Would you support Texas in its secession?

Which side do you pick in the Second American Civil War?

  • I am Texan and I am neutral

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    164
So you're supporting a union between many countries when one country with two basically identical ethnic and linguistic backgrounds couldn't make it work after 80 years of unification?

Czechoslovakia broke up not because Czechs and Slovaks couldn't put up with each other - actually polls show that majority of people in both parts of Czechoslovakia were against dividing the country.

The problem was that post-commie Czechoslovakia was stuck with a political system designed by Commies in the wake of the Russian invasion in 1968. Their version of "federalism" could only work in an one-party political environment.

After the revolution, it soon became clear how unworkable this system was. In fact, it took less than a FIFTH of MPs to effectively block ANY legislation. The federal government was paralyzed by fringe nationalist groups and populists who abused a bad economic situation in post-commie Slovakia for their own gain - but the funny thing was, even most of the Slovak nationalists didn't want complete independence as that would cut them off the Czech subsidies.

With federal government in paralysis, most of its power went to the two separate state governments - Czech and Slovak - which then became effectively independent on each other as the only bond between them were the federal structures.

In 1992, there were general elections in which center-right liberals won a landslide victory in the Czech part of Czechoslovakia. On the other hands, in Slovakia populist parties and nationalists won. Unfortunately, the only way to form a coalition on the federal level of government was a cooperation between Czech right-wing liberals and Slovak populist center-left nationalists.

When the coalition talks collapsed, suddenly everybody started talking about dissolution of the federation. The Czech government, in its infinite wisdom and against the will of most of the people decided that rather than to face another 4 years of government paralysis and bickering with the Slovaks over every penny, it would be easier to dissolve the federation. This was when the Slovaks backtracked and demanded not an actual independence, but a sort of Czech-Slovak confederation in which federal gov. would only take care of certain policies. Unfortunately for them, their "plan" was very ambiguous and the Czech gov. saw it as just another Slovak attempt to stop its liberal reforms and extract money from the Czechs, so it refused and told the Slovaks that if they don't agree on a plan to dissolve the federation, the Czech part will unilaterally secede.

From there, it went fast and in just few months, Czechoslovakia was dissolved. So, as you can see, it was more a result of chronic failure of the Communist-designed rigid political system, not a result of some sort of nationalist explosion (though it had played a part in this farce). With a better federal system of government, Czechoslovakia could have easily survived.

EU is entirely different, as it just forming up. If the federal government works, so will the EU.
 
I'm an American, from Georgia, and would probably try to stay neutral. I tend to be a pacifist, and I don't particularly care if we keep the state. I would oppose the war, but support the right of states to secede peacefully. I would probably try to get both sides to reach a peace treaty, requiring Texas to hold a referendum in order for its secession to be acknowledged as well as paying an indemnity for federal property damaged and troops killed.



I really think that the Constitutional should outline the proper way to secede, and would support an amendment to do so. I do not think that a vote of the legislature is nearly good enough to justify secession. Such an important issue should require a referendum. I might go so far as to say a supermajority in the referendum, or maybe just requireing a supermajority in the legislature in order to even call for such a referendum. It seems like seceding would require major changes to the state constitution, and if I'm not mistaken amending state constitutions usually require referenda anyway. Seizing Federal Property seems overtly an act of war, and should not be allowed. Such property as forts or national parks should have to be bought, and the secession amendment should perhaps outline how a fair price for should be set. The Federal Government should be given a time frame in which to withdraw its troops and military equipment, including nuclear arms.


If I recall, it is estimated that only about a third of the eligible voters in Georgia supported secession (a lot were ambivalent about it), and that many other southern states had similar percentages. I doubt a referendum for secession could have passed in any of them except South Carolina. It would however also have been much harder to gather support for crushing a rebellion with such a mandate. Either way, a civil war would almost certainly have been averted.
 
I support the seccesion. Good Riddance to those bastards.
 
I support anything that leads to chaos and destruction. Lord willing it would bring about civil war.
 
Is it possibly for any state to secede from the Union in a legal fashion? Any State Constitution that says if "this and this" happens then the State can legally secede from the Union recognised by both the State and the Union as a sovereign country without having to go through War?
 
After secession, that property ceases to be Federal and if the feds refuse to vacate it, then they are trespassing on Texas property. Sorry, but I had to correct this error in your scenario.
sounds rather socialist to me, after all the feds paid for the property, so who are the Texans to seize it? I guess the could force them to sell it, but seizing sounds too much like theft to me.

..., but I would not run to Texas and take up arms against my own countrymen
psst, they wouldn't be your countrymen anymore ;)

as for me, if a majority of the Texans wanted this and voted for it, I'd support it, I guess (not actively, though)
 
I would support the United States. In other I would support them in kicking out Texas from the union.
 
Texas can kick any other state's ass. While Texas is better off as part of the U.S.. and the U.S. better off with Texas.. Texas would manage just fine on its own. I'd still live here. I'd just buy another gun. ;p
 
Since the US only is a collection of "united states" and have shown such passion for freedom in the past, it would seem pretty hypocritical to not let a state break free. I can't imagine a new civil war to keep a state in that doesn't won't it anymore. On the other hand I don't see much cultural, religious or ethnic reasons to break free either, and endorsing parts of nations to break free from others because of financial reasons, when they might have been helped in earlier parts in history seem wrong to me.

I'm neutral. As for now, I don't think it's likely they broke free and if they did, I don't think they would be stopped, at least not by military force. Maybe there will be an ASU in the future.
 
psst, they wouldn't be your countrymen anymore ;)

I guess I worded that poorly. I meant I would not run to Texas and fight alongside the Texans against my countrymen (those in the remaining 49 states including my Missouri).
 
I'm from America* and i support Texas' secession!







* - Latin America that is..

Anything that weakens America pleases me! :evil:

On a serious note, i couldn't care less, but i'd see the reason why Texans don't want to be associated with Americans.
 
Texas has oil, doesn't it? Surely if Texas declared independence, the rightful course of action for America would be to invade it.
 
I would join the military ASAP if that happened.

I am pro Decentralization, but not to that level.
 
Back
Top Bottom