Texas - historically different?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by agedman, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    On the thread about the most evil person in American History, the posts concerning the Civil War got me to thinking - what if Texas seceded.

    What is different about the Texas of today, and that of the 1860's?

    There is a huge difference between the two. It comes down to a matter of strength and self sufficiency.

    In the early years of Texas, it was as any newborn, struggles were everywhere. Survival was threatened on all sides (remember Texas was much larger than now).

    The early Texas folks decided to join the union, but came to the union as a nation treaty status, not as a territory in submission under a Federally appointed territorial governor.

    But the Texas of today has some remarkable differences than the one of 160 some years ago.

    Texas sends more money to the US government than it receives in benefits.

    Texas controls 95% of the US oil and gas needs through its natural resources and pipelines. (Texas has 1/4 of all US oil, and 1/3 of all US natural gas)

    Texas exports more goods than any other state in the US.

    Texas has the 14th largest economy in the world.

    Texas has by far the largest livable land acreage of any state - Alaska may be actually bigger, but has very little actual livable land mass in comparison to it's size.

    Texas has its own power grid. All other states have to rely upon each other with interconnected and redundant systems.

    Texas has a history of self reliance. The Texas legislators meet ever other year unless there is a need for a special session. Texas generally rely upon the local and personal fabric of its people to work things out without a lot of government interference. Often interference from the Federal level smothers the local folks. And, more often it is shown that Texans had the right answer for the problem all along.

    What is the only downside to Texas secession?

    The economy of the welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, social security...) would have to be unraveled. No other US state has the resources to make up for the difference if the Federal system were to collapse or that state seceded - only Texas. Without Texas the whole system collapses.

    The demise of the Union. It may seem like a small matter to some, but it is amazing how much Texas contributes and supports the union. Not just financially, but militarily, business, commerce, ... No other state contributes more to the Union than Texas to keep the Union a Union.

    Other states would soon join to Texas as a new union. Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana all share a similar culture and social thread. Texas may not want to have to take on the burden those states would bring.

    Perhaps the biggest downside is the perceived agenda of the current Federal administration. In my opinion, the Obama Marxist agenda desires martial law. That some socialistic dictatorship and government replace the Constitution. Texas secession would give that administration the right to place all the US under martial law. There would be such a realignment of wealth and resources as has never taken place sense the Civil War.

    Scalia in a written response said that though the Constitution sets forth how a state may enter, there is no provision for the exit.

    Perhaps an exit strategy needs to be put into the constitution so that the current Federal head does not gain (what some perceive) that which he so desires.

    What other states might agree that an exit strategy needs to be a part of the Constitution?
     
  2. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Texas will go it alone. They won't want the economic burden of other states dragging down their economy. When -- not if -- Texas secedes, expect her borders to be closed and defended militarily. She will not allow a great influx of "foreigners" from the U.S. to come pouring into Texas to seek refuge from this government. If anyone has in mind joining Texans in their flight from the U.S., you'd better anticipate events. You'd better scout land there now, and be prepared to move there in expectation of future events, being a "Texas citizen" before it becomes a republic again.

    Once Texas leaves and the U.S. economy and government collapses, what will become of the rest of the states? It is quite likely the next strongest economic union among U.S. states is the Southeast: Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virgina, West Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Those states could survive as the Southern National Congress. That, minus Texas, is essentially the "Old South" that formed the CSA, though Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri didn't secede.

    I have little confidence the rest of the country would survive. Some of the northern states might endeavor to become Canadian provinces, likely Australia, China or Japan will take Hawaii and Alaska will become a wishbone between Russia and Canada, perhaps even leading to war. Perhaps the other states can form some kind of pitiful little cadre of political entities, but they will probably suffer upheaval, intrigue, economic depression and armed internal strife. Texas and the SNC will have to defend themselves aggressively against the mongrel survivors.

    All that, I believe, prepares the way of the antichrist. There is no entity in Revelation remotely resembling the U.S. It has to be out of the way for the dark prince to rise to world domination.
     
    #2 thisnumbersdisconnected, Jan 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2014
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    If the Union did dissolve I believe most of the states bordering the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers would join with the South Atlantic and gulf States
     
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,255
    Likes Received:
    4
    Montana supplies water to all three major American rivers. There's also about 13 million guns.
     
  5. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Newest and most valuable Canadian province? :laugh:

    Seriously, hadn't thought of the water issue. That makes Montana pretty valuable. Then again, waters flowing across international borders are covered by ancient understandings, and where necessary, treaties. Don't know if water supply would be a problem, unless Montana or someone wanted to make it one.
     
  6. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    There is only one lake in Texas that is NOT man made.

    The water issue probably wouldn't effect them.

    Global warming will dry up the Mississippi and make Dallas a seaport. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...