Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Talk of Texas Secesssion (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
It's certainly a logically consistent position, but I disagree. Forcing a population to be part of a union against its will is fundamentally at odds with America's founding charter.
But we take away life and liberty quite routinely.
We also do not treat those rights as being inalienable in "all men".
Once you start down the slope of making exceptions, it becomes very slippery - to the point that they are not inalienable.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
We’re not forcing anyone. If somebody dislikes being an American they can leave the country and renounce their citizenship. But they can’t take any land with them. ETA- which goes to Lincoln’s first argument. Land can’t move.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Yeah. These arguments shouldn’t go on Abe’s greatest hits album, IMO.Maurile Tremblay said:
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
Not trying to be inflammatory, but does it give you pause that this is in essence the Chinese position? Anything that's ever been a part of China must forever be a part of China. Do you support their position with respect to Hong Kong and Taiwan, or is there something about that situation which makes it different?
MTskibum
Footballguy
That is not the same imo, those would be similar to Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. I would be fine with those seceding or becoming a state, at which point they would no longer be able to secede.
Aren't you yourself suggesting that it's OK to take away a person's right to self-determination regarding form of governance?
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes they’re completely different and it would take a long time to discuss all the history. But basically neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan were ever a part of the People’s Republic of China or chose to be.
timschochet
Footballguy
Governance of others? Yes.
Governance of self? If you want to go into the woods by yourself and live under a dictatorship in which you are the only citizen, have at it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Great, change it to "group of people". Hell, change it to "literally every single person in the state of, say, New Hampshire". Now what?
timschochet
Footballguy
So you are, in fact, saying that there is no right for a group of people to self-determine their form of governance. As others have stated, that seems to go against the principles by which this country was founded.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
We have had some pretty bad presidents in the past 100 years but it took a guy like Donald Trump to bring it to the point of states leaving the union. Nice job, Prez!
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
This is just silly. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it matters that the people of Texas voluntarily consented to statehood nearly 200 years ago. There is nothing in the Constitution or in the application for statehood that purports to bind Texans in 2020 or later.
We could have put something like that in the Constitution. We could, alternatively, address the question with an Amendment now. But to cite liberty as a reason why the people can’t self-determine their form of government is ludicrous.
We could have put something like that in the Constitution. We could, alternatively, address the question with an Amendment now. But to cite liberty as a reason why the people can’t self-determine their form of government is ludicrous.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well first off there is a difference between secession and the right to choose a government. Two separate discussions. Second the Supreme Court has ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Third it’s not ludicrous at all. A democratic form of government can’t work if part of it can break off if the majority rules against it.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Rodrigo Duterte
Footballguy
Tim batting .480, with 12 of the last 25 posts.
ETA .500 (13 of 26).
ETA .500 (13 of 26).
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Like, all the people living there will die? Stop using these vague descriptors and tell me what you think would happen to the United States if some states seceded.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
There is a distinction, but not a difference.
Second, Chase’s reasoning in Texas v. Wright is atrocious. He somehow claims that the preamble to the constitution somehow incorporates language from the Articles of the Confederacy without any language of incorporation.
The third point is irrelevant. It might very well be catastrophic to the union if states were allowed to secede. So what? One could argue that itself is a strong check against federal tyranny.
Lincoln preserved the Union. The Confederacy was fighting fir the freedom to keep humans as chattel. Consequently, we never had to consider whether peaceful secession over some other reason (maybe a broad consensus in some states for a theocracy) should be legal.
timschochet
Footballguy
States that remained would start making threats- do things our way or we will leave too. Actually it needn’t be states, it could be cities or counties, the way that New York City threatened to leave during the early months of the Civil War. Over a short period of time Washington would become weaker and weaker and finally dissolve as each state was left to itself.
This was Lincoln’s theory. Would it happen? Ego knows? But I think it’s enough of a threat so as to make secession unpalatable.
timschochet
Footballguy
I’m not knowledgeable enough to argue Chase’s decision with you so I’ll just skip to the middle point, which isn’t too different from your last point: that secession might be a strong check against federal tyranny. It’s interesting to note that almost these exact words were used by Jefferson Davis in his defense of secession.
We already have checks against federal tyranny that do not involve secession: a strong constitution. An Independent judiciary. Competing branches of government with divided power. Perhaps most important: freedom of the press. The threat of secession does not add to these checks; in fact it takes away from them by essentially giving a minority veto power: Texas gets to say do things our way or we leave. That kind of threat can never be allowed IMO.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
It seems to me that a democracy where an appreciable minority controlling a large percentage of the country’s land mass just fundamentally disagrees with the values of the majority may also be unsustainable.
If 70% of a state decides they don’t believe in secularism and religious pluralism, and believe so strongly enough to vote to secede, what are we supposed to do? Roll in the military and force them to live under a government antithetical to their values?
The Union preserves to the extent that its citizens believe they are better off together. Dissolution is the natural fate of a government that fails to do that.
If 70% of a state decides they don’t believe in secularism and religious pluralism, and believe so strongly enough to vote to secede, what are we supposed to do? Roll in the military and force them to live under a government antithetical to their values?
The Union preserves to the extent that its citizens believe they are better off together. Dissolution is the natural fate of a government that fails to do that.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Let’s have a thought experiment. What if, instead of having the bloodiest conflict on our continent, we’d have just agreed that the Confederate States had ideas that were incompatible with the United States.
So we split into an emerging industrial nation and a nation with essentially a feudal economy. And in doing so, we eliminated Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Maybe the burgeoning industrial nation establishes the franchise in their territories for former slaves. Maybe it independently implements a 14th Amendment. Maybe they decide that the compromises embodied in the original constitution can be jettisoned.
Are we really sure that the nation we have now is stronger, or “better” than the nation that might have resulted from that? Preserving the Union has meant that the “original sin” of slavery still plays an outsized role in the politics of this country over 159 years later.
Jefferson Davis and Lincoln could both be mistaken or Lincoln could have faced political realities that made his response inevitable. But there’s no reason to just automatically assume that he was right as a moral or legal matter.
So we split into an emerging industrial nation and a nation with essentially a feudal economy. And in doing so, we eliminated Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Maybe the burgeoning industrial nation establishes the franchise in their territories for former slaves. Maybe it independently implements a 14th Amendment. Maybe they decide that the compromises embodied in the original constitution can be jettisoned.
Are we really sure that the nation we have now is stronger, or “better” than the nation that might have resulted from that? Preserving the Union has meant that the “original sin” of slavery still plays an outsized role in the politics of this country over 159 years later.
Jefferson Davis and Lincoln could both be mistaken or Lincoln could have faced political realities that made his response inevitable. But there’s no reason to just automatically assume that he was right as a moral or legal matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s an interesting question and many books have been written about it.
But I take strong issue with your last sentence because I haven’t automatically assumed anything. My arguments against secession are based on reasoning which I’ve tried to explain in some detail. You’re free to reject those arguments but it’s false to imply that I made them based on some kind of automatic assumption without any real consideration.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Your reasoning isn’t based on reason. That’s the point. You’re just assuming a conclusion and calling it logic.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
AOC has no power over Joe Biden. She is not a kingmaker, she does not control donors, all she has is social media pot-stirrers.
That said, Biden should seek a well-qualified, diverse cabinet (in viewpoints, life experience, and backgrounds), and full of professionals in dedication to serving this country.
randall146
Footballguy
I didn't mean number 3 necessarily wins the day. I meant it is the only one of the five that even presents an argument . The rest are platitudes or tautologies.Maurile Tremblay said:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Then she should quit running her mouth, we have had enough division and don`t need in party bickering already about his choices.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
But that's what Democrats do. They bicker and disagree publicly and are rarely in lock step across the ranks. That's part of being a "big tent" political party and I prefer this to being in thrall to one man like the GOP.
Spanky267
Footballguy
Texas wont secede in the end. This is political posturing. Yes, Texas is proud of its heritage and the fact that it was once its own country. But I highly doubt we will secede.
Although I think if a state were to secede Texas would be the best positioned of the 50 states to do so. More so than California.
We have a rather large manufacturing base. We also have a pretty large agricultural base. The state is rich in natural resources. Population density is low outside of the four major metropolitan areas. Infrastructure is relatively good.
If there was an amicable separation between the other 49 states and Texas. Both countries would be natural trading partners and Texas could negotiate its own trade agreements with Mexico, another natural trading partner. Texas could lease land to the US for its current military installations, namely Ft. Bliss and Ft. Hood. Or the US could withdraw its forces entirely from the state while losing two of the largest training areas for combined arms in North America.
But as others have stated as the major cities have grown in Texas the state is not as solid red as it used to be. That would make seccession a hotly contested issue. I think if the state took a more Libertarian bent, politically and in its governance there could be broader support for secession. But if the Texas GOP is leading the charge thats really unlikely as neither major party here in Texas or nationally adhere to a live and let live philosophy in terms of governance.
But ultimately its sound and fury that signifies nothing. Most Texans just want to be left to their own devices.
Although I think if a state were to secede Texas would be the best positioned of the 50 states to do so. More so than California.
We have a rather large manufacturing base. We also have a pretty large agricultural base. The state is rich in natural resources. Population density is low outside of the four major metropolitan areas. Infrastructure is relatively good.
If there was an amicable separation between the other 49 states and Texas. Both countries would be natural trading partners and Texas could negotiate its own trade agreements with Mexico, another natural trading partner. Texas could lease land to the US for its current military installations, namely Ft. Bliss and Ft. Hood. Or the US could withdraw its forces entirely from the state while losing two of the largest training areas for combined arms in North America.
But as others have stated as the major cities have grown in Texas the state is not as solid red as it used to be. That would make seccession a hotly contested issue. I think if the state took a more Libertarian bent, politically and in its governance there could be broader support for secession. But if the Texas GOP is leading the charge thats really unlikely as neither major party here in Texas or nationally adhere to a live and let live philosophy in terms of governance.
But ultimately its sound and fury that signifies nothing. Most Texans just want to be left to their own devices.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
In America, you can't actually go off to live in the woods by yourself. That's part of the problem. The chain that binds isn't the Constitution, it's property taxes. Except for a very few unincorporated locations in Alaska ( where it's close to impossible to live, the water quality is bad, there is close to no infrastructure and the cost of good and services are extremely punitive because of the location), you can't actually truly own land in America.
In order to secede, first you need the logistics of being near a major body of water, a large enough population and a close to pure political ideology among most people there.
How would it happen functionally? Both California and Texas would need to secede at the same time. This balances out the votes in the electoral college, not quite perfect, but close enough. CA typically votes Blue, TX typically votes Red.
Here's the sticky part, I'm not advocating it, I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's a clean path, I am saying it's the only way it would work. Both Texas and California would need to take control of the nuclear arsenals in their respective states and declare themselves independent nuclear powers. Only then could negotiations be made on a level playing field. Military personnel who don't agree will be asked to leave the state. Part of the negotiation would be a lifting of capital gains so people could move out and move into Texas and California. Also a functional trade agreement ( i.e. Texas beef and oil for X and Y and Z) Then a wall would be progressively built around Texas and California. You would need a takeover of at least one full submarine group as well to provide a deterrent against America's carrier fleet from the coastlines. CA and Texas would agree to a profit sharing arrangement and a full trade agreement with the rest of the states. In order to maintain a civil defense, both would need to create mandatory conscription at age 17 and require 3 years of service. You'd need development of a large fleet of drones beforehand and proof of life of loyal cells embedded in the other major cities and states. All this has to be done without the loss of life. Not a single one.
You will never be independent from the United States, not a single state and not anywhere in the world unless you are a nuclear power. ( Which is why you see so many countries so desperate to become a nuclear power and the US so hard line on preventing many from becoming actual nuclear powers) Some of you guys are talking Constitutional Law when I'm talking about Game Theory, Mutually Assured Destruction and Machiavelli
Will it happen today? No. But the first time when some school counselor and some state rep decide after 3-4 forty five minute interviews that someone's 8 year old is really transgendered and wants to hop them up on some drug and when the parents are non compliant and federal jackboots storm their house to take their children from them, the aftermath of that first firefight, some tax paying father who has clean optics, is gunned down in his driveway and his child taken away screaming and the mother taken and put in jail, once that hits social media, it's all over. The line gets drawn with people's homes and their children. Once you invade a man's home, after making him slave to capitalism to buy it and pay taxes out the nose, and tell him how to raise his own children and take them from his home, he's going to die there. This is the hill people die on and that no bearing on partisan politics. It doesn't matter who vote for or your political beliefs, your biological imperative as a father rules over all. Many of you are parents, how many of you would fight to the death, to the last bullet, down to your very teeth, before some state sponsored Gestapo want to take your kids from you. You think it's going to end with letting boys in high school decide they are really girls and wander in the bathrooms that your daughters and nieces use? Do some of you think it's going to stop there?
It won't be Conservative vs Liberal. As I said before, if you talk to most conservatives in depth, most have some classically liberal positions. And many liberals have classically conservative viewpoints as well. I don't have a problem with liberals. It's a different mindset towards what appears to be a common set of problems. However I want nothing to do with woke cancel culture entitled self absorbed radical lefties who want to burn copies of To Kill A Mockingbird, change the language and soft push, inch by inch, their Marxist ideology bent on destabilizing the American family unit. It started in the schools and with public policy in the Family Court system. Once children are taken from homes under the guise of some bent public policy meant to appease some radical fringe group to keep their voting block, no one will care anymore how it happens.
People will live under the blanket of security that keeps their children fed, their children safe, their children placed into some hope of a future and opportunity and keeps the government at large outside of the family home and family unit. If that's the new Republic of Texas or the Empire Of California, so be it.
Similar threads
