Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do you think Texas should be allowed to secede? Why or why not?

Poll - Total Votes: 15
Yes
No
Undecided
Show Results
You can only vote on one answer.
My conclusion is not definite, but as I was writing my paper, my views were as such (and please forgive my in-eloquence & redundancy):



There are a lot of pros and cons for Texas Secession, and as it stands, and from my limited knowledge, I think that Texas would have more to benefit from staying within the Union, though I think it should be allowed to secede for a few reasons.

Allowing for State Secession would create an entirely different dynamic than is present today, if Texas is allowed to secede, why then shouldn't other states have the same right? I think Secession should be heavily discouraged for one of the same reasons the America was sent into recession - A loss of confidence in the union, and the respective ability to pull out from the union, could damage all parties involved, leading to possible instability and even collapse on a large scale. The idea of the Union is that though we (the states) may be separate entities, we are united, supporting one another in order to become stronger than our individual parts, as such, I'm sure an interdependence has been formed between the states, to separate would mean to disrupt the current balance and possibly cause a series of harmful events to happen.

Though Texas may be capable of providing for itself in many regards, such is not true of every state in this nation, and as a result, each state is not necessarily built to be able to support its own needs as they expect such needs to be met by other states, having built their state on this assumption, it would be harmful and I think unfair to, as a state, remove ourselves from the whole of the Union.

Though, that being said, these consequences can be remedied, at least somewhat, were Texas, and the multiple states who would secede, to have something of a "Delayed Secession" plan, so that the other states could plan around the loss of such a producer as Texas, or any other state that would hope to secede.

I think states should be allowed to secede though, for a few reasons. Every state is an individual unit in the whole of the Union, and I think that in the situation where, though I think it very unlikely, the state's needs and collective value system are extremely different from the Union's, to the point where it is irreconcilable, (again, very extreme circumstances) I think the state should be allowed to secede. A particular example would be Tyranny, another I could justify would be high hostility towards seceding state, a drastic war which the state is against, and other more extreme reasons.
If the state was allowed to leave, many bad things could happen, especially Texas, though I don't think that Texas today need necessarily be bound by the commitments of past generations lest it decides it fitting to do so.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Randall · 31-35, M
Hey Winterwanderer. Great question!

I think every state should be "allowed" to succeed. Stopping a group of people from leaving a union they find unjust or oppressive to them somehow, would go against the very idea of American freedom. We were founded by people escaping a government they took issue with.

That said, I don't think that succession would be wise for Texas. They have tried succeeding in the past (this is why they are called the Lone Star State) and it did not go well. The Texas economy is so interwoven and dependent on the larger United States economy, that succession would be wildly unethical.

I asked a few Texans about this some time ago, and they said something to the effect of "It would be silly to leave. We're too dependent on federal funding."

Many areas of Texas are economically depressed, and setting up a genuinely self-sustaining and functional economy and government would take so much time. That's even if it's possible at all.

The short version is: The state should be allowed to succeed philosophically speaking, but it seems to me that it would be a disaster in practice. It would have to be a gradual succession at the very least. When you weigh the benefits of leaving (I haven't actually uncovered any) against the consequences, the answer seems clear in practice.

Again, thanks for asking a thought-provoking question.

Randall
Winterwanderer · 26-30, M
Wow, I have practically the same thoughts regarding this, I pondered the extent of Texas' interdependence with the US as a whole, but I didn't know enough regarding to be able to say conclusively whether it'd be a significant consideration, thanks for the clarification!

In regards to whatever the benefits are of secession, I agree that, currently, there aren't any/many, at least to my (limited) knowledge, though, I think it possible that future circumstances could make such an option more appealing, though like you, I don't think there any significant reasons that would compel them to do so now & in fact, there are compelling reasons not to do so, as we've both stated.

I really like your justification of why they should be allowed to leave, to not be allowed to leave the Union is against the very principles of the Union which it is a part of. Though, other people might argue that such principles are not the concern of this modern generation (which I wouldn't necessarily agree with), but that's likely another lengthy topic.

Thanks for your very thoughtful response! I don't own the question, but thank you for allowing yourself to be thoughtfully provoked.