769
OHHH WAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS, (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Ok sorry if this is a stupid question, but why not let them?

It seems like the biggest concern is a humanitarian one - that sane people who remain in Texas will be worse off - but it significantly improves that same problem for everyone else in the union. And a war would possibly be even worse for sane Texans. It would be cheaper to subsidize relocation costs.

I just don't get why we'd fight to keep them, or pretty much any state these days. They don't have slavery, and there's nothing huge that we were right about to change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    There would be significant economic disruption for all parties. People seem to think that's no big deal, but it is.

    Are you willing to lose your job because someone gets a hard-on when they see a picture of the Alamo? People that are brave on the internet will say that they're fine with that, but in real life they don't actually want that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Legal Eagle did a video on this and brought up some interesting points I dont see very often.

    1. What happens to all the Federally-Owed land and military bases in Texas?

    2. What happens to Shared assets like the gold on Fort Knox?

    3. What happens with the National Debt?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, if there were a hypothetical US military base, hypothetically called Fort Sumter, where there's US military stationed in a state that hypothetically seceded, how would that play out, hypothetically speaking? :P

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Assuming it was a peacefull succession. Negotiations etc. Really not to difficult to resolve.

    Of course the reality is no one in power in Texas really wants to go independent. They want to use the threat to try and controll the federal government. And or They are just using there supporters to gain a foot hold on some power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well yeah, all issues can be resolved via negotiation. But the key is both parties have to negotiate in good faith. And many times secessionists want to have their cake and eat it too.

    I'm Canadian and we've seen this kind of thing with both Quebec and Alberta. Alberta is basically Canada's Texas (right wing, they got oil) and like Texas the secessionist tendencies aren't all that serious.

    With Quebec it's a little more serious. But people still have weird ideas about what being a country means. We'll still have Canadian passports, right? No you won't. The federal government employs a lot of people in Quebec, those jobs aren't going away, right? Uhhh.... those jobs are leaving to go somewhere in Canada. Also there's indication from the private sector from companies like Air Canada that they will be moving their head offices to somewhere in Canada. Oh, and by the way, Quebec is going to have take on a percentage of the national debt equal to the the percentage of Quebec's population in Canada.

    A lot of these things are just about emotion. I feel pride for Texas! I hate liberals! We should be our own country! But when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, it takes all the fun out of it and it goes away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Lol, I don't know where you get your information, but Quebecers who are for separation, like me, don't think they'll still have a Canadian passport, nor a job in the federal government. The fact that many in Canada would think we're that dumb only reinforces my conviction for separation. Dont get me wrong I think most Canadian people are really nice and I love them as brothers, but I just dont think they understand or care about our culture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ok sorry if this is a stupid question, but why not let them?

    Because they would inevitably start a war again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, they're already our enemies. Might as well fight 'em.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As a Native Texan leftist, please don't devolve in to tribalism "them" includes a huge diversity of people who don't agree with the insanity some fellow Texans spout.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    This right here. Right-wing politics require oppression of an underclass or other. The first steps would be likely be to turn inward and mass murder and/or imprison/enslave dissidents and minorities. This is not sustainable, however, as there are only so many that can be oppressed in one place without hitting critical mass, and that's not even getting into the economics or other factors.

    So, like all other right-wing governments, they would be forced into expansionist/imperialist action. This would probably start with trying to annex a swath of Mexico, but could, if the politicians are the "true believer" type, rather than pragmatic sociopaths, it could well be the Midwest. In the first case, we likely end up with a new narco-state with oil fields in cartel hands, and a long, intractible insurgency. In the latter, the RoT gets curb-stomped by NATO and/or other coalition forces. Either way, lots of non-combatants suffer unnecessarily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Maintaining the union is important. Without solidifying that every state is in it together, the federal government loses it's power, then states start to push the limits, not paying taxes here, disobeying federal law there.

    If we wanted to let states secede, we would have formed a Confederacy, or not a country at all. As it stands now, the US government will always fight for a United States, as to not do so puts everything in jeopardy. Maybe you don't think that's the best action overall, but until the US government is reformed under a heavily modified constitution that probably won't happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Worth noting the US government needs indevidual US citize s to fight for that United States.

    The % of citizens who feel the constitution is likely due for some change. While not near the 66% in 50 states needed to change it, is likely enough to seriously effect the resources forcing other to follow it.

    Even congress and the senate are far from 100% in agreement. Or ever likely to be on such things. The further from the head of the snake you go. The more likely the US military is to question orders to attack domestic targets.

    A d lets face it. Any attempt by the military to force orders in a situation like that, where the enemy is considered to be a part of your own team by a significant % of the people pulling tigers and dropping the actual bombs. Will harm rather then rebuild that unity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The only other good reason to fight to keep them, is to prevent their government from going fully insane and doing horrible things. But that's the sort of thing that would need intervention if and when it happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent