Friday, April 17, 2009

If at first you don't secede...

...try, try again.

"When in the course of human events (but only up to this point and nevermore after...)"


Nathan Brindle said...

We're either a nation or we're not. Loose talk about secession doesn't solve our problems today anymore than it solved them in 1861.

Hypnagogue said...

Are we a nation? It would seem that the document which establishes us as a nation has been abandoned in principle and text -- down to the smallest detail.

tomcatshanger said...

Oh, I get it. It would be ILLEGAL to secede right?

Wait. You mean it would be against the Federal Goverment LAWS of the United States of America for one of the United States to stop being United with it's fellow States?

Someone is going to have to explain to me how that would matter exactly if it where true. Our Federal Government hasn't cared a bit about it's own laws in so long, I don't believe they would garner much support bringing out the "That's ILLEGAL" flag.

Jenny said...

The Civil War "solved the issue" of secession like date rape "solves the issue" of whether you're going home with him or not.

John Higgins said...

Given that up to the War of Northern Aggression, all states were considered sovereign, and even Jefferson himself supported notions of secession in his time, I'm going to assume that secession is perfectly in accordance with the founding principles of the country.

Whether or not it would work, I don't know, and I hardly care. Secession is a perfectly American thing to do.

Wolfwood said...

Secession will not be tolerated. Any attempts will be met with the killing of those who are armed and the starving to death of the families of all those in regions attempting secession. All hail the mighty triumph of the rule of law!

Rorschach said...

I seem to recall that secession from the British Empire was illegal too. Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock and the rest of the crew were all signing their death warrants by signing the declaration of Independence. The rules are written by the victors of such things. Had the South managed to succeed, then the answer would have been quite different. And besides, what is the Second Amendment except an escape clause from Tyranny?

Rabbit said...

DC needs Texas much more than Texas needs DC.

We were a Republic once. We have experience in running the big show, unlike a certain Community Organizer. I imagine this time, given that Texas has a GDP roughly equivalent to enough to put up in the top 10 internationally, that we wouldn't go bankrupt, which is why we joined in the first place.

I can't believe that he called out our Desert Rat.

Guy must have a death wish.

As a 6th generation Texian, I'm extremely comfortable with the idea of secession. We were here before that got all worked up the first time.


Dan said...

Wow, Drudge said that 75% of Texans want to stay with the union. That means 1 out of every 4 people I see today want to secede?

I love Texas, where 70% of the country's jobs were created in 2008, there are relatively lax gun laws, and the state does not feel the need to confiscate any more of my income than is already stolen, but I love my country more, no matter what shitbird is in charge. Ultimately, I'd just like to have everyone leave my stuff alone and let me go about my business, but for some reason I don't think that'll happen under this president.

Cossack in a Kilt said...

For if it prosper, why, none dare call it treason.

Anonymous said...

As a Texan, I think we should put it to a vote.

Having read a bunch this morning, it does appear that after the war of northern agression we were forced to join back up and give up our right to succeed. The real question is one of illegality. If we succeed, why would we be expected to follow the formerly US law?

Right now, given the situation, I would probably vote to succeed. Why not? How much worse can Perry be as a president then Obama is currently? I would take the gamble the we could rule better Obama's doing.

Besides, as was pointed out, the real question is how many states would follow suit and bail with us?

the pawnbroker said...

it's multiple choice, really:

cessation, succession, or secession.

stop this nonsense, vote 'em out, or we're outta here...


Cossack in a Kilt said...

Anonymous at 1:55 pm.

You were making a funny, right? You were implicitly associating secession with success, right?

You did not confuse the quasi-homophonic "succeed" with "secede." Right?

This has been your daily encounter with the grammar martinet.

staghounds said...

Jenny wins the internets today, accurately condensing the entire issue into a sentence.

It's an interesting question whether the readmission invalidates the act of annexation, which does permit it to subdivide itself into 5 states.

perlhaqr said...

I'm right there with staghounds. Jenny wins the internets today.

WV: "exedal" Ayup.

Rabbit said...

6 (out of 8 additional) Texas Senators) on the Conservative side would absolutely harelip Reid. Houston and the Valley would certainly elect liberal twits.

I doubt that they'd accept that as an alternative to secession.

Nonetheless, it's a fun thought.


Ed Foster said...

Rabbit brings up a good point. Texas has the right to split into five seperate states (presumably while maintaining some variety of local compact and intra-texican cooperation).

If they all continued to think of themselves as Texans, and the split as nothing more than a ruse to gain leverage in Washington, it would probably be a good thing for the country.

Damn, if you folks down there had winter and an ocean in the same place, in close conjunction with hills of some kind, I'd buy a Stetson and move. You think big, any way you can move Galveston up into the panhandle?

What we should do is offer the right of secession to any coastal city that could demonstrate the international trade to be self-supporting. Start with San Francisco, you know they would love the idea. Think of it, no Federal taxes, and marriage with willing (adult) sheep!

LA would be clamoring for it within months, along with Chicago (gotta love the St. Lawrence Seaway), New York (a great town to visit, but mostly owned by Pakis and Chinese), various other socialist places around the Great Lakes, and possibly Boston, although since it owns the rest of New England, they might not go (dammit). Cut off the welfare to New Orleans and they'd pull out too.

Bottom line: The heart and soul of the American left are the culturally unassimilated peoples of the big cities, mostly along the coasts. They live in the United States, but never became Americans.

Lose them, and most of us "conservatives/minarchists/independants would be more worried about the religious right, and would end up making alliances with the more moderate liberals left behind to keep the place from turning into a theocracy.

rickn8or said...

Yep. Jenny winz.

Think what Texas' GDP would be if Texans decided where to drill.

And it's just close enough for me to make a run for it with all the books, tools, guns and ammo I could carry in one trip.

WV: "re-arm-it" It's, it's like some kind of sign, man!

Robert said...

They held us in at gunpoint. Is there some question about this? The last time we voted, we voted to LEAVE.

We are in the union because they had more men, more guns and more industry. They beat us into submission. And here we are.

The LEGALITY of secession has never been considered in court.

Anonymous said...

Wait'll the International Arms Treaty crap comes rolling in, superseding [reportedly] any domestic legislation on the issue.

Then see how y'all feel about Succession to a nation that repudiates such nonsense.

I just druther kick out of the Union the states and cities and counties that'd let themselves be drilled by that O'Screw.

We'd still be the Original United States. They can be whomever they wish to be, but NOT in MY country.

John, the Red

for the cats: mitiou

Toaster 802 said...

Texas is not the only one thinking of bailing out...

Now if we could just get Mass to take back all the massholes that moved to Bennington and Brattleboro, and sink Burlington into Lake Champlain, we would be a sane place to live...

Anonymous said...

Perry is fundamentally correct: The US of A is a great place and a great system--except that we've elected too many folks who don't want to play by the rules set out by the Founding Fathers.

Sorta like a swimming pool party that's headed toward becoming an orgy: Decent folks want to put on their street clothes and go home.


staghounds said...

Actually Robert, the issue HAS been considered and decided. Oddly enough, in a case about Texas!

There is not, has never been, and cannot be such a thing as "secession".

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1869):

"...By (the Articles of Confederation) the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.

The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. "

staghounds said...

And, Cossack, wouldn't that be the vocabulary or spelling martinet?

Anonymous said...

Actually, the civil war is so 19th century. Since then we've seen the joys of the Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia, the Balkins, Ukraine and Tiannemen Square.
The rules have changed.
The rest of the world would, particularly China and Russia, would condemn any 21st Century US Civil War as the ultimate in hypocrisy and imperialism. They would support the dissolution of the US as a means of weakening Western democracy.
And just well will the next Sherman's March play on the Intertubes?
The US can't use military force abroad without massive unrest and condemnation. How will the use of lethal force against her own people be any more acceptable?
Not supporting secession myself, just thought I'd play a little devil's advocate.

oldblinddog said...

"Well, that's nice, but a) back in 1845, you joined the Union and gave up your right to be independent,..." we didn't. said...

Since my comment seems to have not made the grade over there, let me just say I'd prefer the state of the US in "Friday" to the one in "1984".

Jenny said...

The US can't use military force abroad without massive unrest and condemnation. How will the use of lethal force against her own people be any more acceptable?For the same reason an Afghani tribesman is part of a noble native culture, but a conservative who's skeptical of women in ground combat military service is a backwards sexist so-and-so.

People hold different rules for external peoples than they do for perceived "traitors" at home.

so - if it did come to Civil War II, I fully expect the progressive-minded here and in the EU to show a level of ruthlessness not seen since the Bolshevik bomb-throwers. And for it to be reciprocated full force.

Family squabbles are nasty - think of it a country-wide "domestic disturbance."

kbarrett said...

Texas lost the ACW.

The original treaty with the Republic of Texas did have a secession provision in it ... but Texas joined the Confederacy.

The state committed an act of war, and was conquered by the Union army ... the other states had their rebellion put down, but Texas was actually conquered.

Conquered states do not get to resurrect old treaties ... the entity known as the Republic of Texas was destroyed at the close of the ACW.

References to it in the Texas constitution are a relic, and nothing more.

I don't personally have a problem with secession ... but don't try to put a legal gloss on it. Conquered territories have to fight ( or have someone fight for them ) to secede.