A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know, BUT could the Rest of the USA just kick another state (Not necessary Texas) out? Or is this also not possible?

  • ugh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    No, they cannot. I hope someone gives you a more in depth answer because I’m very sleepy. Socially, just because a state votes red doesn’t mean that everyone there is awful. It would not be fair to those citizens.

    I do believe that texas has the right to secede. It won’t happen, but it was part of the bargin to rejoin after the Civil War.

    • felbane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      8 months ago

      Belief has nothing to do with anything. The resolution that granted Texas membership into the Union allowed for Texas to divide itself into five separate States, but not to leave the Union.

    • voracitude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Quote the exact text of law or Constitution that informs your belief a state can secede, bud, or you should change that belief. Not understanding that states can’t secede is dangerous. Being told to stop slavery was why all the southern states tried to secede before the Civil War, but the war actually happened because they tried to secede and they’re not allowed to.

      Don’t forget: united, we stand. It’s as true today as it ever was.

      • BigilusDickilus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        They didn’t secede because they were told to stop slavery. They seceded because it looked that the national consensus was moving against the expansion of slavery to new states and territories, which would have limited slave states overall power in the long run.

        They were very explicit that they were leaving to protect slavery as an institution, but to be fair nobody in power was threatening to abolish it when they did so.

        • voracitude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I’ll cede that, I was massively oversimplifying in the name of time. I did know that the federal government at the time was very willing to compromise to keep the southern states in the union, and that the whole reason the South went ahead with the Civil War was because they saw that their economic engine would be dismantled over time even if they agreed to the compromises.

          But it all just goes to show how it’s semantics to say it was state’s rights instead of slavery that caused the war, in the same way it’s semantics to say my mother died of liver failure instead of cancer, or that a person jumping off a cliff was killed by the massive internal trauma from the sudden stop, instead of the fall.

          • BigilusDickilus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, I was trying to be careful with my comment not to imply the reason for secession was “states rights” since there are still plenty of idiots who are happy to bang that drum.