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

me | 2024-8-5 | me

[SteveH]

i believe texas has explicitly reserved the right to secede when it joined the USA. also the constitution does not prohibit other states and while the war between the states was fought over this, there was never a court case to determine this.

looking at a 2020 map of blue and red counties, it seems apparent that most counties favor trump. this can reasonably be expected to continue through 2024.

if the election fraud continues in 2024 as is widely anticipated, what would prohibit

1. texas state from peacefully seceding and forming an independent republic of texas

2. individual counties peacefully seceding from their states and joining texas.

i posit this as a peaceful alternative to (violent) civil war.

in this manner, most counties across the USA can peacefully secede, eventually leaving isolated clumps of socialist cities such as New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc.

Nothing would prevent such socialist cities from remaining in whatever is left of the USA once secession is complete.

The new republic of texas government could be a clone of the USA government, minus the 16th and 17th amendment.

this hypothetical proposal would be supported by the words at the beginning of the declaration of independence.

nothing in this hypothetical proposal should be construed as advocating violence.

[jmacusa]

Go back and read what I posted. Texas v White. And the other code I posted.
WE been around this a million times and it always the same=
Secession is NOT legal under The Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Go back and read what I posted. Texas v White.

You probably don't see me much on threads other than Civil War stuff.

Let me tell you now, that I have absolute disgust for court decisions. Court decisions do not prove truth. They prove what those in power want.

I have repugnance and disgust of courts and the legal system in general. They use irrational screwy logic to arrive at many of their decisions, policies, procedures and precedents.

Take for example the Alec Baldwin case where the Judge let the murderer go because the prosecutor supposedly "forgot" to give ballistic data to the defense. Data that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Baldwin shot her.

So we have the murderer going free, we have the incompetent/corrupt? prosecutor going free, and *NOBODY* is getting punished for either crime.

The thought that perhaps *BOTH* of them should be punished for wrong doing is apparently too complex of a thought for our incompetent and/or corrupt legal system to grasp.

Who gets punished? The people of New Mexico!

Yaaaah! Justice!

So no, citing court cases, which are nothing but opinions, carries no weight with me. I have contempt for courts, and I have contempt with the very idea of letting other men do my thinking for me.

I don't need people to look at the evidence and then *TELL* me what I ought to think.

I prefer to look at the evidence myself, and draw my own conclusions.

Secession is NOT legal under The Constitution.

This is a form of fallacy known as "argument by repetition."

You can keep saying that. How about some evidence that this statement is true?

[jmacusa]

Stay out of the weeds Lampster. The argument in question was the constitutionality of secession .

The two court decisions I posted make clear that it isn’t..

[DiogenesLamp]

Stay out of the weeds Lampster. The argument in question was the constitutionality of secession .

As I was driving earlier, the thought occurred to me;

How does an agreement among men override a natural law right?

How do the laws of men overrule the law of God?

[SteveH]

> Beauregard was informed that the Harriet Lane (armed revenue cutter) had arrived, and already fired upon the Nashville.

This is historically interesting (at least to me).

Many (most?) accounts about the beginning of the war between the states mention ft. johnson firing on ft. sumter on April 12th (at 4:30 AM).

However, the USCG mentions the Harriet Lane firing on the Nashville also on April 12th.

https://www.history.uscg.mil/Browse-by-Topic/Assets/Water/All/Article/2054643/harriet-lane-1858/

Some accounts (none that I could yet find that are current online) apparently mention that the Harriet Lane fired the first shot of the war between the states (on April 11th). Some of the older USCG articles seem to have stated this.

I am not certain how important this is but it seems at least somewhat odd.

[SteveH]

texas v white was decided 2 months after the trial of davis, lee, and 36 other confederate leaders was dropped.

why was the trial dropped? and why was texas v white decided 2 months later?

why did the renowned justice samuel chase decline to preside over the trial of jefferson davis?

could it be that chase was afraid that davis, lee, and other confederate leaders would be found to be innocent, even though the jury had been purged of confederates?

the ratification of the constitution was on june 21, 1789. yet we celebrate the founding of the USA not on june 21 but on july 4. why not june 21 if the constitution is as some claim more important than the declaration of independence?

if the constitution is the pre-eminent founding document, perhaps we should be celebrating the founding of our country on june 21. (that is not a serious proposition, just an illustration.)

[SteveH]

my history is hazy but apparently the state of texas was recognized as dissolved by the USA after the war between the states. texas as a postwar territory elected its own government in 1866. this 1866 texas government was dissolved by congress in the First Reconstruction Act in March 1867. this act replaced texas territory by the 5th federal district.

texas was not readmitted to the USA as a state until 1870, apparently only after certain conditions were met.

i am not sure who if anyone was representing the people of texas in texas v white. maybe they got decently represented... or maybe not.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I cite the Declaration of Independence."

Naw... you've always misunderstood the Declaration's clear meaning and intentions.
Nowhere, in no document at any time did any US Founder ever claim an unlimited "right to secede" at pleasure.
Instead, it was always a matter of either necessity (as in 1776) or mutual consent (as in 1788).

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Of course it can, as was recognized by everyone at the time, including "The Father of the Constitution", James Madison, but only under two conditions: from necessity due to usurpations and abuses of power and at pleasure when done by mutual consent.

Nowhere did any Founder ever suggest or support at pleasure secession without mutual consent.

But you have always refused to understand that, and it has made you highly confused and disoriented.

[BroJoeK]

SteveH: "could it be that chase was afraid that davis, lee, and other confederate leaders would be found to be innocent, even though the jury had been purged of confederates?"

Jefferson Davis had the same probability of being convicted of treason, in 1868 in Richmond VA, as Donald Trump did of being found innocent in Manhattan.

Further, by 1868 Chase himself had already flipped back to being a Democrat and was running for the Democratic nomination for President.
So letting Jefferson Davis off the treason-hook was Chase's way of pandering for newly enfranchised Southern Democrat votes.

SteveH: "the ratification of the constitution was on june 21, 1789.
yet we celebrate the founding of the USA not on june 21 but on july 4.
why not june 21 if the constitution is as some claim more important than the declaration of independence?"

But, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction in spirit or original intentions between the Declaration and Constitution.
Each informs the other and we might well consider one the left-hand and the other the right-hand of our Founders' enlightenment ideals of government.

[BroJoeK]

x: "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."

January 9, 1961, three weeks after declaring secession
Secessionists fired on Union resupply ship Star of the West:

But there's no mystery to it.
From Day Three on December 22, 1860 South Carolina secessionists demanded US troops withdraw from Charleston Harbor, including Fort Sumter, always with the implied or explicit threat of force if they didn't.
On January 9, 1861 SC secessionists fired on the US resupply ship Star of the West, and demanded no other resupply attempts be made, under threat of war if they did.

Jefferson Davis knew all this and predicted -- on the same day Davis withdrew from the US Senate, January 21, 1861, he wrote to his personal friend, former Democrat Pres. Franklin Pierce, in New Hampshire:

'When Lincoln comes in he will have but to continue in the path of his predecessor [Pres. Buchanan] to inaugurate a civil war'

So there is simply no doubt that Confederates generally, and Davis specifically, expected war if the Union did not abandon Fort Sumter.
Any other interpretation is pure sophistry.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some accounts (none that I could yet find that are current online) apparently mention that the Harriet Lane fired the first shot of the war between the states (on April 11th). Some of the older USCG articles seem to have stated this.

If you're interested in this as just a tidbit of history, the first shots of the Civil war were fired by Union troops in Pensacola who had arrived to seize Fort Barancas to make sure the Confederates didn't get it.

This took place January 8, 1861.

A link you might find helpful.

Back off S.C.! Fla. claims first shot of Civil War

[DiogenesLamp]

Nowhere, in no document at any time did any US Founder ever claim an unlimited "right to secede" at pleasure.

Will you *STOP* putting your own subjective and incorrect *ADDITION* to what the Declaration of Independence says?

Instead, it was always a matter of either necessity

*YOU* don't get to tell other people what is a "necessity". *THEY* get to decide for themselves what is necessary.

They decided it was necessary.

Of course it can, as was recognized by everyone at the time, including "The Father of the Constitution", James Madison, but only under two conditions: from necessity

We covered that. The people of Virginia *DECIDED* that it was *NECESSARY* for them to leave a Union that had become tyrannical and which threaten the freedoms of their sister states. They saw it only as a matter of time before their own freedoms were threatened in a like manner.

Read Virginia's secession statement. It was *NECESSARY*.

Nowhere did any Founder ever suggest or support at pleasure secession without mutual consent.

Like we got from the British in 1776? You just want to believe what you want to believe. You don't start any of these arguments by actually weighing the evidence, you simply say "I must believe *THIS*, therefore anything that does not conform to *THIS* is rejected."

You try to dodge the issue by using that misdirection "at pleasure", and you just dismiss the fact that those states declaring independence saw it as a "necessity."

You disagree that it was a necessity, and are so pompous as to believe that *YOU* have the right to decide for other people what is a legitimate necessity or not.

None of the British thought the Colonies had a necessity to leave. Canada didn't even leave. Clearly *THEY* didn't think it was necessary to leave.

*Necessity* is in the eye of the beholder, a fact which you keep ignoring in favor of your own subjective view of how things ought to be.

But you have always refused to understand that, and it has made you highly confused and disoriented.

I refuse to understand it because it is patronizing bullsh*t.

And i've explained why to you for years.

[DiogenesLamp]

But, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no contradiction in spirit or original intentions between the Declaration and Constitution.

Correct. The Declaration asserts independence is a right given by God, and the US Constitution does not contradict it.

[DiogenesLamp]

From Day Three on December 22, 1860 South Carolina secessionists demanded US troops withdraw from Charleston Harbor, including Fort Sumter,

Which they SEIZED by FORCE in the middle of the Night, and then proceeded to threaten the City of Charleston with the guns of that fort.

They also burned all the guns they left in Fort Moultrie, which could only be construed as the hostile act of an enemy, not the normal behavior of an ally or a neutral country.

The Secretary of War had told South Carolina that the forts would be turned over to them. Since *THEY* paid for it, and it was originally built for the sole purpose of defending Charleston from a British Attack by Sea, everyone involved saw it as perfectly reasonable that Charleston would garrison the fort at some point in the future if it was ever needed.

Having it captured by a now clearly hostile force in the middle of the night would alarm anyone.

Jefferson Davis knew all this and predicted -- on the same day Davis withdrew from the US Senate, January 21, 1861, he wrote to his personal friend, former Democrat Pres. Franklin Pierce, in New Hampshire:

'When Lincoln comes in he will have but to continue in the path of his predecessor [Pres. Buchanan] to inaugurate a civil war'

Which he did. Deliberately. Because of the money.

[x]

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 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.

So the "truce" is "Don't shoot at me when I am shooting at all these ships and I won't shoot at you"? Not much of a truce.

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.

There was no gouging. The South needed goods and services that it didn't make or provide on its own. Then the plantation owners resented having to pay for those goods and services and pretended that they somehow still "owned" the money they'd paid for those goods and services.

Same Scam, different century. Same area of the country gets the wealth and enriches itself.

Those highways and dams that the federal government funded helped Southern and Western states develop and outcompete the older industrial states. You just ignore that because it goes against your prejudice.

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.

You're talking nonsense. It was 800 miles further to Charleston, and the whole country had the same tariff. Why wouldn't ships go to New York? All the more so, since New York put a lot into its role as a shipping and commercial hub while South Carolinians were cashing in on the cotton boom and moving west to set up plantations.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the "truce" is "Don't shoot at me when I am shooting at all these ships and I won't shoot at you"? Not much of a truce.

Should Beauregard simply have received fire without returning any? What officer would do that?

As it turned out, there would not have been an engagement because Lincoln sent the command ship to Pensacola without telling the fleet, or for that matter Beauregard, who had to make a decision on the basis of the best information he had, which was that all hell would break loose when the Powhatan showed up.

Had Anderson taken the deal, no bloodshed, no initial exchange of gunfire, and no war, at least not until Lincoln could think of another way to get it going.

There was no gouging. The South needed goods and services that it didn't make or provide on its own. Then the plantation owners resented having to pay for those goods and services and pretended that they somehow still "owned" the money they'd paid for those goods and services.

They were forced into paying for these excessively costly services by laws that banned them from using European shipping, banking, etc. Laws passed by the Northern dominated congress, and laws that were snuck through before the South realized how detrimental they would be for themselves. (Navigation act of 1817.)

They could have gotten these same services from the Europeans at a greatly reduced cost.

Those highways and dams that the federal government funded helped Southern and Western states develop and outcompete the older industrial states. You just ignore that because it goes against your prejudice.

It is my understanding that the railroads in the South were paid for by private investors, not government money, while those in the North received a lot of government money to build.

Not sure how many railroads there were in the west prior to the Railways act of 1862, but I don't think they played a significant role in economic development of the West until after the Civil War.

You're talking nonsense. It was 800 miles further to Charleston, and the whole country had the same tariff.

I wish people could more easily grasp what I said. *WITHOUT* the US imposed tariff, it was well worth traveling an additional 800 miles to Charleston. I saw the meaning as inherent in the fact that I pointed out that the tariff would be 35% less. Somehow you missed that.

With the whole country having the same tariff, there was little benefit to ships traveling an additional 800 miles. They would only do it *BECAUSE* the tariffs were much cheaper in the CSA.

while South Carolinians were cashing in on the cotton boom and moving west to set up plantations.

There were never going to be any plantations in the West. The Climate is simply not conducive (in that era) to large scale, water hungry agriculture.

Therefore I doubt they were moving West to create plantations. That too was a lie spread by the liberals in an effort to hold on to government power.

[x]

Had Anderson taken the deal, no bloodshed, no initial exchange of gunfire, and no war, at least not until Lincoln could think of another way to get it going.

You just said in your last post that Beauregard wanted to fire on the ships. So exchange of gunfire, war, bloodshed.

They could have gotten these same services from the Europeans at a greatly reduced cost.

They did get those services from European, and from Southern firms. A lot of these firms were already multi-regional and multi-national. Whether Southern or European firms would have been cheaper or better is another question. New York had the money to lend and to spend and it was a lot closer than London or Paris.

It is my understanding that the railroads in the South were paid for by private investors, not government money, while those in the North received a lot of government money to build.

Transcontinental railroads got large subsidies after the Civil War. Before the Civil War, the new states got land grants from the federal government to be used for internal improvements. East Coast states didn't get those grants. States also subsidized railroads out of their own pockets.

I'm not aware of any difference in federal or state subsidies between Northern and Southern states. What made the difference was that Northern states had more private investors to build railroads. They were also more active and more willing to build railroads. Southern states relied more on river transport.

But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the highways and dams built in the 20th century, mostly when Southern and Western Democrats ran Congress. Railroads in the 19th century didn't do much to narrow the gap between regions. Look at how that gap narrowed in the 20th century. The federal government pumping money into the states that were poorer 100 years ago, played a role in that. Maybe your own drinking water or electricity comes courtesy of a federally built dam.

I saw the meaning as inherent in the fact that I pointed out that the tariff would be 35% less. Somehow you missed that.

When you say 1817, I assume you are talking about 1817, not about some later time or some wholly hypothetical time.

There were never going to be any plantations in the West.

You have to specify what time period you are talking about. You were talking about an 1817 Act of Congress. What was going on at about that time? South Carolinians and other Southerners were moving west into Alabama and Mississippi and creating a boom in cotton. That was the West of the day. Charlestonians put their money into buying land and raising cotton, not into building ships and sailing them across the ocean.

[jmacusa]

This isn't a question of theology.

It was a and still is a matter of self determination. Government of, for and by the people. All of them. This isn't 1865. The struggle before us now is to put aside 1865 and fight for 2025.

[DiogenesLamp]

You just said in your last post that Beauregard wanted to fire on the ships. So exchange of gunfire, war, bloodshed.

One of my constant troubles is people not reading or not comprehending what I write. This is what I wrote.

"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. "

"May soon be engaged...Operative word here is "may".

We now know those ships would have done nothing, but the entire scenario was constructed (by clever Lincoln) to create the appearance that Beauregard's forces would soon be attacked. Without the command ship to lead the effort, (Captain Mercer on the Powhatan), the ships would have never came within attacking range, and therefore Beauregard would never have shot at them, even if he was of a mind to do so, which given his reluctance to fire at Anderson, I doubt he was.

They did get those services from European, and from Southern firms.

The export cargo handling trade was exclusively Northeastern US. *ALL* the South's export shipping was Northeastern US, and at prices substantially higher than the normal market price for such services.

There was a fellow that posted on this topic years ago who said his family owned one of the shipping companies that handled this trade, and yes, they were deliberately gouging the h3ll out of the South for profit. I've had occasions to look up his statements and present them in past discussions on this issue.

There are references to it in the writings of that era also where they describe the costs as being just below the fines for using Foreign ships and/or crew.

New York had the money to lend and to spend and it was a lot closer than London or Paris.

New York got most of their European money from the South's trade exports with Europe. New York was in fact a middle man that was profiting from the trade between other parties, but which didn't contribute anything more than the other parties could have done for themselves and at greatly reduced costs.

That US law unnaturally draws the trade out of it's natural course for the purpose of profiting New York and the Northeast. Even one of BroJoeK's books that he cited points this out. I used to cite this same book back at BroJoeK.

I'm not aware of any difference in federal or state subsidies between Northern and Southern states. What made the difference was that Northern states had more private investors to build railroads. They were also more active and more willing to build railroads.

Some years back I ran across a claim that Lincoln himself was involved in some railroad flim-flamery that cost the state of Illinois 13 million dollars, if I recall it correctly. Trying to find this article again has so far been futile, but I recall reading it at the time that it had sources and references listed for it.

But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the highways and dams built in the 20th century, mostly when Southern and Western Democrats ran Congress. Railroads in the 19th century didn't do much to narrow the gap between regions.

What would events in the 20th century have to do with state financing of railroads in the period leading up to the civil war?

When you say 1817, I assume you are talking about 1817, not about some later time or some wholly hypothetical time.

The 1817 reference is regarding when the Navigation Act of 1817 was passed, which *REQUIRED* the South to use the Northeastern shipping companies. It handed them what became effectively a monopoly.

In 1817, the tariffs were not different. The Tariffs were only different when the CSA was created, and *MADE* the tariffs different. The CSA tariffs would have had the ships ignoring New York and traveling to the South. They would go the additional 800 miles for another 35% profit.

You have to specify what time period you are talking about. You were talking about an 1817 Act of Congress.

Whenever you are talking about "Plantations in the West", you must be referring to the "expansion of slavery" claim that the Northern political interests kept hammering the public with as propaganda. You can only be referring to the "Free Soil Party" era, which is the 1850s.

The only references I make to the 1817 period is to point out this is when they passed the law that gave the Northern shipping, banking, warehousing, insurance industries the monopolies on controlling Southern trade that they had in the 1850s.

What was going on at about that time? South Carolinians and other Southerners were moving west into Alabama and Mississippi and creating a boom in cotton.

Yes they were, but I took you to mean "the West", not further west in the region known as "the South."

Charlestonians put their money into buying land and raising cotton, not into building ships and sailing them across the ocean.

There were shipbuilding industries in Charleston in the early part of the 19th century, and I know this because "the Horizon" was built in Charleston. But due to the fact the government favored and subsidized Northern shipping and ship building industries, the Ship building in Charleston slowly disappeared.

Robert Rhett describes this in his "Address to the Slave holding states."

Hard to make a profit when your competition gets subsidies and favorable government treatment.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was a and still is a matter of self determination. Government of, for and by the people. All of them. This isn't 1865. The struggle before us now is to put aside 1865 and fight for 2025.

Against the same type of people, living in the same areas of the country, that the Confederates were fighting against back in 1861.