Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Texas Governor and Secession.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Impossible to imagine. Before the second Civil War, there were already slaughters by abolitionists and against abolitionists. The North and South were almost different countries already.

Also, secession wouldn't make as much sense for a bloc of states to do now, because there are very conservative states scattered everywhere, opposed to one group of conservative Democrats located in Dixie.

ANyway, Texas is the only state that could even dream of secession being somewhat successful. They've got a vast amount of land, natural resources and would border the U.S and Mexico.

I'll read that article, sNerd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think this is nothing more than a method being used by the States to poke the Fed with a sharp stick to get it to ameliorate their position or at least to drive the more overtly statist inferences underground... for a while at least.

Incrimentalism will kill our freedoms faster than full on tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is obviously just a political tactic by the governor. However, I do know that Texas has a unique set of rules that came with joining the Union. I don't know if this is true or not, but I did hear that one of the conditions of Texas becoming a state was that they technically have the right to secede if they so choose. I have no idea if it's true or not...it's more likely that it's just an Internet rumor...

There is another interesting technicality that I heard on the Neal Boortz show though. Apparently one of the conditions of statehood was that Texas, if they choose to do so, can elect to divide itself into five separate states. The federal government has no say either. I have no idea if it's true, but if it is, just think of the political swing: eight more conservative senators... :)

Does anyone know if Texas actually has that power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they have the right to secede as much as they have the right to break into like 5 different states or something like that. I don't recall exactly. It's been a long time since my Texas History class. Texas is like a whole other country, though. The tourism motto is correct. I know the Texas flag is the only flag in the Union that can be flown at the same height as the US flag since it was once a Republic. (Bit o trivia fer ya.) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joint Resolution Giving the consent of the existing Government to the Annexation of Texas to the United States.

Third, new States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the Federal (constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. And whereas, by said terms, the consent of the existing Government of Texas is required

Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1845

Third- New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.

On the face of it, it sounds like both Texas and the Feds have to agree if new states are to formed out of Texas.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole idea stems from the fact that for a time Texas was its own country before joining the Union. I do not know what privileges this grants although I have heard they are the only state who can fly a state flag at equal level with the American flag.

Does that give them the right to secede? probably not but I suppose they are closer to that right than any other state is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Read the first paragraph to the Declaration of Independence and then tell me whether Texas, or any entity that's part of a larger entity, doesn't have the right to secede if the government is oppressive and trampling on peoples' liberties.

The founders of the Constitution believed completely in the sovereignty of the many states, and if you read the Constitution (nobody ever seems to want to go through the trouble of reading the damned thing), you'll find that says NOTHING regarding secession either way.

The fact is that, lawyering aside, not only does Texas have the right to secede, but ANY state has the right to secede, such rights stemming from the fact that rights naturally belong to individual people and are not endowed by the all-powerful federal government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that, lawyering aside, not only does Texas have the right to secede, but ANY state has the right to secede, such rights stemming from the fact that rights naturally belong to individual people and are not endowed by the all-powerful federal government.
Assuming the antecedent clause of your logic, then the state of Texas (or any other state) clearly has no right to secede.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to explain exactly what you mean so that I can tell you how you're wrong? :thumbsup:

He means the obvious (which he did point out:) ): individual rights refer to individuals. It is not logical to deduce a right of Texas to secede, from the statement: "only individuals have rights". If only individuals have rights, then Texas has no rights, since it is not an individual.

It was a clever rebuttal of your faulty logic. You should not try to assign Texas rights, based on the Declaration of Independence, and the individual rights it speaks of. Instead, you should look at the big picture: Does Texas offer an alternative State in which individual rights are set in stone? Currently, the answer is nope, so I don't see a point in supporting any Texas independence. (not that Perry actually wants independence, they're just playing politics-which is not necessarily a bad thing here-any challenge to the feds is welcome)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

I apparently didn't explain myself well. This is the first part of the Declaration of Independence and the basis of my argument that Texas, or any other state, has the legal and moral right to secede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the first part of the Declaration of Independence and the basis of my argument that Texas, or any other state, has the legal and moral right to secede.
Check out TimSandefur's argument linked in post #2, above. I think he would argue that this is about revolution rather than secession.

Anyhow, no group of people -- country, state, county, etc. -- has a right to independence or self-government as a primary. Any such derivative right is secondary to the protection of individual rights. In other words, one cannot say that any state has the moral right to secede unless you specify what type of new government they intend to promulgate to replace the old one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out TimSandefur's argument linked in post #2, above. I think he would argue that this is about revolution rather than secession.

Anyhow, no group of people -- country, state, county, etc. -- has a right to independence or self-government as a primary. Any such derivative right is secondary to the protection of individual rights. In other words, one cannot say that any state has the moral right to secede unless you specify what type of new government they intend to promulgate to replace the old one.

Absolutely. And if I were to make an educated guess, I think I'd rather be stuck on the US side of the border, if Texas were to secede. Just by counting the most serious abuse government commits against individuals (jailtime for people who have not commited actual crimes), it's hard to believe any state would beat Texas in a percentage of the population sent to jail for no good reason competition. They have some of the strictest and most strictly enforced anti vice and anti immigration laws (with huge sentences for non violent drug offenders). And, if they were left to their own devices, they would definitely ban abortion and allow religion into government in some pretty sinister ways.

So it would not be right for Texas to secede, at the present time. But it is right for them to try and prevent more interference into their economy, by the feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you're right about being better off on the US side of the border and maybe you're not, but if you were from a state that bordered Mexico, and not only had thousands of illegals smuggled across the border but drugs coming through by the trailer truckload as well, maybe you too would be in favor of draconian punishments for crimes related to either. This is why it's good that states can make laws tailor suited to their situations, and why federal interference in state affairs with 'one-size-fits-all' legislation is bad government.

The federal government interference is not merely economic.

Edited by NotCrazyDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but if you were from a state that bordered Mexico, and not only had thousands of illegals smuggled across the border but drugs coming through by the trailer truckload as well, maybe you too would be in favor of draconian punishments for crimes related to either.
This is one of the reasons why it would be wrong for Texas to leave the country -- your only reasons for them doing so is so that they can increase violation of individual rights. That is the basic argument against secession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name=DavidOdden' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:09 AM' post='220537]

This is one of the reasons why it would be wrong for Texas to leave the country -- your only reasons for them doing so is so that they can increase violation of individual rights. That is the basic argument against secession.

And I guess that's where we part ways as far as our worldviews are concerned, me being a traditionalist conservative and you being an objectivist. You view laws regulating certain behavior (drugs, immigration, etc) as being violations on certain liberties. I respect that view and think you're correct, however I believe that regulation of certain behavior is necessary to ensure an environment in which more basic rights and liberties can survive. Additionally I think you're falling prey to the notion that one set of laws is good for all people, that Wisconsin's laws are better than Texas's laws because of a, b, and c.

If a Texan doesn't agree with Texas's laws, if they didn't conform to his priorities and worldview, then he can move to Wisconsin and vice-versa. When the war of ideas is put into practice, one can easily observe the practical consequences of certain actions.

Observe California. Observe Texas. Who's growing? Who's shrinking? Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...