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

[MACVSOG68]

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.

Have to disagree.  The definition of a civil war is one fought between groups of people within the same country.  Since the Confederacy was determined both by military action and the Supreme Court to be extra-constitutional, the United States remained one country, thus the war between the states was a civil war.  Beliefs to the contrary still exist, but have no legal standing.  There are two ways to break up the Union, one by military action and the other by an agreement of the states.

[TomSea]

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

Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.

Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?

Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?

If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.

Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.

[HoustonSam]

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

If particular facts have no bearing on the discussion, then what is the reason for bringing them up?

[TomSea]

When the Northern states gave up the last remnants of legal slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of piety, morality, and ethics; fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had broken the Northern slaveowners' power and drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860.

http://slavenorth.com/

Slavery was largely non-existent in the North, this is a red herring.

[TomSea]

If particular facts have no bearing on the discussion, then what is the reason for bringing them up?

So, one can talk about how Texans fought for their freedom but not for the freedom to own slaves? Got it!

[TomSea]

When was the emancipation of proclamation? There was a large civil rights struggle still going on in the 1960s over people's rights.  That problem was hardly solved back then.

[HoustonSam]

So, one can talk about how Texans fought for their freedom but not for the freedom to own slaves? Got it!

Did you not say yourself in #120 that the fact of slavery in Texas' history has no bearing on the discussion of Texas' hypothetical right to secede today?  In fairness, I might have misunderstood your meaning in #120.

[TomSea]

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

Perhaps one's complaint is to those who call it a majority minority state like California, Hawaii and New Mexico. Who coined the term, I don't know. It is used.

On the Records: Texas 1 of 5 "Minority-Majority" States

More than half of the 2011 Texas population, 55.2 percent, was of a race other than non-Hispanic white, according to demographic data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. That makes Texas one of five "minority-majority" states in the country. The release of new population estimates reveals that trend will continue to spread nationally, as 50.1 percent of babies younger than one in 2011 were a minority race.
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/05/17/on-the-records-majority-texas-minority-races/

[TomSea]

Did you not say yourself in #120 that the fact of slavery in Texas' history has no bearing on the discussion of Texas' hypothetical right to secede today?  In fairness, I might have misunderstood your meaning in #120.

Post #78:

In enumerating the pluses of Texas, it is said Texans fought for their freedom. At the same time, I don't think there is a problem in mentioning that was not freedom for all.

[Ghost Bear]

And so the conversation has been shifted from the pros and cons of Texas achieving independence now, in the 21st Century, to the old argument of what the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression was really all about, in the 19th Century.  Perhaps that was the goal of bringing up those old topics, to shift the conversation away from what we'd like to happen going forward, and instead waste time and effort on arguments with no possible resolution. 

As for myself, I was not alive in the 1860s, no one I know was alive in the 1860s, so the discussion of what went on then and why it did has very little purpose except as a distraction. I'm not a racist (as my wife will attest) and I do not support slavery, in fact I think it's perhaps the second greatest evil that can be perpetrated upon a living person (murder being the first). I don't care why Texas revolted against Mexico 180 years ago, or why Texas joined the Confederacy 156 years ago. What I care about is why Texas would want to leave the United States today, in 2016.

Maybe if you want to argue the causes of History, you should go make your own thread and do that there.   

[austingirl]

For those questioning how Texas secession could be accomplished, I have provided the answers:



http://www.thetnm.org/answers

[MACVSOG68]

Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.

Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?

Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?

If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.

Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.

I agree that it is unlikely there would have have been a war sans slavery.  The South feared the slavery issue in the new territories and states, and knew at some point an overwhelmingly anti-slavery congress would end it.  Lincoln on the other hand said in his first inaugural address that he had no intention or authority to interfere with the institution of slavery.  He did however have both to keep the Union together.  The South for all its desires for "freedom of choice" nonetheless in its confederate constitution made it unlawful for any of its states to ban slavery.  The entire constitution and declaration of secession was based on slavery.

[goatprairie]

Yes, it is important if there were practically no slaves in the North and this point is far from proven.

Why was there the underground railroad and Harriet Tubbman? Why were slaves escaping to the North?

Are people going to actually deny these historical facts?

If one is trying to say there would have been a civil war if slavery did not exist, I don't think historians will agree. They largely say the civil war was fought to end slavery. Nowhere is this clearer than in States like Missouri and Kansas where abolitionists fought.

Why are they even called Abolitionists and Jayhawkers from Kansas.

There are two subjects of contention as to the cause of the Civil War and  the reasons for fighting. The immediate cause of the war was undoubtedly slavery. Period. Tariffs were not the issue. Examination of the Ordinances of Secession and other documents and statements from the seceding states make it pretty clear that slavery was the overriding cause of secession.
However, that doesn't mean that everybody who fought for the South was fighting for slavery. I would guess a very sizable pct. of Southern fighting men were fighting for other causes. Very few average Southern soldiers had slaves.
 But even a number of the generals who owned slaves, like Robert E. Lee, favored emancipation. Patrick Cleburne was another Confederate general who favored freeing the slaves and enlisting them to fight for independence.
After reading quite a few books about the war I've come the conclusion that many Southerners simply were fighting because they felt they were a separate people from the North, and they didn't like Northern soldiers entering what they felt was their country and trying to enforce the rules of a separate country.
 I doubt many of the average soldiers were arguing for states rights, tariffs, slavery, or other causes. I think it was an "us vs. them" kind of struggle for most of them. When most of your family, friends, and neighbors are fighting for the same side, I think the tendency is to agree and fight with and for the people you know and love. Which is basically the reason Lee rejected the offer to command the Northern army. He couldn't bring himself to fight against the people whom he loved and were closest to him.

[HoustonSam]

Post #78:

In enumerating the pluses of Texas, it is said Texans fought for their freedom. At the same time, I don't think there is a problem in mentioning that was not freedom for all.

While I don't agree with you fully, I concede that you are drawing a legitimate distinction between the causes of the Texas war for independence from Mexico and the hypothetical right to secession.  However I respectfully suggest that the discussion of slavery is a thread hi-jack.

[austingirl]

The South should have been allowed to secede. The intent of the Founders was not to force union by arms. We were founded as a Union of Sovereign States- with a limited and weak federal government. The Founders never intended to have a national government. The extra-Constitutional federal government is the cause of al the ills we face today.

[HoustonSam]

There are two subjects of contention as to the cause of the Civil War and  the reasons for fighting. The immediate cause of the war was undoubtedly slavery. Period. Tariffs were not the issue. Examination of the Ordinances of Secession and other documents and statements from the seceding states make it pretty clear that slavery was the overriding cause of secession.

It was not necessary for secession to mean war.  Perpetuating slavery was without question the reason that the seven states of the deep South seceded.  The cause of the war was that the Lincoln Administration would not tolerate secession.  Also please recall that the four states of the upper south seceded in response to Lincoln's call to raise an army against the original seven Confederate states.

[thackney]

...I respectfully suggest that the discussion of slavery is a thread hi-jack.

+1

[austingirl]

Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.

[MACVSOG68]

The South should have been allowed to secede. The intent of the Founders was not to force union by arms. We were founded as a Union of Sovereign States- with a limited and weak federal government. The Founders never intended to have a national government. The extra-Constitutional federal government is the cause of al the ills we face today.

I agree to the point that the Founders who established the Articles of Confederation created a more limited federal government.  Still even then the Articles created a perpetual union that could not be severed or altered except by the Congress and confirmed by every state.  The Constitution later was written, not by the states but by We the People, and was established to form a more perfect union.  So if the Articles created a perpetual union unalterable by any state, and the Constitution created a more perfect union, those who now believe it can be altered by a state have a tough row to hoe.  Nevertheless, Article V does provide a path for an amendment to the Constitution which if ratified, could permit that change.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.

Disagree, thread is about secession. Rightly or wrongly, this was a part of the last secession.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes indeed. Discussing slavery, which has long since been stopped, is hijacking this thread about secession.

After rereading some of the posts, I believe that those arguing against the ability of a state to secede may simply be jealous.

Whether jealousy or just plain fear, those are powerful motivations to interfere with liberty, aren't they?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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

What is?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

After rereading some of the posts, I believe that those arguing against the ability of a state to secede may simply be jealous.

Whether jealousy or just plain fear, those are powerful motivations to interfere with liberty, aren't they?

Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.

Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.

[HoustonSam]

Disagree, thread is about secession. Rightly or wrongly, this was a part of the last secession.

But it is not part of the secession proposed here.

[austingirl]

Ability of states to secede is decided by USSC then by force. Your opinion is meaningless in the whole argument.

Why jealousy, exactly? My opinion of the whole debate is that it's nothing but the meaningless prattle of keyboard warriors. There's no serious push for Texas to secede. The TX GOP may throw a bone to fringe elements within it, but that's all it is. Just a bone, nothing more.

Are you a Texan? What makes you an expert the seriousness of the Texas Nationalist Movement? There is a very serious effort for Texas to secede.