Secession; the issue of the day

| November 13, 2012

Nik sends us a link to a petitioning group of Texans who are peacefully requesting that Texas secede from the United States.

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

It had 79,000 signatories when I looked at it. I understand the frustration brought on by the last election, really, I do. But this isn’t helpful. I mean I know that whoever signed it doesn’t really expect that Texas will secede, or maybe they do. But it certainly doesn’t help our side look sane. Besides, it has caused a bunch of leftists to start a petition asking the White House to strip anyone who signed any of the petitions of their citizenship according to The Weekly Standard;

Mr. President, please sign an executive order such that each American citizen who signed a petition from any state to secede from the USA shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported.

Thankfully that makes their side look sillier than our side, since most of them would have happily surrendered their own citizenship at any point in the Bush era. If only they had the means to move the hell out. So suddenly, because their side won the election, citizenship has value.

The Weekly Standard says that they’re about 18,000 signatures short of being considered by the White House. I wouldn’t worry about it too much, though. I don’t see this White House doing anything that looks like action on much of anything. Thanks to H1 for the link to the story of the Leftists’ petition.

Category: Politics

Comments (56)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. PintoNag says:

    Texas and 19 other states have petitions to secede currently on-line.

  2. Whitey_wingnut says:

    I have a few looneys in my office and they think that seceding is treason and unconstitutional to the United States and a few looneys that say go ahead and secede so “The rightgeous will follow the President”. I know a few people who want to secede and the election was only part of the reason.

  3. JP says:

    In all fairness, residents of various states filed these petitions. And frankly, if you’re asking the Feds to secede…you’re doing it wrong.

    I’m sure 97% of this is just based on people venting their frustrations with the current regime…well, aside from the Texans. They talk of this every few years, and my Texas friends tell me often they should be able to leave the US whenever they want, as they were their own republic prior to joining and that was part of the deal or something.

    As far as the moonbat counter-petition, let’s do it. Deport away… My country or origin should be Ireland, but Aruba or Barbados will work, too.

  4. Nik says:

    I counted 23 on’s petition section when I first heard about it, to include my state of Oregon.

    Ok, it’s absolutely absurd. Some of those states, sure, they might be able to make it financially without the US. Most would not. Hell, some of them are land-locked states. So without the US’s good graces, they can’t even trade with other “countries” or travel. I fully expect each of those petitions to be summarily shit-canned without further examination or response. That’s pretty appropriate.

  5. Hondo says:

    Folks, as I recall the issue of secession was settled some 147 years ago . . . .

  6. Twist says:

    I know the Alaskan Independence party has been trying this for years.

  7. El Marco says:

    thought the whole secession thing was settled in 1865 with 600,000 dead Americans,…..including 25% of the Southern male population.

  8. ROS says:

    Seriously, can we just let them? As soon as I’m out of here, hand them their Nuevo Refugio papers.

  9. Hondo #6: Perhaps you need to consider that these petitions (when last I checked) are on a federal government web site.

    Silly? Probably. But actually legit.

  10. Nik says:

    Note: I’m not advocating revolution or secession. That said, I suspect the British thought the idea of some upstart colonies was settled. Turns out they were wrong.

  11. Anonymous says:

    As the election results rolled in, a number of people on Twitter responded with dismay that they were going to move to Australia. This was a response made by some Aussie woman:

    It’s amusing, even if it doesn’t match your politics.

  12. ex AF says:

    The only Texan who should be able to sign for seccession is one whose family was there before the War of Yankee Aggression. All the rest are Carpetbaggers who come for the lack of state taxes. So all of y’all can leave. George can take the Bush clan back to Connecticut where they can freeze in the winter.

    Gawd, what a bunch of dumbasses. In 23 states? Damfools….

  13. Hondo says:

    Zero: true, but also irrelevant. Do you find everything you hear from the Federal government credible? (smile)

    Seriously – the issue of involuntary secession is settled. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Voluntary secession is also quite unlikely. While there is a mechanism defined in the Constitution for new states entering the Union, there is no mechanism defined whereby a state may leave. And if one examines the document which the Constitution replaced for clues as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, you’ll see that the intent of the Articles of Confederation was to form a perpetual union. Once in, no exit. That was known to the drafters of the Constitution, and implies – strongly – that the omission of a means of voluntary secession was not an accident.

    I’d guess theoretically voluntary secession of one or more states might be possible if Congress were to approve a law allowing same. But I’m not even sure in that case. Since there’s no Constitutional mechanism that allows secession, it might require a Constitutional Amendment first.

  14. Nik says:

    “Since there’s no Constitutional mechanism that allows secession, it might require a Constitutional Amendment first.”

    It would, I’d guess. I have to believe any law that allowed for secession would be ruled unconstitutional for the reasons stated above.

    Involuntary? Yah, probably not. I doubt any state militia could conceivably hold off the US armed forces if they wanted to go after them.

    And really. Even in the case of voluntary, how many states could reasonably consider going off on their own? Everyone’s infrastructure is so closely tied together.

  15. OWB says:

    Texas would be one of two states who became states via a treaty. Treaties can, and often are, renegotiated. So, while most states cannot simply decided to secede and pretend that it could happen, in the case of Texas, it is actually a legal option. The federal gubmint cannot compel it to remain a state. Any attempt to do so would in itself be a violation of the treaty.

  16. PintoNag says:

    My guess is this: no seceding from the US until there’s a new planet needing colonization.

    Maybe we’ll get it right, next time.

  17. Hondo says:

    OWB: Actually, Texas did not enter the Union as a state via treaty – though it’s method of entry into the Union was unique.

    Although annexation of Texas to the US via treaty was discussed at length over several years, no mutually acceptable treaty was ever agreed to by both the Republic of Texas and the USA. This is probably the source of the misconception that Texas entered the US via treaty.

    Rather, the process of Texas’ entry into the Union was a multi-step “kabuki dance”.

    It began with a Joint Resolution of Congress on February 26, 1845. The terms of this joint resolution (1) proposed Texas’ annexation as a US state, and (2) gave Texas the authority to divide into not more than 4 additional states, and (3) allowed Texas to keep its public lands while mandating it keep its public debt. However, neither this Joint Resolution nor the Acceptance Ordnance later passed by the Texas Constitutional Convention (more below) permit Texas to secede from the US at a later time.

    After receiving this Joint Resolution of Congress, Texas convened a State Constitutional Convention to consider it. This convention approved the Joint Resolution of Congress, opting for statehood, on 4 July 1845. It then wrote a prospective Texas State Constitution.

    The Texas State constitution written by this Convention along with the US Congress’ Joint Resolution proposing statehood, were submitted to popular vote. They were approved by Texas voters on 18 October 1845.

    The US Congress then received both the Texas Constitution and formal notice of Texas’ acceptance of the first Joint Resolution. The US Congress then passed a second Joint Resolution formally admitting Texas as a state. This second Joint Resolution was signed by President Polk on 29 December 1845.

    The holiday timing was necessary. The first Joint Resolution specified that Texas must enter the US prior to 1 January 1846 under the terms proposed by that particular Act of Congress. (primary source) (this source provided dates)

  18. CI says:

    The petitions are nothing more than a venue to vent. Outside of a violent pocket[s] of rebellion, secession isn’t going to happen.

    “To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

    SCOTUS Judge Anotnin Scalia

  19. OWB says:

    Thanks, Hondo. You might know that the stories told within my family (from the TX delegation, of course) about what happened way back when were not quite accurate. 😉

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here’s a link to the list of 30 states (so far) that have filed petitions to secede from the US:

    How about all 50 states petition to secede from the current US government?

    I believe President Andrew Johnson in 1866 declared it illegal for a state or states to secede from the United States, but I’ll have to look that up.

    Anyway, I need tea, wine and cheese, so to Calais, and to England, then, where ne’er from silliness came a more happy wench. (paraphrasing W.S.)

  21. Hondo #14: Not quite irrelevant. I did use the word silly. Although I do like silly I recognize what the word means. It is STILL a legit effort in context.

    The wonderful thing about The Future is that no one knows what it holds.

  22. DaveO says:

    I noticed many of the states are Red States – California, Delaware, Rhode Island and so on.

    The focus on Texas is because Texas has been resistant to the EPA and Obama’s czars.

    The focus ought to be on California. With their Dem supermajority on all branches of government, debt situation, economic meltdown, and rampant corruption – how is the rest of the US of A going to afford to bail them out?

  23. Twist says:

    Why would people sign a petition for California to secede? Who would want to live in the land of fruits and nuts as their own country?

  24. Nik says:

    Well, like a lot of states, it’s not all one color (political map-wise, I mean). The majority of people are liberals, but there’s a sizeable portion of conservatives.

    ‘Course there’s also the possibility that people NOT from California signed that one to get rid of the place.

  25. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Can we trade The People’s Republik of Kalifornia to the Canadians for British Columbia? I love Vancouver!:)

  26. malclave says:

    I kind of liked the petition for Austin to secede from Texas. I don’t think they should be made a state in their own right, but how about a territory?

    How about it… anyone have a reason to keep Austin as part of Texas?

  27. Scott B says:

    “..shall have their citizenship stripped and be peacefully deported.”

    Curious… WHERE to?

  28. OWB says:

    Wondered the same thing, Scott. If Texas should happen to be successful maybe we could request being deported” to there?

  29. DaveO says:

    Instead of the states seceding, while do as the Libtards did back in 70s and 80s? Like all those libtards moving to Montana (or as the bears say – snacks!), why not reclaim Massachussetts, Maine, and Delaware by moving there? Around election time, most states require you to have a bill, at a residence, for 30 days. Then you get a driver’s license and voila – instant Maine dude!

    Sell NH to Canada just to see the look on Sparky’s face, and give the rest to Mexico. Senor Slim will force Mexico to give California back (seriously, they are addicted to US welfare checks that get sent home to Mexico), but it’ll be good to see La Mexico telling La Raza to shut the hell up.

  30. WOTN says:

    I say we keep Texas and trade California away for the price of the current National Debt. It solves Our Problems and the buyer won’t know the remorse until they get the Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts!

    OTOH, for the Texan that called everyone else carpetbaggers, I’ll remind you that it was Tennesseans that played an influential role, in getting you your independence from Mexico. It was Tennesseans that played the influential role in the War of 1812, and American Independence, and more.

  31. Ex-PH2 says:

    Since most people who live in the Chicago area think Lake Michigan is an ocean and there is nothing south of Chicago, Illinois could secede from Chicago, giving Chicago its very own statehood, and the legislature could stop sending money to Chicago.

    I’d be happy to move down to southern Illinois, although it’s possible that the collar counties would secede from Chicago along with the rest of the state.

  32. NHSparky says:

    Sell NH to Canada just to see the look on Sparky’s face

    Aw, see? Now that shit’s just wrong. Sell VERMONT to the pea-soup eaters. NH becomes what it has always been–a PITA to Masshole liberals.

  33. AW1 Tim says:

    While I am in favour of any state’s right to seccede from the union, I propose a different solution: Bleed the blue states of their electoral votes.

    In principle, it’s quite simple. We get ALL of the conservatives in blue states to move to a red state. the population shift skews the census data. fewer people means fewer congressional districts. fewer people means fewer electoral votes.

    More people in the red states means more congressional districts and more electoral votes.

    I do believe that there are sufficient conservative votes in blue states that, were they to move to a red state, would starve the cities of their political power.


  34. Ex-PH2 says:

    Great idea, AW! The conservatives generally have higher incomes, also, which means they would take their money with them, too, thus depleting revenues from the blue states.

  35. B Woodman says:

    I say secede. But DON’T ask permission from Uncle, or sign a damned petition. Just Do It! Better to ask forgiveness after, . . . .

    If we’d all insisted on asking “pretty please” first, the 13 colonies would all still be under British rule. No free land of America.

    As for the Constitutional problem, well, there IS no problem. Obamao insists on ignoring it, in all it’s simplicity. Can’t we do the same? It’s all, or none.

    “When in the course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for One People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with Another, . . . ”

    ‘Nuff said, gentlemen, ’nuff said.

  36. Anonymous says:

    @35: You realize, though, that it’s the red states that take more money from the fed and have higher percentages of people on thing like food stamps? There are plenty of hard working red states sorts, as evidenced by many in the comments here, but the break-down between red/blue workers is not as clear as you might think.

  37. Ex-PH2 says:

    From my friend in Taipei: I suspect it will be almost 50 by the time it’s done with.

    @37 — Who said any money would go to the feds any more? Think again! The money stays with the states.

    Get with the program, splinky!

  38. Nik says:

    Meh. Cut the country down the middle, from top to bottom. Lefties head west. Righties head east. “Perma-write” liberal ideals into the WSA (Western States of America) constitution and perma-write conservative ideals into the EAS (Eastern American States). A US citizen can declare citizenship in whichever of the two they want at the start. Then let the individual countries handle immigration and citizenship as their principles dictate.

    Then come back in 50 years and see what’s what.

  39. Scubasteve says:

    I guess that would make me a Texan-American? Or an American-Texan? Seriously though, how would that legitimately happen? I serve in the United States Army, yet I am from Texas. If Texas secedes, then do I automatically roll into the Texas Army with current rank, pay, and benefits? Or do I get hung/shot for espionage by the United States Army because I’m not a US Citizen and I have knowledge of and access to US information that is not releasable to foreign nationals?

    #27 Malclave: We gotta keep Austin. It’s like our own personal California, only smaller and contained in the center. And it makes us laugh.

  40. E-6 type, 1ea says:

    Hell I’ve wanted TX to secede for a long time, and I’m not even from there. I keed, but I wonder how many of the names on that list are from out of state? Haha.

  41. Old Trooper says:

    @4: Sure the land locked states could survive having formed up with the other like inded states to form a new Republic. The ones that would struggle are the ones that would stay put with the present regime in power. If you will notice, of the states that want to secede, most of them are in flyoever country, where all the farmland is, plus all that new oil in NoDak, along wiht Teaxas, and the energy thing is taken care of.

    I’m not saying I’m for, or against, the idea, however, I will point out the flaws in the reasoning that those that wish secession wouldn’t las, or it’s impossible to do. Our current economic fast track to meltdown will, without correction, lead to the fall of the entire country. Out of that, or even before reaching critical mass, a new Republic could be born. Just as what happened to the former Soviet Union, upon its collapse, there was a lot of rebirth going on in the former satellite nations behind the Iron Curtain, so; who says it’s impossible to do?

  42. Twist says:

    OT, Alaska also has people signing the petition, so they would have it’s oil also. Don’t forget about all that King Crab too.

    I don’t think they should/will secede. With today’s technology the ensuing bloodshed would make the Civil War look like a minor skirmish.

  43. MAJ Mike says:

    We Texans missed our chance back during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. All the Yankee troops had been deployed to Saudi and Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss were both empty as THE WON’s promises. Should’a done it then. Now, too many Yankee soldiers present to make it work.

    Yup. Timing is everything.

  44. WOTN says:

    As of 0300, 8 states had the requisite signatures to get an Obama response (according to his policy): Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. That’s oil, food, ports, and manufacturing, not to mention the best beaches.

    Also, petitions have been initiated in all 50 states.

  45. Twist says:

    I wonder if any service members have signed petitions and if they will be punished for it.

  46. Old 21B says:

    Talk of secession first started shortly after the Constitution was signed and many of those that spoke of their State seceding were founding fathers that signed the Constitution. The idea wasn’t that radical for them since they didn’t think of the united States as a nation but a union of sovereign independent states and the federal government was responsible only for issues of common concern. All that changed when states actually tried seceding about 150 years ago. Now we are the United States a nation not a union of sovereign independent states but states that are subordinate to a federal government that seeks to control just about every aspect of the daily life of all citizens.

    I do find it ironic an hypocritical that the moonbats that would be so quick to strip citizenship and deport you for signing a petition would violently protest if you tried to deport someone for coming here illegally.

  47. DaveO says:

    I wouldn’t doubt it if the POTUS doesn’t seriously consider permitting succession. He’s only after the money, and with the printing press in his hands, he can have all the money he needs.

    The only problem will be the folks in Florida. They’ll have to choose between voting in Florida and NYC, or just NYC.

    And the Californians. Do we grant blanket amnesty to Californians caught on our side of the lines? Or just put ’em in punkin’ chunkers and video the results?

  48. Ex-PH2 says:

    Looks like my friend in Taipei was very perceptive. The count is now up to 40 states with petitions, at least seven of them requiring a response from the White House:

    Since the District of Columbia is not a state, does that mean we can all secede from DC and go on about our day-to-day lives?

  49. Ex-PH2 says:

    DaveO, not being critical, but secession, derived from secede, is separation from a government by some or all of its internal states. The South seceded, or separated itself, from the North, which led to the Civil War.

    Succession is what immediately follows a previous occurrence or object, as in two terms of office in succession, or several train cars following each other in succession.

    That’s not procession, which is a parade of any kind.