Oh, OK. The article headline on the Fox front page is
Gov. Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union
but internally the headline is
Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't
and in the article it reports that he actually said
Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that."There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
Well, that's nice, but a) back in 1845, you joined the Union and gave up your right to be independent, and b) back in 1861-65, we fought a little internicine war that enforced the fact that you weren't allowed to secede.
And the problem is, the Loony Left will target the first part of what you said and completely ignore the second part -- except perhaps for the "who knows what might come out of that" bit.
Come on, people. We can fix these problems by hanging every Democrat in government and killing every liberal who protests kicking every incumbent out of Congress in 2010 and going back to a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution. I don't understand why we have to resort to secession when rope, trees, and bullets are so plentiful all we have to do is read the instruction manual the Founders so kindly provided for us.
UPDATE: All y'all who are for secession? Try reading Heinlein's Friday. Maybe you want to live in a North America like that. I don't.
MORE UPDATE: Comments to this post are closed.
Actually, a) was not giving up the right to be independent according to the Texas Constitution, furthermore was stated Texas is only help to the US Constitution, not a president or congress. The Annexation also does not say anything about not being able to secede it says Texas was voluntarily joining therefore can voluntarily "un-join"
b)Incidentally had nothing to do with seceding, only showed the president could, acting outside of his authority, wreak horrendous violence on the people of the country.
OK, but a) was a dead letter after 1865. Civil wars are messy, but ours enshrined the concept that secession wasn't allowed, regardless of what previous agreements or understandings had stated or implied. As far as b) was concerned, it was either a legal move for independence as the Southern states maintained, or it was (as the North maintained) an illegal insurrection to be put down with the amount of violence necessary. The North won, so it was a failed insurrection. To some extent that makes me sad, because the federal government has been chipping away at the concept of states' rights ever since. But at the same time, I prefer us as one country instead of two.
I do however wholeheartedly agree with the part about
hanging every Democrat in government and killing every liberal who protestskicking every incumbent out of Congress in 2010 andrope, trees, and bullets are so plentifulall we have to do is read the instruction manual the Founders so kindly provided for usYes, it would be so much cleaner than another civil war.
In addition, one of the conditions to rejoining the Republic after the Civil War was to never try such foolish acts again. texas and the other Rebellious States agreed to this condition.
Since they do not teach it in school, most Northerners believed the war was to save the Union. Few States outside of New England would have heeded Lincioln's call for volunteers if they thought the end result was the abolition of slavery.
Any talk of succession today is just hot air, it is not yet the time. We are four months in. The 2010 elections will show the true feelings of the American people.
We don't need to kick every incumbent out. We need to kick out every incumbent who votes for the stimulus bill or the $3.6 billion budget.
No, sorry. It's all or nothing.
My personal attitude for quite some time has been that every sitting congresscritter needs to be hanged. Then we hold an election, and we hang that batch as well. Then we hold ANOTHER election, and maybe that lot will actually understand that they work for us, and not the other way 'round.
FWIW, both Bobbi and myself have decided we're moving to the first state that secedes. We just hope it isn't Alaska, 'cause it's frickin' cold there.
The rest of us will be sorry to lose you...
Oh, I get it. It would be ILLEGAL to secede right?
You are saying it would be against the LAWS of the Federal Government 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.
Claiming something can't happen because there is a law against is at best silly, and at worst delusional. Laws don't dictate behavior.
Do you believe speeding doesn't happen? How about theft? Tresspass?
How about the voiding of contracts?
I think Hoosierboy already explained why it would be not just illegal, but also immoral to secede.
Sorta just-for-fun: Who's gonna stop Texas from seceding? Most southern states and quite possibly western states would be sympathizers, for one thing, I believe. So then you have the makeup of the US Armed forces: The majority of the membership are from southern and western states. Far more likely to say, "Screw it," and go home.
:-), 'Rat
And that is a perfect example of the same sort of irresponsible hot air being blown by the Governor of Texas.
"Sorta just-for-fun: Who's gonna stop Texas from seceding? Most southern states and quite possibly western states would be sympathizers, for one thing"
Yes, that is exactly what the the Southern States and Texas and some Western states thought in 1861. 144 years ago some 600,000 lives were spent proving this is a club you cannot escape.
Maybe in the future, but the time is not now to dissolve the Union. I would not be so sure the military will be so quick to ignore the Constitution.
"And that is a perfect example of the same sort of irresponsible hot air being blown by the Governor of Texas."
That don't mean it ain't true.
Few people know that Texas, though it can't lawfully secede, CAN subdivide into 5 states.
Life follows art: Read "A State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman (Baen Books).
Surprisingly up to date...
"The rest of us will be sorry to lose you..."
Thought exercise: Purely hypothetically, say that in some bizarre Harry Turtledove-esque parallel universe, the US goes totally Marxist; total Revolution of the Proletariat nonsense. Indiana votes to secede.
Are you still a Hoosier, or do you move to Illinois? Which do you do and why?
Funny, I'd always imagined more of a "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" type event :)
Better the North America shown in "Friday" than the one implied in "1984"...
"I think Hoosierboy already explained why it would be not just illegal, but also immoral to secede."
You aren't paying attention very well today, and I suspect Hoosierboy didn't pay much attention either.
That it is against USA Federal Law has zero bearing on the matter. States don't secede because they are happy and they know it.
States secede from the group because the rule of law the group is subjecting them to is intolerable.
This is not rocket surgery. If the law is bad, breaking it is not immoral. It is illegal by definition, but that is a moot issue at that point in history.
Furthermore, talk of "the true feelings of the American people" is disjointed logic. The feelings of the majority do not hold water to the oppressed minority. That is a basic feature of liberty. Lots of people seem to forget this, and yet continue to preach on about history. Amazing.
Hey, who knows, maybe the socialists will agree with the capitalists.
Y'all do know that we never had a "civil war", right? There was no fight over control of the US government. What we had was a crushed bid for independence.
You might recall - the results of the Civil War were overturned.
When USSR broke up into the current crop of separate states - the US leaned on Russia to let the secessions proceed. We threatened with armies and navies and such.
So the American Civil War as precedent isn't a very strong argument.
Especially not when Congress and the President keep triggering the spirit of "When in the course of human events.."
Since Obama (with the international FSB assuming control of moderate to large companies and all banks) seems intent on subsuming the US to a world government - the question of whether the Constitution continues to bind the states becomes quite important.
If Texas secedes, please come and liberate California - you can have Pam Anderson and Hollywood as long as you nuke Berkeley and SF.
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.
Illegal, immoral, irresponsible, call it what you will.
As I recall, it is those same Founding Fathers who made the extraordinarily illegal (as in, punishable-by-death-illegal) move of secession, and I'm pretty sure it happened before they wrote the Great Instruction Manual. So what we have is a Secession Success Rate of 1-1.
As a Texan, I like to think of those as pretty good odds.
So, what is it that makes you toss out secession so bloody quickly when, in the same breath, you vote to voluntarily hang every sitting member of Congress and the entire first generation of their successors? But secession would be immoral...
I think Larry Correia nailed it:
"...what good would mere guns do against a modern army with tanks and bombers. I don’t know, let’s ask Al Queda and see what those nutjobs have been doing for the last few years. You think Iraq’s tough, invade Texas.
They don't like Texan secession? Let 'em come. They may have tanks and bombers (like we don't), but we'll have Tam, and who'd wanna f&*@ with Tam?
tweaker
(texan, BTW)
You all fail to move me, and it seems like I'm thinking farther ahead than anyone who would approve of walking away from the Union.
Secession is for losers. Why don't we fix what we have instead of Balkanizing ourselves? Or do you actually think that once we fragment, China and Russia won't see a fabulous opportunity for themselves?
The United States is far greater than the sum of its parts.
You all fail to move me, and it seems like I'm thinking farther ahead than anyone who would approve of walking away from the Union.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Horse Status: Dead.
tweaker
Nah. There's plenty of life left in the beast. Think I'll take a few more whacks at it. Besides, only losers invoke the dead horse rule.