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

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

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.

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.

By no means. Many times I have mentioned George Trenholm, a wealthy Charlestonian whose company had offices in New York and London.

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.

Actually no. James Adger joined with other Charleston merchants to set up a coastal shipping line to New York.

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.

Foreign money also came to the US when foreigners bought gold or invested in railroads and government bonds. There was an immense amount of British money being invested in the US and other countries in the hemisphere in the 1850s.

New Yorkers had business skills, and the competed among themselves (as well as with foreign companies and those from other parts of the country). Southern shippers did fine, but I wouldn't assume that they could underbid New York brokers, bankers, and insurance companies.

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.

As long as I'm talking about Charleston, South Carolina also provided money for railroads. Many states did that, North and South. FWIW South Carolina got its first rail road early and at the time it was the longest rail line under the ownership of one company in the world.

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

Because you literally said, WORD FOR WORD, "How about nobody gets anything from the Federal government except Defense and Law enforcement?" If that had happened, maybe you wouldn't like it very much, since other parts of the country might not have been able to catch up and overtake the old industrial states.

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.

If it was 800 miles further to get to Charleston from Europe, then maybe laws and subsidies weren't the only thing that made New York a major shipping hub before the Civil War. It seems like it was more a matter of geography.

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

That was the West in those days.

USCGC Harriet Lane fired warning shots
at SS Nashville, evening of April 11, 1861

SteveH: "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."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Fort Barrancas, Pensacola, Florida
Your Fort Barrancas story is nonsense, of course, since on January 8, 1861 Florida was still a Union state, and Fort Barrancas, Pensacola, was approached by an unruly mob of Union civilians.
So, for Union soldiers -- a 50 man company stationed at Fort Barrancas -- their warnings fired over the heads of unruly Union state civilians cannot, by definition, be the first shots of a Civil War.
The truth is that hostile actions against the United States were always begun by secessionist-Confederates' demands, threats, seizures and firings on Union officials, ships and properties.
Fort Apalachicola, at Chattahoochee, Florida
The first such hostile action in Florida was the seizure of the Union arsenal at Apalachicola, ordered by Florida Gov. Perry on January 5, 1861 and completed the following morning by Florida state forces, without resistance from the Union garrison.
So, the attempted seizure of Fort Barrancas at Pensacola on January 8, was the second such, however, in this case there is no record of an order from Florida's governor nor was the civilian mob approaching Fort Barrancas identified as a military force.
The mob then disbursed once Fort Barrancas Union army defenders fired warning shots.
USCGC Harriet Lane vs SS Nashville
As for USCGC Harriet Lane, it also fired warning shots near Charleston Harbor on the evening of April 11, 1861.
But once again, those warning shots were fired at a Union ship, the SS Nashville, because it was not flying its flag.
After those warning shots, SS Nashville raised its flag and proceeded without further incident.

Fort Barrancas, Pensacola, Florida in 1861:

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

Necessity = Battle of Bunker Hill,
June 7, 1775:

You are, of course, speaking to yourself, since that is precisely what you always do interpreting the plain meanings of documents such as the Declaration of Independence.

DiogenesLamp: "*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."

Sure, but our Founders well defined secession from "necessity" in their lengthy 1776 DOI parade of horribles.
For our Founders, "necessity" consisted of numerous intolerable conditions compared to the standards they laid out, beginning with, "all men are created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

Necessity justified revolution.

Our Founders also defined "secession" at pleasure in their 1787 Constitution.
Since there was nothing necessary about their new Constitution -- it was simply "more perfect" than the Old Articles of Confederation -- the new Constitution required mutual consent to "secede" from the old government.

Refusal to acknowledge this distinction is what makes all the rest of your reasoning cockamamie.

DiogenesLamp: "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*."

Necessity for Virginia = Battle of Fort Sumter
April 12, 1861:

Sure, but only after Jefferson Davis ordered the beginning of Civil War at Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
War was clearly a condition of "necessity", but prior to war, Virginians had steadfastly refused to secede, by overwhelming numbers.
Virginians in 1860 well understood that secession "at pleasure" was not Constitutional and so they refused until after civil war had started.

quoting BJK: "Nowhere did any Founder ever suggest or support at pleasure secession without mutual consent."

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Here I think you are deliberately deceiving yourself, since US 1776 "secession" from the Brits was strictly necessary, as spelled out in their Declaration of Independence.
In 1776 necessity precluded mutual consent.

By stark contrast, in 1860 there was nothing that our Founders would recognize as either necessity or mutual consent.
Nor did anyone else in 1860, outside a small cabal of Southern Democrat Fire Eaters.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Ah... it appears now that, despite your denials and obfuscations, you really do understand the difference between the words "necessity" and "at pleasure", but you still want to claim that, no matter how "at pleasure" any action might seem, it becomes instantly necessary only because you say it is.

So, here is a partial list of logical responses to your claims:

The differences between "at pleasure" and "necessity" are analogous to those between murder and self-defense.
In both cases someone is dead, but:
- Murder can get you hanged as a criminal, while
- Self-defense can get you recognized and rewarded as a hero.
What's the difference?
It's in the justifications -- if there is legally recognized justification, then what might otherwise be criminal murder can become heroic self-defense.
That's why the Declaration begins with:
"...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
In short, our Founders told the world, in effect: "this is not murder (at pleasure), it's necessary self-defense".
And the key point to remember is that the world believed them and came to their aid against our British oppressors.
Without the world's help our Founders could not have succeeded and would have then been treated like murderers by the victorious British.
How is that not clear to you?
By stark contrast, in 1861 the world looked at Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents and said, in effect, "no, this is just crazy-talk, this is just lunatics babbling out their fantasies, so there's no way we can support the Confederacy against the United States".
Do you see, that's the difference between "necessity" and "at pleasure".
Sure, you can stand on your hilltop and howl about "necessity" until the cows come home, but if nobody believes your arguments, then it's still "at pleasure" and you will suffer the punishments for murder, not the rewards for self-defense.
My point is: it doesn't matter a whit what you think is "necessary", what matters is "opinions of mankind".
That's what made the difference between our Founders' successes and Confederates failures.

Necessity = 1775 British Proclamation of Rebellion,
A Declaration of War against Americans:

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Now you're just being silly and deliberately ignorant.
The truth here is that Brits created the necessity for American independence by declaring and waging war against Americans a year before the 1776 Declaration.

No such necessity remotely attached to 1860 Declarations of Secession.

DiogenesLamp: "I refuse to understand it because it is patronizing bullsh*t.
And i've explained why to you for years."

What's 100% bullsh*t is your claim that anybody can declare "necessity" at any time, for any reason or for no reason, in other words "at pleasure" and that becomes legally valid and self-justifying.

It doesn't. Never did, never will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.