Posted on 08/06/2024 11:12:14 AM PDT by 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.
if texas will not lead in the face of egregious 2020-style 2024 vote fraud then perhaps the two secessionist counties in oregon can become the leaders of a non-violent movement.
hey, non-violence is the answer— shades of mlk and “i have a dream”!
Doesn't matter if that is true or not. The Civil war pretty much answered that question as "no."
More like "NO!!!!"
from wikipedia:
As of July 2024, thirteen counties in Oregon had approved ballot measures in favor of Greater Idaho: Baker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler.
Texas vs White? I think that's the one you are talking about.
At that time, the courts were going to do whatever the people in the executive branch told them to do. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney. The federal marshal he handed it to, (Ward Hill Lamon) wisely chose not to do it.
But the point remained. That government had no problem with the idea of throwing Judges in prison. That was a tyrannical era.
> Doesn’t matter if that is true or not. The Civil war pretty much answered that question as “no.”
> More like “NO!!!!”
so much for self determination, the reason d’etre for the revolution, the declaration of independence, and non-violence as a way to resolve disputes then????
Not true.
Texas has the right to split itself into five separate states.
-PJ
I think General Sherman might get knocked on his @$$ the next time around. He's not dealing with a 4 to 1 manpower advantage anymore.
I think Texas alone can whip most of the rest of the Country, and I think that if they seceded, several other states would go with them.
You would say anything the government wanted you to say if your alternative was a jail cell.
The Principle of Self Determination lasted "four score and seven years..."
Yes, they should have made this more clear than just writing it into the Declaration of Independence.
As if any governing officials would ever bother to read that.
You mean the areas of our country that sucks on the government teat the strongest?
well then consider the premise of red states allied with red counties in blue states.
the blue states would be placed in the position of denying their red counties the right to self determination via partition.
the red counties in blue states (BSRCs) would then hypothetically be capable of non violently withdrawing services from large blue state cities until the large blue state cities saw the light and would let the red counties partition off.
the BSRCs would then be free to join the red states that have already partitioned.
it would be up to the remaining blue states to form a mutual self defense treaty with the red states— fairly routine, if NATO is any example, and a formidable challenge to any invader considering the natural invasion barrier to the whole formed by the atlantic and pacific oceans.
imaginative, yes. but bad times violence avoidence calls for good imagination.
The liberal parts of our "single entity" have allowed in 20 million military age men from foreign countries and owning no allegiance or even mercy to us.
I think the "single entity" is stronger when backstabbing traitors get shot.
> Can Texas Secede?
> Texas Can’t Secede
Jeff Davis was never tried
Jeff Davis was never tried
What makes you think secession would prevent civil war, or that the left would think of it as an acceptable alternative?
Greed is the reason. The North was making too much money from the South and their control of it's economic output.
The North stood to lose potentially 700 million per year in a 4 billion per year economy, and they weren't going to allow that to happen.
Principles? Their first principle is money. Still that way. We all know the Northeastern part of the country rules us and milks us like cows.
i view politics as a struggle for two visions— individual rights versus collective responsibilities.
ideally there needs to be a balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities in the social contract as reflected in the various government jurisdictions.
perhaps there will never be an ultimate bright line between the laws reflecting the conflicting principles.
it does not mean imho that we throw out one wholesale in favor of the other.
libertarians favor individual rights. where they go too far may be in addictive drugs and open borders.
communists favor collective rights. they also go too far, but they have a point where national defense and tariffs are concerned.
if one is allowed to control the other then we might be doomed as the roman empire was during its fall.
The Second Civil War if it goes hot, will be like the First one in Missouri.
If secession were legal, it would never become necessary.
King George told the colonists that they weren’t allowed to secede either.
> What makes you think secession would prevent civil war, or that the left would think of it as an acceptable alternative?
look again at the 2020 red county versus blue county map.
in a dispute, who controls the land, (usually) controls the dispute.
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.