'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration (from British newspaper)

[austingirl]

"Do you honestly believe that those who had so recently fought a war to win their freedom from an overbearing and distant government, who had written, signed, or agreed with The Declaration of Independence so fiercely they took up arms against that government would have ever consented to become part of a country declared insoluable?

These United States were a Federation, not a single Country in the sense of a homogenous unit.

 Though (especially since the War of Northern Aggression) the powers which were reserved to the States and the People have been usurped wholesale--often to enact and perpetuate programs which have no Constitutional Authorization--and the Federation of States has been sold as a single "nation" with a "national Government", that was not what had been in place early on,  that was not the apparent intent, or specific language would have been included in the original document to prevent secession."

@Smokin Joe

Concise summary of where we are and how much we have lost in this Union of States.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't think the number of people wanting to break away from England and form their own country, pre-1776 was over 50%, so I suppose they were "kooks", too?

Texas secession isn't some "Lord of the Flies" scenario.
Why, we have paved roads and running water and everything! LOL.
"Lord of the Mosquitoes", maybe, but not "Lord of the flies".

If the 10th amendment had actually been followed and not taking such a beating by the Federal government, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Different scenario in 1776 and now. Apples/oranges.

The reason I refer to people in favor of this as "kooks" is that that is how the rest of the populace sees it. Which is partially why the GOP has only won the popular vote once in 20 years.

[Sanguine]

Different scenario in 1776 and now. Apples/oranges.

The reason I refer to people in favor of this as "kooks" is that that is how the rest of the populace sees it. Which is partially why the GOP has only won the popular vote once in 20 years.

What?

First, if it weren't for "kooks" nothing would ever change.  Like those crazy "kooks" who broke away from England.

"The rest of the populace"?  Most of them don't care, don't have any idea, etc.  Not sure why that should hold someone back from doing the right thing.

And, finally, what does TEXIT have to do with the GOP continuing to lose? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What?

First, if it weren't for "kooks" nothing would ever change.  Like those crazy "kooks" who broke away from England.

"The rest of the populace"?  Most of them don't care, don't have any idea, etc.  Not sure why that should hold someone back from doing the right thing.

And, finally, what does TEXIT have to do with the GOP continuing to lose?

Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.

The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.

Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.

[Sanguine]

Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.

The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.

Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.

I guess we'll have to put you in the "not supporting TEXIT" category.   

[HoustonSam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas

So, perhaps, if we study the history of the Texas War for Independence, as I know we had a class on that in Middle School; one may see that part of the war for independence may have been to establish slavery as law.

Ah, I see now that your point is as much about the Texican's revolt from Mexico as about the War Between the States.  Not being a native Texan I've never formally studied that war, but it is my understanding that among the Texican's aims was the establishment or perpetuation of slavery in Texas.  Native Texans are of course free to correct me on that.

And slavery was certainly a key rationale for the secession of the seven states of the Deep South, including Texas.  But it was not a rationale for war.  The Emancipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, some 21 months after the war began.  Why was the Union fighting during those 21 months?  To defeat secession, not to defeat slavery.  And why was the Confederacy fighting?  For the right to secede.

It is a great tragedy that both the Texicans and the Confederates made a self-contradictory argument about freedom - the freedom to enslave others.  But what is clear to us today was not as clear to them.  At some point in the future people might well argue that Americans of the 20th and 21st century were clearly hypocrites for arguing that a woman's "rights" included killing a baby in her womb; Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade might be discussed in the same paragraph of a law school textbook.  We err in projecting our understanding and our beliefs back into the past and expecting long-dead men to conform to our standards.

And is the argument for liberty really defeated by the fact that people misuse liberty?  Am I really only allowed liberty if I use it in conformance with someone else's standards?  That would be no liberty at all.

So while I maintain a keen interest in the history of the question of a state's legitimate powers and rights versus those of the Federal Government, I reject the idea that prior history invalidates present rights.  That Texans, in their fight against Mexico and their later fight against the US Federal Government, believed in slavery, has no bearing on the rights of Texans today, or the rights of the people of any other state, to govern themselves.

[austingirl]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I guess we'll have to put you in the "not supporting TEXIT" category.   

I don't believe Obama is an out and out tyrant. He was legitimately elected, and we still have freedom of speech. He gets regularly spanked by the USSC, and he does obey the letter of the law (certainly not the spirit). This may be conservative heresy but that's my opinion.

If that changes, for example our own version of Marduro, then that changes. When circumstances change so do my opinions.

[HoustonSam]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.

Yes, further evidence that emancipation was a means to an end, not an end in itself, for the Lincoln Administration.  One can legitimately argue that the Proclamation actually freed no one, because it only spoke to slavery in territories not then under Union control.

[thackney]

Texas will be blue in a few years anyway.

No basis for that claim.  Our statewide elections are not trending that way.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No basis for that claim.  Our statewide elections are not trending that way.

Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.

No idea if that's true or not.

[austingirl]

The difference between Texas and California is who runs the State government. Texas is very successful due to Republicans and the people know it. Dimocraps have destroyed California.

[HoustonSam]

Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.

No idea if that's true or not.

IF true, maybe it points out the limitations of identity politics.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nobody wants to see a new civil war or the United States splinter apart. Nobody but ideologues. AKA kooks.

The talk makes you look like a loony toons kook. Hence my pejorative.

Kook talk hurts the GOP nationally IMO.

No civil war has taken place in this country yet.  History is tough when one has facts.

By definition, a civil war is one in which a group attempts to overthrow the current government.

Never happened.  The previous war fought was for a completely different reason.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.

No idea if that's true or not.

Could be an indictment of the inability of California GOP to police voting booths and get fair elections, too.

Those in power certainly have a vested interest in retaining/strengthening their power.

[HoustonSam]

No civil war has taken place in this country yet.  History is tough when one has facts.

By definition, a civil war is one in which a group attempts to overthrow the current government.

Never happened.  The previous war fought was for a completely different reason.

My grad school buddies were for the most part Northerners, since I was up north.  I distinctly remember one of them remarking during a beer-drinking session at the local bar, "Just think, if the South had won the Civil War, the national anthem would be 'Dixie'".  I of course corrected him about what our war aims had been.

Unfortunately I think most people who are even *aware of* that war maintain the same misconception.

[TomSea]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in Confederate States. Slavery was still in effect in the Northern States until the 13th Amendment -eight months after the end of the War of Northern Aggression.

But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.

[thackney]

Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.

No idea if that's true or not.

Pretty obvious by elections and laws, even if true, it has no basis in determining election results. 

[TomSea]

Someone on Twitter claimed that Texas and California's demographic composition were basically identical. Makes you wonder if that's more of an indictment of the California GOP than anything else.

No idea if that's true or not.

California voted for the Republican candidate with some sort of long streak except in 1960, they voted for JFK, California gave us Reagan. So, yes, there are a number of stats one can look at.

As of now, I think this question is a bit rhetorical, the votes do not exist for secession and if they did; that would be Democracy in action but I think the chances are very small for that to happen.

So, it appears, there was a big demographic shift in California.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't believe Obama is an out and out tyrant. He was legitimately elected, and we still have freedom of speech. He gets regularly spanked by the USSC, and he does obey the letter of the law (certainly not the spirit). This may be conservative heresy but that's my opinion.

If that changes, for example our own version of Marduro, then that changes. When circumstances change so do my opinions.

I do not think this is just an opinion, but a false statement.

Example is the unanimous SCOTUS opinion on recess appointments.

https://www.myheritage.org/news/unanimous-supreme-court-rules-against-the-obama-administrations-unconstitutional-power-grab/

[TomSea]

Ah, I see now that your point is as much about the Texican's revolt from Mexico as about the War Between the States.  Not being a native Texan I've never formally studied that war, but it is my understanding that among the Texican's aims was the establishment or perpetuation of slavery in Texas.  Native Texans are of course free to correct me on that.

And slavery was certainly a key rationale for the secession of the seven states of the Deep South, including Texas.  But it was not a rationale for war.  The Emancipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, some 21 months after the war began.  Why was the Union fighting during those 21 months?  To defeat secession, not to defeat slavery.  And why was the Confederacy fighting?  For the right to secede.

It is a great tragedy that both the Texicans and the Confederates made a self-contradictory argument about freedom - the freedom to enslave others.  But what is clear to us today was not as clear to them.  At some point in the future people might well argue that Americans of the 20th and 21st century were clearly hypocrites for arguing that a woman's "rights" included killing a baby in her womb; Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade might be discussed in the same paragraph of a law school textbook.  We err in projecting our understanding and our beliefs back into the past and expecting long-dead men to conform to our standards.

And is the argument for liberty really defeated by the fact that people misuse liberty?  Am I really only allowed liberty if I use it in conformance with someone else's standards?  That would be no liberty at all.

So while I maintain a keen interest in the history of the question of a state's legitimate powers and rights versus those of the Federal Government, I reject the idea that prior history invalidates present rights.  That Texans, in their fight against Mexico and their later fight against the US Federal Government, believed in slavery, has no bearing on the rights of Texans today, or the rights of the people of any other state, to govern themselves.

No, it has no bearing but if someone brings up the Texas war for Independence,  there is no reason to leave some facts out.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.

So what if there were less slaves there?  The whole premise that was given as a basis is in fact false.

[TomSea]

The difference between Texas and California is who runs the State government. Texas is very successful due to Republicans and the people know it. Dimocraps have destroyed California.

And, there has been a huge demographic shift in California; that is a big reason why for the change.

The majority of children in Texas schools are minority, it is a minority majority state.  California use to not be that kind of state. Same for Texas.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And, there has been a huge demographic shift in California; that is a big reason why for the change.

The majority of children in Texas schools are minority, it is a minority majority state.  California use to not be that kind of state. Same for Texas.

Do you read the rubbish that is?  How can a minority be a majority?

[HoustonSam]

But there were very few slaves in the North, one has to look for examples like Delaware.

The number of slaves in any given state is not relevant; right and wrong are not quantitative concepts here.

If Lincoln's intent had been to free slaves, he could have freed the slaves in the states he still controlled - Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri - but he did not.  He either did not because he feared that would push those states to secede as well, indicating that secession rather than slavery was the basis for the war, or because he lacked the legal authority to do so in the Union but not in a foreign enemy nation, indicating that the Confederate States did in fact secede and therefore the later Texas v White decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney was specious.

Lincoln issued the Proclamation to isolate the CSA from diplomatic support in Europe and to enlist Northern Abolitionists in a war which was at that time unpopular.  I'm sure that didn't matter to the slaves in later-captured Confederate territory; they were simply happy to be free.