Apparently, Texas IS A Whole Other Country

from JoeUser Forums


So, I am reading my usual daily dose of Politico, and I come across a blog article by Glenn Thrush talking about how Ron Paul is backing up the Texas governor in saying that succeeding from the USA is an American thing to do. He talks about how the original 13 colonies succeeded from England and all that jazz. Here is the Paul's direct quote: "it is very American to talk about secession. That's how we came in being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country. So secession is a very much American principle.

While I am not going to go down the road of it being treasonous to talk about succeeding from the Union, I really think this is just political posturing. In the infamous words of George W. Bush, "That is the last time I will be out Texaned." In Texas there has always been a healthy independent spirit, and I don't think either the governor or Mr. Paul have anything to lose by bringing this topic up. Quite simply it scores serious points with the base of the party and everyone else just kind scratches their head and moves on.

What I am truly interested in is the results of Texas succeeding from the Union. It sounds cool and all, but has anyone thought through the actual ramifications of this? From the US side, you would lose a major chuck of your economy, and given that Texas is a donor state, giving more to the federal government then was returned, the US would also take a fiscal hit there. It is often stated that Austin, which is the capital of Texas, is a blue patch in a sea of red, would they just go along? Could the new Republic of Texas face an immediate internal threat from Austin?

From the Texas perspective, you have to think about what would be lost. First and foremost, all military protection would cease. All assets would be pulled out, so there goes Fort Hood, Fort Bliss and the 8 Air Force bases in TX. Several areas of TX would be economically devastated by the closing of these bases. Of course with little homegrown military and scant technology, Texas would make a big, fat, juicy target for Mexico. I imagine it would take them all of a few months to mount a serious attack. Other things that would be lost if Texas succeeded include: all NASA facilities, major funding for the public universities, ANY border protection, transportation funding, social security, medicare and any other government program support. My guess is that to get some semblance of military up and running, even for just basic defense, there would immediately have to be compulsory military service and about 50-60% tax rates. Sounds worth leaving the USA to me.

So, all stupid political rhetoric aside, good luck with that. I won't plan on seeing an independent Texas ANYTIME in my life.

texas ron paul succession politics
26,937 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top

From the Texas perspective, you have to think about what would be lost. First and foremost, all military protection would cease. All assets would be pulled out, so there goes Fort Hood, Fort Bliss and the 8 Air Force bases in TX. Several areas of TX would be economically devastated by the closing of these bases. Of course with little homegrown military and scant technology, Texas would make a big, fat, juicy target for Mexico. I imagine it would take them all of a few months to mount a serious attack. Other things that would be lost if Texas succeeded include: all NASA facilities, major funding for the public universities, ANY border protection, transportation funding, social security, medicare and any other government program support. My guess is that to get some semblance of military up and running, even for just basic defense, there would immediately have to be compulsory military service and about 50-60% tax rates. Sounds worth leaving the USA to me.
End of quote

This also assumes that the rest of the US would sit idly by while a state secedes which is unlikely, remember what happened the last time states attempted to secede?  The difference between then and now is that we have a well funded (more so than the militias in Texas anyway) US military.  Do you think any of the Texas militias could actually stand up to the US military?  I doubt it.  So even if Texas did secede it wouldn't last long.

I did read an article that claimed that Texas could split into 5 state which would send an additional 8 Senators to the US Senate, that certainly seems like a much more plausible solution for Texas, but still highly unlikely.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

The difference between then and now is that we have a well funded (more so than the militias in Texas anyway) US military. Do you think any of the Texas militias could actually stand up to the US military? I doubt it.
End of quote

Think again, look how people were crying over the death of terrorists and imagin it happening right here in America. One kid gets caught in the crossfire and the president will be impeached for genocide.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top

Think again, look how people were crying over the death of terrorists and imagin it happening right here in America. One kid gets caught in the crossfire and the president will be impeached for genocide.
End of quote

Not when it was done quelling a rebellion.  Plus I would imagine that the president would give standing orders to not fire until fired upon so then it would be the militias fault and not the presidents.

Also I highly doubt there would be any exchange of fire at all.  When you see a bunch of tanks, air support, plus all the ground forces at the disposal of our military I have a feeling the militias would lay down their arms and surrender, even with our military stretched as thin as it is today.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you think any of the Texas militias could actually stand up to the US military? I doubt it.
End of quote

I'm not sure, before long the US military is going to be so fearful shooting a foreign enemy (lawsuits, UN witch hunts,etc.) let alone fellow Americans. Hell nobody's shooting illegals invading our borders.;)

This rhetoric is just political posturing like TW suggested, nothing more. Texans have always, as a matter of pride, had an independent streak as well as a sense of self responsibility. The "yes we can's" will holler "no you won't" but that is just making noise for their side too. So big deal. Texans know what the deal is.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Also I highly doubt there would be any exchange of fire at all. When you see a bunch of tanks, air support, plus all the ground forces at the disposal of our military I have a feeling the militias would lay down their arms and surrender, even with our military stretched as thin as it is today.
End of quote

Are you saying that the national guard is that weak?

Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top

Are you saying that the national guard is that weak?
End of quote

Not at all, and I'm not calling the Texas Militias weak either merely outmatched.  Like if you were trying to play football and one team only had one player.  He may be the strongest player on the field but he is no match for 11 other guys. 

Plus the national guard is part of the US Military not the Texan militias.  Some might defect, as some in the rest of the US military would as well, to the Texan side if a conflict erupted but if they took US military property then once they are captured (and they would be captured) they would be tried and put to death for treason and if they didn't take US military equipment they would still be charged for going AWOL.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

 and given that Texas is a donor state, giving more to the federal government then was returned, the US would also take a fiscal hit there
End of quote

"donar state" sure sounds a lot nicer to other states than saying its actually produces something.

And its the US parasites that would take a hit, not the US as a whole, that or the middle class because parasitism would not be eliminated.

From the Texas perspective, you have to think about what would be lost. First and foremost, all military protection would cease. All assets would be pulled out
End of quote

Uh, NO, they STAY. Thats kinda the point, a major part of the US military is based in texas.

 

Texa is both an economic producer and a military power house, it is just a better state than the others, a cut beyond. Just like germany and england are miles beyond some of the lesser members of the EU. There is strength in unity, but there is also weakness in it, and right now the weakness is the horrible socialist in congress thretening to destroy us.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Plus the national guard is part of the US Military not the Texan militias.
End of quote

Last I checked the National Guard was under the control of the Governor. Remember how some liberal Governors threatened to keep thier people home and not send them to Iraq? Texas Air National Guard has the same planes as the Air Force, the Texas National Guard has the same tanks and weapons as the Army. The Governor has the right to control them and the President has to get their permission to use them. They are the front line of the state militia.

If Texas became a nation and nationalized the oil fields the rest of the nation would be in a hurt locker. Keep in mind that most of the national oil reserves are stored in Texas so the 60 day national supply would not last 60 days. Did you like spending 5 dollars a gallon? Trust me that will become a fond faded memory.

Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top

Last I checked the National Guard was under the control of the Governor.
End of quote

But who pays for the National Guard?  Do the states or does the federal government?  If it's the states then fine the national guard in Texas becomes the front lines of the texas militia.  I still doubt they would stand much of a chance against the entire US military and the other 49 states National Guard units.  Again even if they are the strongest military units they are severly outnumbered and they would have to concern themselves with possible invasions from Mexico as well as defending against the US military.  Fighting a war on two fronts when your outnumbered is a losing strategy.

If Texas became a nation and nationalized the oil fields the rest of the nation would be in a hurt locker. Keep in mind that most of the national oil reserves are stored in Texas so the 60 day national supply would not last 60 days. Did you like spending 5 dollars a gallon? Trust me that will become a fond faded memory.
End of quote

Of course there would be massive impacts to the other 49 states, I don't deny that, I just don't think a Texan secession would last very long so the impact would be minimal.

Now if more states joined Texas then the entire story would change.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again even if they are the strongest military units they are severly outnumbered and they would have to concern themselves with possible invasions from Mexico as well as defending against the US military.
End of quote

Yes... because if texas seceeds than the other 49 states will all unilaterally band togather against it AND mexico will as well! NOT.

Many states would not want to fight texas at all, some will seceed with it, and mexico will stay safely away, because if it invades the warring us states are liable to pronounce a truce and gang up on it.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

I never had any problem with the concept of one state (or province) separating from the rest of the country. I support Quebec's separation, and if Texas feels like it, then who is in their right to tell them what to do with their territory?

However, I have no idea how "american" separation is. Last time it happened, it ended badly.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

there was a lot more involved in the first civil war. well, first american civil war...

the biritish-american civil war (aka, the independance war) ended quite well for everyone involved.

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top

Yes... because if texas seceeds than the other 49 states will all unilaterally band togather against it AND mexico will as well! NOT.
End of quote

Sure some of the states won't want to commit their national guard troops to the battle but the US Military forces don't need to approval of the states to go in, just an order from the president.  That alone would be an overwhelming force for Texas to handle.  Mexico may take the opportunity to take Texas back from the US or the drug cartels may move in and wreak havoc in Texas since the US federal government will no longer be patroling the Texan border.

Many states would not want to fight texas at all, some will seceed with it, and mexico will stay safely away, because if it invades the warring us states are liable to pronounce a truce and gang up on it.
End of quote

And if more states join Texas I said that the entire scenario would change dramatically.  The more states that join the harder the fight will be but I still maintain that the US Military will be stronger than any force the seceding states could muster, unless a strong majority of the country joins Texas, but I just don't see that happening.

if Texas feels like it, then who is in their right to tell them what to do with their territory?
End of quote

The President of the US and congress may not agree with this, especially since there is a fair amount of Federal land (ie military bases, etc) in Texas so it isn't wholly it's own territory.

Last time it happened, it ended badly
End of quote

And my assertion is that if it was just Texas the US military would be able to end the conflict with little bloodshed.  If more states joined in then it would end badly again and I'm not sure who would come out on top.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

From the Texas perspective, you have to think about what would be lost. First and foremost, all military protection would cease....Of course with little homegrown military and scant technology, Texas would make a big, fat, juicy target for Mexico.
End of quote

They could spend the money that would've gone to the government on defence. There, problem solved.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Aerotar,

   I think you are making things a little simplistic there. Are you proposing that Texas as an independant country have no education system, no road maintenence? How many retireees in Texas would vote for succession if they knew they would immediatly lose their social security? Even if they could shift all that revenue over to defense, they have to be able to buy the weapons from someone, and the largest arms dealer in the world is the good old USA, probably not going to be a willing supplier. Then there is sheer manpower, which they would face a severe disadvantage in. Sure some people would go to Texas because they want to be part of something cool and different, but just as many would get the hell out. The only hope they have, as someone stated before is if some other states come with them. The problem with that is simple, water. States contiguous to Texas, such as Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada are already desperate for water. The only reason these palces exsist is because of vast public works that supply the water they need from far far away. The USA could just shut down the flow of water from the Colorado river and they would have a crisis. I think its funny how people in places like Texas like to think of themselves as very independant folk, and they often deride people who "live of the government teet," but they often fail to realize that they are doing the same way, just not through welfare, but through military bases, government subsidized water and public universities. It sounds so much better and professional to work for Lockeed or Boeing then to say you are a career public servant for the IRS, but they are effectivly the same thing, both uspported with government dollars.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Sure some of the states won't want to commit their national guard troops to the battle but the US Military forces don't need to approval of the states to go in, just an order from the president.
End of quote

Not exactly, if the Texans become a nation then the Congress is the only branch that can declare war on another nation. If the United States does not recognize Texas as a nation then the Military can not enter Texas without the Governors permission. Whoever gave the order for the military to enter Texas without permission of the Governor would be in violation of the constitution and would be subject to arrest and or impeachment. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents US military from acting within the United States for any form of law enforcement without the Governor’s written permission. The law generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or a new law written by the Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act. So the President can not just order them in, the only branch of the military that is under the express control of the President of the United States is the U.S. Marine Corps, the rest need the persmission of the Congress.

But who pays for the National Guard? Do the states or does the federal government?
End of quote

If I remember correctly the States provide the pay but the Feds provide some of the funding and equipment.

The President of the US and congress may not agree with this, especially since there is a fair amount of Federal land (ie military bases, etc) in Texas so it isn't wholly it's own territory.
End of quote

The Federal land would fall into two groups, sovereign U.S. property like an embassy, or compensation could be given the United States buying back the land.

Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top

Not exactly, if the Texans become a nation then the Congress is the only branch that can declare war on another nation. If the United States does not recognize Texas as a nation then the Military can not enter Texas without the Governors permission. Whoever gave the order for the military to enter Texas without permission of the Governor would be in violation of the constitution and would be subject to arrest and or impeachment. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents US military from acting within the United States for any form of law enforcement without the Governor’s written permission. The law generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or a new law written by the Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act. So the President can not just order them in, the only branch of the military that is under the express control of the President of the United States is the U.S. Marine Corps, the rest need the persmission of the Congress
End of quote

The President doesn't need a declaration of war to order the troops to do anything.  Bush didn't need congress to declare war on Iraq, he asked them as a courtesy and he said as much before we started the war in Iraq.  The President is the Commander in Cheif and doesn't need congress to order the troops to do anything.  Now congress funds the military so they could withdraw funding essentially stopping the action but as we have seen with Iraq that is unlikely because they would be seen as "not supporting the troops".

As for the Military not being able to enter a state without permission, there is a little thing called Martial Law.  No politician ever wants to use it because it is political suicide but if Texas were to secede from the union it would be the likely option to avoid the whole declaration of war thing and congress wouldn't have to recognize Texas as a separate country.

The Federal land would fall into two groups, sovereign U.S. property like an embassy, or compensation could be given the United States buying back the land.
End of quote

How would Texas pay for the land?  Their money is currently in US Dollars.  If the US wanted they could deny Texas the right to use US dollars for anything.  Texas would be basically broke overnight.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

The President doesn't need a declaration of war to order the troops to do anything.
End of quote

You might want to take a look at the war powers act that the Congress wrote prohibitng the president from starting another Vietnam war.  The President has 180 days to inform the Congress of military actions taken. If he failes to provide notification the Congress can recall the troops. The Marines are the only branch that the President can order into combat without the permission of Congress but the President still has the 180 day time limit. Without a delecration of war by the Congress the President only has six months to fight and win or he has to withdraw. Once the Congress declares war the President is the only one that can end the war.

As for the Military not being able to enter a state without permission, there is a little thing called Martial Law.
End of quote

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents US military from acting within the United States for any form of law enforcement except civil unrest. If there is political discord they can't declare martial law without the Congress. THere are other political problems with this. We are protecting the nation of China from being taken over by the Republic of China. Any action against Texas would be a green light for the PRC to attack Taiwan, not looking good for USA.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

el-duderino

you make one major assumption, you assume that the "government" is a magical entity and not a collection of people. If the president declares "war" on texas tommorow and orders all federal troops to attack it, many will refuse, others will "defect" to texas,some will attemp to arrest the preisdent, units will be split apart as each individual SOLDIER, people who fight to protect their country, will each go to whichever "side" they feel is right. To imagine that a single unified "federal army", (many of which are texan or have relatives in texas or will violently oppose civil war) will attack texas is absurd.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Texas would have few problems as an independent country. They can import weapons just like anyone else, and they already have enough patriotic volunteers with gun skill who may be willing to stay in Texas instead of moving to the new 49-state USA.

Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top

you make one major assumption, you assume that the "government" is a magical entity and not a collection of people. If the president declares "war" on texas tommorow and orders all federal troops to attack it, many will refuse, others will "defect" to texas,some will attemp to arrest the preisdent, units will be split apart as each individual SOLDIER, people who fight to protect their country, will each go to whichever "side" they feel is right. To imagine that a single unified "federal army", (many of which are texan or have relatives in texas or will violently oppose civil war) will attack texas is absurd.
End of quote

I don't deny that some would defect to Texas or outright object to fighting.  But we are dealing with a hypothetical situation here so of course I'm making some assumptions about the outcome of a Texas secession.  I don't think the government is some magical entity but I also don't treat Texas as a magical entity either.

Sure some people would support Texas in their secession, but there would also be a very vocal group of people who would adamently oppose the secession claiming that Texas is betraying their country.  I'm not saying there wouldn't be any problems I'm merely stating that I don't think Texas, assuming it secedes alone, would stand a chance of lasting more than a month or two as its own country.  If nothing else all the US would have to do is cut Texas off from vital resources like food, water, etc.  All roads going into and out of Texas would be quickly shut down.  I just don't think Texas would last very long on its own even if it had some US supporters.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

you are making things a little simplistic there. Are you proposing that Texas as an independant country have no education system, no road maintenence?
End of quote

Yes I'm making them a bit simplistic, but the underlying point remains the same. If Texas contributes more to the government than it gets back, then if it 'went it alone' it could stop giving any money to the (central) government, use it locally to achieve the same things, and then use the net saving to spend even more on defence if desired. As for buying arms, if the US didn't sell them arms I'm sure they'd find plenty of other sellers lining up to supply their needs.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think some underestimate the loyalty of Texans. 

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Texas in seceding would lose social security. This would amount to bailing out our shortfall. Thanks Texas.