Tennessee Republican candidate now threatens secesion from the US

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

I don't think you really know what goes on here :?

1. We have all the power we need (electrical and gas)
2. We have tons of excess oil and natural gas (export)
3. We could sustain ourselves with more than enough food (beef and farm lands)...enough to export...in bad year we could trade oil/gas
4. Come try and take the bases...the US would never do that...We have ****ing Pantex (a nuclear disarmament plant)...you try and come in and we nuke...pantex would be a deterrent for both sides to avoid any military conflict
5. I am not suggesting a hostile leave -we would still be trading partners with the US
-Houston would still be a central port to the US (oil companies would not want to rebuild everything)...we would charge a small fee for passing through
6. Taxes would go up.
But we pay no state tax here...replace a federal with a slightly higher state one
7. It is our legal right to leave if we choose

We could make it on our own.
Though it is not something I would endorse

rawsavon

1. Can you say for certain that all your power is generated within your state?

2. That may be. Good luck with getting other countries to trade with you though.

3. See above.

4. Ha! How do you propose to use those nukes when they cannot be operated without Presidential authority? And seriously, do you really believe that you would have the support of the U.S. military there, especially when many stationed there are not from Texas?

5. Uh-huh. Do you really think that the United States would not embargo you to death?

7. No, it isn't. Look up a little thing called Perpetual Union.

1. Yes, I can...we ship power out (not import in)

2. and 3. See my post to SubZero

4. Nukes are not as safe as you people think they are (hence being sold on the black market) We would plan to take control of them before we left

5. No, I don't (see post to subzero)

7. Texas is the only state with that right (we were our own country when we joined...we made sure we had that right)

............... Those are warheads from USSR.. Primitive.. The ones we have today you would have to fully rebuild it becaus the bombs safety code would have it deactive it.. You do not hav eth efacilities nor the experts for such a task.

sSubZerOo

1. Yes, I can...we ship power out (not import in)

2. and 3. See my post to SubZero

4. Nukes are not as safe as you people think they are (hence being sold on the black market) We would plan to take control of them before we left

5. No, I don't (see post to subzero)

7. Texas is the only state with that right (we were our own country when we joined...we made sure we had that right)

rawsavon

Again, do you really expect the United States military there to comply with your wishes against the union they are sworn to defend? And no, Texas does not have that right. There were no provisions in the axxeation of Texas that allowed it to "opt out" in the future. This is further backed up by Texas v White, which was tried in the US Supreme court in 1869.

............... Those are warheads from USSR.. Primitive.. The ones we have today you would have to fully rebuild it becaus the bombs safety code would have it deactive it.. You do not hav eth efacilities nor the experts for such a task.

sSubZerOo

Yes, they would have to be
But we have:
1. the resources (Pantex plant...US can't just come in and airlift the plant out)
and
2. the people (the civilians that work there...it is mostly all civilians...one of my best friends in world works there)

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]1. Yes, I can...we ship power out (not import in)

2. and 3. See my post to SubZero

4. Nukes are not as safe as you people think they are (hence being sold on the black market) We would plan to take control of them before we left

5. No, I don't (see post to subzero)

7. Texas is the only state with that right (we were our own country when we joined...we made sure we had that right)

worlock77

Again, do you really expect the United States military there to comply with your wishes against the union they are sworn to defend? And no, Texas does not have that right. There were no provisions in the axxeation of Texas that allowed it to "opt out" in the future. This is further backed up by Texas v White, which was tried in the US Supreme court in 1869.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]rawsavon

yes the US would.. What Texas did hypothetically is a act of sedition.

yes you have things the world wants.. But you can be boycotted for a year or two only to hae your government bankrupt and collapse.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

............... Those are warheads from USSR.. Primitive.. The ones we have today you would have to fully rebuild it becaus the bombs safety code would have it deactive it.. You do not hav eth efacilities nor the experts for such a task.

rawsavon

Yes, they would have to be
But we have:
1. the resources (Pantex plant...US can't just come in and airlift the plant out)
and
2. the people (the civilians that work there...it is mostly all civilians...one of my best friends in world works there)

The Pantex Plant is not Texas property its US federal property.. The United States government would dismantle it if your secession was non violent.. They would do that.. You do realize everything is based off computer systems now right? A simple line of code can make it inoperable.. Something the US government has, and Texas local government certainly doesn't.. Infact Texas has no juristidiction what so ever.. Texas would never have access to any of the nukes. Because thats not how our military system works.

.........The civilians that work there are under government payroll.. And most likely the majority are not form Texas..

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]sSubZerOo

yes the US would.. What Texas did hypothetically is a act of sedition.

yes you have things the world wants.. But you can be boycotted for a year or two only to hae your government bankrupt and collapse.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

............... Those are warheads from USSR.. Primitive.. The ones we have today you would have to fully rebuild it becaus the bombs safety code would have it deactive it.. You do not hav eth efacilities nor the experts for such a task.

sSubZerOo

Yes, they would have to be
But we have:
1. the resources (Pantex plant...US can't just come in and airlift the plant out)
and
2. the people (the civilians that work there...it is mostly all civilians...one of my best friends in world works there)

The Pantex Plant is not Texas property its US federal property.. The United States government would dismantle it if your secession was non violent.. They would do that.. You do realize everything is based off computer systems now right? A simple line of code can make it inoperable.. Something the US government has, and Texas local government certainly doesn't.. Infact Texas has no juristidiction what so ever.. Texas would never have access to any of the nukes. Because thats not how our military system works.

.........The civilians that work there are under government payroll.. And most likely the majority are not form Texas..

I am sure you know more about the Pantex plant than I do :roll:
1. If it is peaceful, then there is no issue with them taking what is theirs now is there?
2. If is not, we would be prepared beforehand...people just don't wake up and say 'lets leave the US today'
-we would prepare beforehand
-the nukes would have to be rebuilt, but most all the engineers and such are from Texas (non military personnel)...if fighting breaks out, we hope we get them rebuilt in time...but this would never happen. There would be no fighting in world we live in now. TBH, it is pointless to even discuss. The US would not come in and kill civilians in front of the world...at least not in their own backyard where it could not be covered up

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Once again, it is same song second verse with you. 1. You assume the US would try and put their foot down, and I do not -it is perfectly legal for us to leave -no military action required -the US would hurt itself in the process 2. No country stands on its own in the new world -I am not saying that we do -I am saying that we could (but we would be a 2nd world nation...it would suck), but I do not think it would come to this -we have things the word wants...I am sure the US would Texas trade with them than their enemiesrawsavon

yes the US would.. What Texas did hypothetically is a act of sedition.

yes you have things the world wants.. But you can be boycotted for a year or two only to hae your government bankrupt and collapse.

............... No no they don't.. If United States had two options.. Allowing a important politicla region and economic part to leave the union.. And the ooptions are A) Go with it and basically bend over when B) They can just boycott them for a few month and the country collapses.. People don't get it.. States are not autonomous units.,. We depend off of everything.. Michigan makes cars sure.. But if Michigan seceded we wouldn't be able to make cars.. Why? Because we get the steel, the specific pieces and electronics from other states.. Our agricutlrue wouldn't even operate well due to much of the pesticides, herbicides, farming equipment etc being produced out of state.. Our system has been built to specialize and thrive by filling gaps.. A agricultural state depends just as much off a industralizaedd state and vice versa.. If this were 100 years ago I may agree.. But now? No way in hell

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]gameguy6700

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Yes, they would have to be
But we have:
1. the resources (Pantex plant...US can't just come in and airlift the plant out)
and
2. the people (the civilians that work there...it is mostly all civilians...one of my best friends in world works there)

rawsavon

The Pantex Plant is not Texas property its US federal property.. The United States government would dismantle it if your secession was non violent.. They would do that.. You do realize everything is based off computer systems now right? A simple line of code can make it inoperable.. Something the US government has, and Texas local government certainly doesn't.. Infact Texas has no juristidiction what so ever.. Texas would never have access to any of the nukes. Because thats not how our military system works.

.........The civilians that work there are under government payroll.. And most likely the majority are not form Texas..

I am sure you know more about the Pantex plant than I do :roll:
1. If it is peaceful, then there is no issue with them taking what is theirs now is there?
2. If is not, we would be prepared beforehand...people just don't wake up and say 'lets leave the US today'
-we would prepare beforehand
-the nukes would have to be rebuilt, but most all the engineers and such are from Texas (non military personnel)...if fighting breaks out, we hope we get them rebuilt in time...but this would never happen. There would be no fighting in world we live in now. TBH, it is pointless to even discuss. The US would not come in and kill civilians in front of the world...at least not in their own backyard where it could not be covered up

And it wouldn't be peaceful. Again, THE CIVIL WAR. Do you know anything about it? Do you know what it was? Does Texas teach you guys about the Civil War, or do they only talk about the Alamo down there?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

yes the US would.. What Texas did hypothetically is a act of sedition.

yes you have things the world wants.. But you can be boycotted for a year or two only to hae your government bankrupt and collapse.

sSubZerOo

............... No no they don't.. If United States had two options.. Allowing a important politicla region and economic part to leave the union.. And the ooptions are A) Go with it and basically bend over when B) They can just boycott them for a few month and the country collapses.. People don't get it.. States are not autonomous units.,. We depend off of everything.. Michigan makes cars sure.. But if Michigan seceded we wouldn't be able to make cars.. Why? Because we get the steel, the specific pieces and electronics from other states.. Our agricutlrue wouldn't even operate well due to much of the pesticides, herbicides, farming equipment etc being produced out of state.. Our system has been built to specialize and thrive by filling gaps.. A agricultural state depends just as much off a industralizaedd state and vice versa.. If this were 100 years ago I may agree.. But now? No way in hell

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Yes, they would have to be
But we have:
1. the resources (Pantex plant...US can't just come in and airlift the plant out)
and
2. the people (the civilians that work there...it is mostly all civilians...one of my best friends in world works there)

rawsavon

The Pantex Plant is not Texas property its US federal property.. The United States government would dismantle it if your secession was non violent.. They would do that.. You do realize everything is based off computer systems now right? A simple line of code can make it inoperable.. Something the US government has, and Texas local government certainly doesn't.. Infact Texas has no juristidiction what so ever.. Texas would never have access to any of the nukes. Because thats not how our military system works.

.........The civilians that work there are under government payroll.. And most likely the majority are not form Texas..

I am sure you know more about the Pantex plant than I do :roll:
1. If it is peaceful, then there is no issue with them taking what is theirs now is there?

Why would the US federal government do that.. ITS FEDERAL PROPERTY..

2. If is not, we would be prepared beforehand..

Uh huh so you would be able to withstand a few hundred thousand infantry, armor, navy and airforce?

.people just don't wake up and say 'lets leave the US today'

It certainly seems that way because there would be no way in hell Texas could ever be "prepared".. They don't have a military, they don't have arms..

-we would prepare beforehand

Yeah and the United States would be twiddling their thumbs when they specifically have created agencies and programs (CIA) to know about this stuff..

-the nukes would have to be rebuilt, but most all the engineers and such are from Texas (non military personnel)..

Thats must it most of teh engineers are not from texas, and most of the nuclear engineers are not from Texas..

.if fighting breaks out, we hope we get them rebuilt in time..

You wouldn't because you don't have the technology nor the blueprints.. You honestly think you can look up the designs and technology on the internet on how to build a nuclear weapon..

.but this would never happen. There would be no fighting in world we live in now.

No your right, because the federal government would arrest or assinastinate if things got worse the select few voices.. You seem not to get it, seccession in the world as we know it for the a state in US is impossible.. You are not autonomous in the least.. THis would be like one of my body parts rebelling from me.. But what good is a arm if it isn't attached toa shoulder for leverage? What good is a rm if it doesn't have a heart to pump blood, which carry the oxygen and nutrients to survive? The arm like Texas would wither and die.

TBH, it is pointless to even discuss. The US would not come in and kill civilians in front of the world..

There would no point to do that becuase civilians wouldn't secede, it would be completely against what they want because most work at national companies.. And their standard of living would go down the toilet.. All in the name of a health care bill that is trivial compared to this :lol:

.at least not in their own backyard where it could not be covered up

It would never get that far to begin with... This isn't the 1800s where "towns" had their own communites and law.. This is a federal government that files down to the level.. When there is big news you instantly see it.. When there is a war going on every citizen knows about it.. This isn't the wild west where towns run under their own laws.. Texas depends off the collective of the United States just like every state.. We built our system around specializing and sharing its why we are so successful as a country.

[QUOTE="Same_Jeans_On"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

At least Texas is not surrounded by other US states; how would the secession of Tennessee even work?

UCF_Knight

You don't get it. You couldn't prepare beforehand. Texas would need to gain control of the plant and bases first, and in the process of doing so you would have already declared war on the federal government. The bases would attack your state the second you tried to forcibly enter either them or the plant.

And it wouldn't be peaceful. Again, THE CIVIL WAR. Do you know anything about it? Do you know what it was? Does Texas teach you guys about the Civil War, or do they only talk about the Alamo down there?

gameguy6700

The pantex plant is 90% civilians...not to hard to take over in this crazy scenario you guys have going (where it is not peaceful)

You do know that attacking another user with insults will get you modded right?
I do not want you out of the topic. So try and keep it on topic.
I know quite a bit about the civil war (not that that is what we are discussing)...we joined a bunch of states that had no legal right to leave
We have that right as the only state to enter as its own country (though the supreme court somehow took that signed right back after the deal was signed)

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Then it is really a difference of opinion. You assume things would work like they did in the WWII and cold war eras... retaliation at cost of hurting oneself I assume things would work like they do now (we cooperate with almost every country in the world...even the ones we despise)...we act out of our best interests rawsavon

............... No no they don't.. If United States had two options.. Allowing a important politicla region and economic part to leave the union.. And the ooptions are A) Go with it and basically bend over when B) They can just boycott them for a few month and the country collapses.. People don't get it.. States are not autonomous units.,. We depend off of everything.. Michigan makes cars sure.. But if Michigan seceded we wouldn't be able to make cars.. Why? Because we get the steel, the specific pieces and electronics from other states.. Our agricutlrue wouldn't even operate well due to much of the pesticides, herbicides, farming equipment etc being produced out of state.. Our system has been built to specialize and thrive by filling gaps.. A agricultural state depends just as much off a industralizaedd state and vice versa.. If this were 100 years ago I may agree.. But now? No way in hell

There are two things.. The first optiont he worse, is to accept it as a state.. which give the message that civil unrest and sedition is acceptable.. Furthermore it would cut off a important part of the economy..

Or B they can fast a year and let Texas starve to the point it comes crawling back int he Union.. The most logical answer is the second..

-which then what happens when it is all over :? 2. I assume otherwise Why are we arguing assumptions? Texas could survive on its own (for the reasons I named) -we can make all the essentials for life -but it would suck terribly bad We are just going in circles though I would be happy to debate anything new

No you can't.. You have the crops, but you don't produce or upkeep the machinary to make and harvest it.. You don't manufactur the steel used for you roil industry.. The government buildings would be dismantled.. No state can be autonomus and thrive, they have depended off the imports and exports between states for well over 60 years..

Lesotho, Vatican City, and theers Monaco in France (though it has a port, so does it count?lordreaven

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Your whole argument uses a civil war era mentality :? ...that is what you are going with It was not legal for the other states to leave...it was for us -though the supreme court somehow decided that was against the agreement signed b/w the US and Texas You and subzero assume a mentality that no longer exists...but you could be right I assume the US would view Texas like any other country they don't like but has stuff they want...do what is best for the US and trade ...though I do not know why you guys are arguing assumptionsrawsavon

No your right things have changed.. It is impossible for Texas to secede and thrive.. Texas depends off numerous key industriesthat are not within Texas.. and imports from the states.. While at the same time the United States would not allow any kind of trading between Texas and otehr countries.. Other countries wouldn't even recognize Texas as a legitimate country.... During this time the United States can substitue for loss resources from imports other countries far longer then Texas can.. To suggest that a state in modern day society can actually thrive by secesion is just nieve. How can Texas have a agricutlure when it can't upkeep the tools they get from other states to use it? You think Texas mines its own iron ore and processes.. They don't. They get it form other states..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]rawsavon

... If your talking about coast guard.. That is nothing.. If things got desperate they would.. You honestly think they would allow sedition to happen..?........... You don't get it do you? If its peaceful then the United States is allowed to dismantle every single thing they own in that country.. Meaning 99.9% of all military structures, goverment structures, public schools, AND that facotry.. If Texas doesn't allow that.. well guess what.. Thats not peaceful is it? I can't believe you still think A state could actually thrive from this.. The United States as a whole can't thrive fromt his already! We depend off China for numerous resources and imports, and China likewise.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"] Dude, Texas ALREADY TRIED SECEDING. Do you seriously not know that Texas was part of the Confederacy? Obviously the US government doesn't care much about that stupid treaty seeing as how they already went to war with your state once before to bring it back into the Union. So if they already took your state back by military means once before, what makes you think they won't do it again?sSubZerOo

No your right things have changed.. It is impossible for Texas to secede and thrive.. Texas depends off numerous key industries and imports from the states.. While at the same time the United States would not allow any kind of trading between Texas and otehr countries.. Other countries wouldn't even recognize Texas as a legitimate country.... During this time the United States can substitue for loss resources from imports other countries far longer then Texas can.. To suggest that a state in modern day society can actually thrive by secesion is just nieve.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"]Lesotho, Vatican City, and theers Monaco in France (though it has a port, so does it count?UCF_Knight

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] So you think everything works like it did in the past For example, that we would nuke Japan again -if nothing changed, we would not be dependent upon a communist nation atm ... everything changes...including foreign policyrawsavon

No your right things have changed.. It is impossible for Texas to secede and thrive.. Texas depends off numerous key industries and imports from the states.. While at the same time the United States would not allow any kind of trading between Texas and otehr countries.. Other countries wouldn't even recognize Texas as a legitimate country.... During this time the United States can substitue for loss resources from imports other countries far longer then Texas can.. To suggest that a state in modern day society can actually thrive by secesion is just nieve.

........Its illegal to secede.. No because the United States would not recognize you as a country.. Seccession is violent, you can not secede peacefully.. Not only does a state not have that power WHAT so ever, but the federal government has a vested economic interest within it.. That they would dismantle..

Survive by going bankrupt, collapsing infastructure, most likely having malnutrition due to a substandard agriclture due to depending off farm equipment, pesticides etc etc from other states..

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]sSubZerOo

... If your talking about coast guard.. That is nothing.. If things got desperate they would.. You honestly think they would allow sedition to happen..?........... You don't get it do you? If its peaceful then the United States is allowed to dismantle every single thing they own in that country.. Meaning 99.9% of all military structures, goverment structures, public schools, AND that facotry.. If Texas doesn't allow that.. well guess what.. Thats not peaceful is it? I can't believe you still think A state could actually thrive from this.. The United States as a whole can't thrive fromt his already! We depend off China for numerous resources and imports, and China likewise.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No your right things have changed.. It is impossible for Texas to secede and thrive.. Texas depends off numerous key industries and imports from the states.. While at the same time the United States would not allow any kind of trading between Texas and otehr countries.. Other countries wouldn't even recognize Texas as a legitimate country.... During this time the United States can substitue for loss resources from imports other countries far longer then Texas can.. To suggest that a state in modern day society can actually thrive by secesion is just nieve.

sSubZerOo

........Its illegal to secede.. No because the United States would not recognize you as a country.. Seccession is violent, you can not secede peacefully.. Not only does a state not have that power WHAT so ever, but the federal government has a vested economic interest within it.. That they would dismantle..

Survive by going bankrupt, collapsing infastructure, most likely having malnutrition due to a substandard agriclture due to depending off farm equipment, pesticides etc etc from other states..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] This is where you are not understanding 1. we leave peacefully and legally per our agreement to join the US (b/c we were an independent country) -the US continues trade to benefit itself -we do just fine 2. your assumption -the US puts it foot down and boycotts Texas -you said "To suggest that a state in modern day society can actually thrive by secesion is just nieve" ...I never said we would thrive I said we could survive...there is a world of difference...we would live...not thriverawsavon

........Its illegal to secede.. No because the United States would not recognize you as a country.. Seccession is violent, you can not secede peacefully.. Not only does a state not have that power WHAT so ever, but the federal government has a vested economic interest within it.. That they would dismantle..

Survive by going bankrupt, collapsing infastructure, most likely having malnutrition due to a substandard agriclture due to depending off farm equipment, pesticides etc etc from other states..

Old world style? Its called being a realist, what would the United States gain from recognizing Texas as a new country? Absolutely nothing.. Infact they would have lost soemthing.. Furthermore secession is a act of sedition under the government.. This wouldn't happen to begin with.. Because this is teh 21st century.. This isn't the days of pre civil war where the fastest message was on horse back in which only vague things were decided most times in federal government and most of the important stuff were decided locally..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Please stop doing that bold **** in my posts It is hard as hell to read what is yours (at least make it another color) 1. did not understand what you are trying to say here 2. Texas does have its own military :? 3, Now you are saying the US is going to go on assassinations runs...like that would make things better 4. Most of the people that work at Pantex (with the blueprints) are engineers from Texas But I do not even know why we are discussing this I am assuming there will be no military action...a peaceful departure You assume otherwiserawsavon

... If your talking about coast guard.. That is nothing.. If things got desperate they would.. You honestly think they would allow sedition to happen..?........... You don't get it do you? If its peaceful then the United States is allowed to dismantle every single thing they own in that country.. Meaning 99.9% of all military structures, goverment structures, public schools, AND that facotry.. If Texas doesn't allow that.. well guess what.. Thats not peaceful is it? I can't believe you still think A state could actually thrive from this.. The United States as a whole can't thrive fromt his already! We depend off China for numerous resources and imports, and China likewise.

yet again it wouldn't be peaceful because its ILLEGAL UNDER THE FEDERAL government to begin with.. Now lets have that sink in by saying again.. ILLEGAL.. And WHo funds those militaries? Thats right Texas funds.. Who gives those funds? Federal Budget.. Thats who.. Meaning when you hear about the federal budget cuts, your hearing about state spending cuts..

Texas doesn't have a military.. It has a militia, and these people took a oath to protect teh country.. Not texas.. Making them traitors.. So you would have to consider if they would even join your cause to begin with.. This would never happen to begin with, because they would be arrested fo sedition.. You don't get it do you.. its illegal meaning that only seccession is by force.. And that is a act of treason.. You would be arrested.

In a peaceful departure, the US can take all their military stuff (I said this from the start)rawsavon

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] Once again, it is same song second verse with you. 1. You assume the US would try and put their foot down, and I do not -it is perfectly legal for us to leave -no military action required -the US would hurt itself in the process 2. No country stands on its own in the new world -I am not saying that we do -I am saying that we could (but we would be a 2nd world nation...it would suck), but I do not think it would come to this -we have things the word wants...I am sure the US would Texas trade with them than their enemiesrawsavon

Dude, there never was any such clause when Texas was annexed by the union. It simply does not exists and never has existed.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........Its illegal to secede.. No because the United States would not recognize you as a country.. Seccession is violent, you can not secede peacefully.. Not only does a state not have that power WHAT so ever, but the federal government has a vested economic interest within it.. That they would dismantle..

Survive by going bankrupt, collapsing infastructure, most likely having malnutrition due to a substandard agriclture due to depending off farm equipment, pesticides etc etc from other states..

sSubZerOo

Old world style? Its called being a realist, what would the United States gain from recognizing Texas as a new country? Absolutely nothing.. Infact they would have lost soemthing.. Furthermore secession is a act of sedition under the government.. This wouldn't happen to begin with.. Because this is teh 21st century.. This isn't the days of pre civil war where the fastest message was on horse back in which only vague things were decided most times in federal government and most of the important stuff were decided locally..

In regards to the first part of your post
1. I think the US would only hurt itself by imposing sanctions
2. What would it gain in the end by forcing Texas to stay...might be the worst possible outcome

I have no idea what you are saying with the last part of your post though

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]In a peaceful departure, the US can take all their military stuff (I said this from the start)AndromedasWake

No where in any of my posts have i said I was correctrawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]No where in any of my posts have i said I was correctUCF_Knight

Rawsavon, in Texas v White, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote this, see what you think of it:

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

So, if a plurality of the States supported Texas secession, could it then be legal?

Rawsavon, in Texas v White, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote this, see what you think of it:

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

So, if a plurality of the States supported Texas secession, could it then be legal?

topsemag55

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]Admit it! You read my post about the subject before you wrote that! :)UCF_Knight

Texas wouldn't work either.. The United States would demand Texas would be boycotted by its allies.. And no state is sure as hell self sufficent in any way shape or form.. Any one who seriously thinks this would work without a very great many people suffering extremely is hopelessly nieve.. When you go to your local foods stores, most foods are processed, harvested etc etc from other states.. Furthermore extremely large amounts of funds would be needed to reform the government and its services that eveyr one enjoys there.. Expect taxes to go far higher then ever they been before..sSubZerOo

Tennessee actually has a rather robust economy.

For starters the headquarters of International Paper is in Tennessee. If they leave, the United States would be without paper cups and plastic lids. Game over.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]You assume one thing (old world style) I assume anotherUCF_Knight

Quebec held some referenda on whether it wanted to secede from Canada, and the "yes" side almost won in 1995, although I think it was pretty murky regarding just what would happen if it did win.

Let them go. Goodbye, good luck, good riddance.Theokhoth

Quebec held some referenda on whether it wanted to secede from Canada, and the "yes" side almost won in 1995, although I think it was pretty murky regarding just what would happen if it did win.GabuEx

Tennessee actually has a rather robust economy.

For starters the headquarters of International Paper is in Tennessee. If they leave, the United States would be without paper cups and plastic lids. Game over.

limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"][QUOTE="TBoogy"] Actually I quickly ran through to see if Gabu posted a reply, and ignored the rest... but now I read it. :P [QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Texas wouldn't work either.. The United States would demand Texas would be boycotted by its allies.. And no state is sure as hell self sufficent in any way shape or form.. Any one who seriously thinks this would work without a very great many people suffering extremely is hopelessly nieve.. When you go to your local foods stores, most foods are processed, harvested etc etc from other states.. Furthermore extremely large amounts of funds would be needed to reform the government and its services that eveyr one enjoys there.. Expect taxes to go far higher then ever they been before..limpbizkit818

Tennessee actually has a rather robust economy.

For starters the headquarters of International Paper is in Tennessee. If they leave, the United States would be without paper cups and plastic lids. Game over.

I'm hoping that last part is at least partially sarcasm, that might be an inconvienence but it's not a vital resource like energy, clean water, or food supplies. Second, I say good, the synthetics and paper industriesare outdated and inefficient, maybe if they left we'd actually look for better, more renewable, more efficient, and less damaging ways of creating their products.