (2022 est.) 1,381,162 (2020) 1,386,932
9. Dallas Texas (2022 est.) 1,299,544 (2020) 1,304,379
10. Austin Texas (2022 est.) 974,447 (2020) 961,855
11. Jacksonville Florida (2022 est.) 971,319 (2020) 949,611
12. San Jose California (2022 est.) 971,233 (2020) 1,013,240
13. Fort Worth Texas (2022 est.) 956,709 (2020) 918,915
14. Columbus Ohio (2022 est.) 907,971 (2020) 905,748
15. Charlotte North Carolina (2022 est.) 897,720 (2020) 874,579
16. Indianapolis Indiana (2022 est.) 880,621 (2020) 887,642
17. San Francisco California (2022 est.) 808,437 (2020) 873,965
18. Seattle Washington (2022 est.) 749,256 (2020) 737,015
19. Denver Colorado (2022 est.) 713,252 (2020) 715,522
20. Oklahoma City Oklahoma (2022 est.) 694,800 (2020) 681,054
21. Nashville Tennessee (2022 est.) 683,622 (2020) 689,447
22. El Paso Texas (2022 est.) 677,456 (2020) 678,815
23. Washington, D.C. District of Columbia (2022 est.) 671,803 (2010) 601,723
24. Las Vegas Nevada (2022 est.) 656,274 (2020) 641,903
25. Boston Massachusetts (2022 est.) 650,706 (2020) 675,647

so, if election fraud continued through 2024, my proposition would allow for these cities to remain in the USA, while all communities would be able to determine for themselves whether or not to stay in the USA or to partition and seek alternative government. this would be morally justified under the social contract between the people and the government as evidenced by para. 2 of the declaration of independence.

how it is done is a detail as long as it is done non-violently.

[x]

non-violence as a way to resolve disputes then?

Non-violent resolution of disputes went out the window when the secessionists seized armories and forts and fired on Fort Sumter.

We all know the Northeastern part of the country rules us and milks us like cows.

From that map of yours? It says a lot about the DC area, but not much about the "Northeastern part of the country." You could move the capital anywhere you want in the country and the money would still end up wherever you put the capital. Apart from that, just who pays in more and who gets more, accounting for population and wealth and other factors, isn't something you've established. Rich states like NJ and CT get less out than they put in and the cost of living is higher there too.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I'm not mad at statistics. By saying that there are more rural people with guns, I assumed that you were suggesting that the secessionists would use their guns to threaten state officials if those officials tried to prevent the secessionists from seceding.

If you claim that you have a right to revolution that may be so, but it is still extralegal. It may be the ethical thing to do, but what is ethical is not always legal.

That's the only point I'm trying to make. One day I could imagine myself taking part in a secession movement, but I would be fully aware that what I was doing was illegal and would be countered by the state using every means at their disposal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Non-violent resolution of disputes went out the window when the secessionists seized armories and forts and fired on Fort Sumter.

Don't mislead people.

Firstly, *THEY* paid for the armories and forts in their territories, and probably all the ones in the North as well.

Secondly, those forts were mostly abandoned. They didn't have to fight anyone for any of them *UNTIL* Anderson seized fort Sumter in the middle of the night, which is actually the first belligerent action of the war.

Thirdly, Attacking Sumter became necessary when Lincoln launched a fleet of warships with orders to attack them if they did not comply!

Beauregard offered Anderson a truce, but Anderson refused to take it.

Had Anderson taken it, there would have been no attack on Sumter, and there would have been no attack by the war fleet because Lincoln detached the command ship without telling any of the other ships and sent it to Pensacola on a "secret" mission.

The other ships would have waited for a command ship (The Powhatan, commanded by Captain Mercer) which never would have arrived.

No war would have started in Charleston that day, but Anderson refused the truce. Lincoln was lucky Anderson didn't agree to a truce. He was also lucky he didn't wait a few more days before sending the fleet, else Sumter would have been evacuated without bloodshed or calamity.

From that map of yours? It says a lot about the DC area, but not much about the "Northeastern part of the country."

You've seen the other map I like to post, and it shows New York and Boston getting the money.

You could move the capital anywhere you want in the country and the money would still end up wherever you put the capital.

About this, I am not so sure. At the very least it would take another 250 years for it to get as crooked as DC is right now.

Apart from that, just who pays in more and who gets more, accounting for population and wealth and other factors, isn't something you've established.

How about nobody gets anything from the Federal government except Defense and Law enforcement? This view of the Federal government as a piggy bank is at the root of much of this nation's troubles.

I know how much *I* send to DC, and I resent the hell out of it, and I hate to see it spent on things I despise.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, Texas can’t legally secede from the U.S., despite a popular myth.

Texas can't legally secede from the U.S., despite popular myth

No, Texas can’t legally secede from the U.S., despite popular myth

Texas Can’t Legally Secede From The U.S., Despite Popular Myth

So? Who says these people know what they are talking about? Of course the Declaration of Independence says you can, and it is the founding document of the nation.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[BroJoeK]

Paal Gulli: "No, Texas can’t legally secede from the U.S., despite a popular myth."

DiogenesLamp: "So? Who says these people know what they are talking about?
Of course the Declaration of Independence says you can, and it is the founding document of the nation.
Doesn't get much clearer than that."

So, I've never understood why some people insist on confusing themselves about this -- it's not that difficult, anyone can understand it if you simply remove whatever brain-frying propaganda you've internalized over the years.

Pres. James Madison
"Father of the Constitution"

"...no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
The compact [US Constitution] can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

In the SCOTUS 1869 Texas vs. White case, Chief Justice Chase reaffirmed what our Founders had always understood -- there are only two ways to secede:

1. Through mutual consent, such as our Founders' Convention of the States which drew up a new Constitution in 1787 and, when ratified, "seceded" from our Old Articles of Confederation.

2. Through revolution, such as our Founders' declared in 1776 brought on by absolute necessity and "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, neither mutual consent nor revolution guarantees success, and any imagining otherwise is pure fantasy.
Here are Chief Justice Chase's words in Texas v White reaffirming these principles:

SCOTUS Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase,
1869 Texas v White ruling:

"When Texas entered the Union, 'she entered into an indissoluble relation,' Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court.
'All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State.
The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body.
And it was final.
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.'

Seriously, why is that so hard?
Why do some people insist on confusing themselves about it?

[DiogenesLamp]

So, I've never understood why some people insist on confusing themselves about this -- it's not that difficult, anyone can understand it if you simply remove whatever brain-frying propaganda you've internalized over the years.

" "...no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact [US Constitution] can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

I cite the Declaration of Independence. You cite the opinion of one man, and one that contradicts himself as a member of the Virginia Ratification committee which absolutely says that Virginia *CAN* take back it's powers.

So Madison contradicts his own work, and the Declaration of Independence is the collective work of all parties involved and representing all the original states.

Which carries more weight?

The Declaration of Independence.

[x]

Don't mislead people.

Good advice. Why don't you take it? We all pay taxes for government military installations. That doesn't mean we can take them over. If you're sending militia units to take over lightly-manned forts and arsenals, it's likely that they will be abandoned before your forces get there.

I don't have the time to go over all the details of Fort Sumter, but my understanding is that the SC and CSA wanted Sumter and would do what they could to get it. Just what kind of "truce" was offered, what it meant, and what the different parties understood it to mean I don't know and you haven't explained.

You've seen the other map I like to post, and it shows New York and Boston getting the money.

No, it shows them buying the exports and paying the tariff.

How about nobody gets anything from the Federal government except Defense and Law enforcement?

You don't see how that would have benefited the part of the country that you hate? Federally funded dams and highways made it possible to spread population, business, and wealth to areas that had previously been disadvantaged.

[jmacusa]

The Declaration of Independence is not the law. The Constitution does NOT allow for secession.

Texas v. White 1869 does not permit secession. Also See The prize Cases 67 US 635.(1863).

Secession is Illegal under the US Constitution.

Are you going to ignorant and obstinate all your life on this subject? Good Lord you can be wearying.

[jmacusa]

No. It will lead to the Balkanization of America.

I don’t want to live in Kosovo, USA.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just what kind of "truce" was offered, what it meant, and what the different parties understood it to mean I don't know and you haven't explained.

I need to explain? You are unfamiliar with the source material?

Let me see if I can summarize. Beauregard was informed that Lincoln had launched a fleet of warships and they were coming to attack his forces *IF* they resisted, which given his orders, was an absolute certainty.

Anderson had been holed up in that stolen fort since December of 1860, and Beauregard's government had made him understand that in no uncertain terms, they wanted that hostile force out of that fortress at the entrance to one of their important port cities.

After having learned of the plot to resupply/reinforce the Fort by force, the Confederates stopped all mail and provisions going to Fort Sumter. Beauregard had requested an evacuation of the fort by Anderson. Anderson had decided his situation was untenable and had already written an evacuation order. If I recall correctly, he messaged Beauregard that he would evacuate the fort in a few days.

Beauregard was informed that the Harriet Lane (armed revenue cutter) had arrived, and already fired upon the Nashville. Beauregard knew this foretold the arrival of the other warships, and they would soon join the Harriet Lane off the coast of Charleston.

Beauregard sent word to Anderson that his forces may soon be engaged in fighting with these warships, and if Anderson would give his word that he would not fire on Beauregard's forces, Beauregard would reciprocate and not fire on Anderson's forces.

Anderson responded that if Beauregard fired on any of those warships, Anderson would use every gun available to fire back at Beauregard's forces.

Beauregard then informed Anderson that he was left with no choice but to commence bombardment later that morning.

Anderson acknowledged that Beauregard's forces would probably cut them to pieces.

All of this information is in the exchange of messages between Beauregard and Anderson and can be found in the official record.

No, it shows them buying the exports and paying the tariff.

They only *EARNED* 28% of the European money. *THEY* couldn't buy the exports with the money *THEY* earned. They had to pay for them with the money produced by the South. Money that ended up in their pockets from the gouging they engaged in as well as the taxes that went to DC.

Overall, the North took about 60% of the total profits from slavery, leaving the South with the remaining 40%.

You don't see how that would have benefited the part of the country that you hate? Federally funded dams and highways made it possible to spread population, business, and wealth to areas that had previously been disadvantaged.

"Global Warming" affects all of us! Money spent on "Climate Change" will save everybody! Pay your taxes so that we can save everybody!"

Same Scam, different century. Same area of the country gets the wealth and enriches itself. (Though it is less centered on the Northeast than it was then.)

It is unquestionable, that without the protectionist laws like the Navigation act of 1817, the European trade would have bypassed New York. The difference in Tariffs between New York and Charleston was like 35%, depending on the commodity. It was 800 miles further to Charleston.

The European ships would have traveled that distance for an additional 35% profit.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Declaration of Independence is not the law.

It *IS* the authority that gave the law the power it holds.

The Constitution does NOT allow for secession.

It says nothing on the topic. Why would it? Everything necessary to be said was said 11 years earlier in the Declaration of Independence.

Madison later said that if they had undertaken to define everything, they would have written a digest of laws instead of a constitution.

3 States, and two of the most powerful, explicitly say in their ratification statements that they had the right to take back all powers given up to the Federal government.

The other states did not object to the ratification statements of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island.

Massachusetts and Connecticut themselves attempted to secede from the Union in 1814.

Lincoln himself twice said in his official capacity as a congressmen that people had a right to independence. He called it a "sacred right". He said this in 1848, and he said it again in 1852.

What evidence do you have that the Constitution forbids what the Declaration explicitly requires?

Secession is Illegal under the US Constitution.

Where is your evidence of this?