James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,799
|
Post by James G on May 5, 2019 19:51:17 GMT
Texas, a recent addition to the Union, broke away and joined the Confederacy late. Doing so was rather contentious in Texas.
Would it have been possible for Texas to leave the Union but not join the Confederacy? Instead declare independence and once again go out on its own?
Could this nation survive in the long term? Would the US fight to take it back like it did the Confederate States IF somehow Texas ended up in conflict with the Confederacy - through Confederate aggression - during the American Civil War and thus Texas aided the Union but still sought to stay out?
Is this all madness?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,381
Likes: 12,001
|
Post by stevep on May 6, 2019 11:31:38 GMT
Texas, a recent addition to the Union, broke away and joined the Confederacy late. Doing so was rather contentious in Texas. Would it have been possible for Texas to leave the Union but not join the Confederacy? Instead declare independence and once again go out on its own? Could this nation survive in the long term? Would the US fight to take it back like it did the Confederate States IF somehow Texas ended up in conflict with the Confederacy - through Confederate aggression - during the American Civil War and thus Texas aided the Union but still sought to stay out? Is this all madness?
I suspect so  . Lincoln's view was that states weren't allowed to leave the union, period. At least not by unilateral secession and probably not by any other means. That's the reason why the war was as big as it was. It was only 7 states that seceded initially and it was when Lincoln rejected this and called for forces to suppress this by force that 4 other, most noticeably Virginia, joined the CSA in response. Otherwise the deep south would have left but much of the upper south, including IIRC Virginia, Tennessee and N Carolina would have stayed slave states in the union. Which might have complicated the removal of slavery inside the union without a war. Possibly Texas was the 4th state, can't remember off the top of my head?
As such baring a different stance in Washington which removes the war totally, and possibly a Texan secession, the north will fight any such secession. If Texas leaves the union but doesn't join the south the north will view it as a rebel state to be suppressed.
The only difference might be, if it presents its case well and possibly because it used to be independent for a while, it gained international recognition, probably from either Britain or France. Lincoln's government made clear this would be a casus belli but if facing a long and difficult war against the CSA it might decide that it couldn't start a war with a great European power as well. On which case possibly Texan independence could have been accepted by Washington but relations after the presumed defeat of the CSA would have been rocky to put it mildly. [Especially if say Texan volunteers supported the CSA or ran guns and other supplies for the south, which some at least might well do so.
The other issue is that I have been told, by people on a USCW board, that the idea of an independent Texas at that point is very unlikely to succeed. Its population was still pretty damned low and it was having problems with the Indians in its western territories. [This was primarily in response to the often suggested idea of Texas leaving a CSA that successfully wins independence but the same would presumably apply to a Texas that jumped straight to independence rather than being in the CSA for a period.] It only became viable when the population was built up, the Indians suppressed and oil in large amounts was discovered.
Another issue is what would the borders be? If this Texas tried to gain disputed territory to the west or more importantly the so called Indian Territory, which later became Oklahoma, then Washington is going to be very hostile to this.
|
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 954
Likes: 1,556
|
Post by oscssw on Jan 10, 2021 20:52:09 GMT
Much of this is from a Forbes article from 2012 that left an impression on me.
Why Texas would be a viable nation.
Texas has everything that made America's economy successful--lots of land, natural resources, deep human capital, the rule of law, the "protestant work ethic"/"frontier mentality", etc. plus something else that America used to have, which is a political and social consensus which is hostile to regulation.
Thanks to this Texas, already a Texas with a very healthy economy, could essentially benefit from America's most egregious regulations to suck economic value away from America.
A few examples:
Texas is well-known for being one of the most immigration-friendly states, and to have a strong political consensus in favor of a relaxed stance toward immigration. You could argue that Federal policy has been holding Texas back, and that in an independent Texas a coalition of Latinos and business interests would create a pro-immigration equilibrium.
With a devalued currency and very little labor regulations, Texas would become a manufacturing haven. If you remove federal regulations and add a weak currency, the effect would be multiplied.
Texas could also easily become a financial haven.With no Goldman Sachses and JP Morgans to block any reform, Texas could implement a handful of common sense, anti-TBTF regulations and deregulate everything else. That, plus low taxes, plus great weather, plus a highly-educated English-speaking workforce, creates the first real, serious rival to Wall Street.
Texas could become a technology haven. Austin is already a major startup hub in the US. It has all the right ingredients in terms of human capital, culture, universities, etc. If you add to that a giant wall of money, good patent law and good immigration law, you get something that can be a pretty strong rival to Silicon Valley, or at least something akin to the best of Israel's vaunted "startup miracle."
Energy. Texas has not just oil but uranium and nuclear technology. A great way for Texas to balance the effect of oil on its economy would be to embark on a French-style program of nuclear plants build-outs. It wouldn't just be great policy, it would give Texas bragging rights, as the conservative, oil-guzzling state would end up with lower carbon emissions per capita than, say, Massachusetts. Texas is also well-placed to benefit from alternative energies, as it is placed in the US "wind corridor" and has plenty of sunlight.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Jan 10, 2021 20:57:10 GMT
Much of this is from a Forbes article from 2012 that left an impression on me.
Why Texas would be a viable nation.
Texas has everything that made America's economy successful--lots of land, natural resources, deep human capital, the rule of law, the "protestant work ethic"/"frontier mentality", etc. plus something else that America used to have, which is a political and social consensus which is hostile to regulation.
Thanks to this Texas, already a Texas with a very healthy economy, could essentially benefit from America's most egregious regulations to suck economic value away from America.
A few examples:
Texas is well-known for being one of the most immigration-friendly states, and to have a strong political consensus in favor of a relaxed stance toward immigration. You could argue that Federal policy has been holding Texas back, and that in an independent Texas a coalition of Latinos and business interests would create a pro-immigration equilibrium.
With a devalued currency and very little labor regulations, Texas would become a manufacturing haven. If you remove federal regulations and add a weak currency, the effect would be multiplied.
Texas could also easily become a financial haven.With no Goldman Sachses and JP Morgans to block any reform, Texas could implement a handful of common sense, anti-TBTF regulations and deregulate everything else. That, plus low taxes, plus great weather, plus a highly-educated English-speaking workforce, creates the first real, serious rival to Wall Street.
Texas could become a technology haven. Austin is already a major startup hub in the US. It has all the right ingredients in terms of human capital, culture, universities, etc. If you add to that a giant wall of money, good patent law and good immigration law, you get something that can be a pretty strong rival to Silicon Valley, or at least something akin to the best of Israel's vaunted "startup miracle."
Energy. Texas has not just oil but uranium and nuclear technology. A great way for Texas to balance the effect of oil on its economy would be to embark on a French-style program of nuclear plants build-outs. It wouldn't just be great policy, it would give Texas bragging rights, as the conservative, oil-guzzling state would end up with lower carbon emissions per capita than, say, Massachusetts. Texas is also well-placed to benefit from alternative energies, as it is placed in the US "wind corridor" and has plenty of sunlight.
This was a response in an extremely old thread, it had been about 18 months since the previous post. I am going to warn you to not do this thing in the future. Please, in the future, create a thread of the same name with a II added to it or a similar name. Thanks. |
|
. Lincoln's view was that states weren't allowed to leave the union, period. At least not by unilateral secession and probably not by any other means. That's the reason why the war was as big as it was. It was only 7 states that seceded initially and it was when Lincoln rejected this and called for forces to suppress this by force that 4 other, most noticeably Virginia, joined the CSA in response. Otherwise the deep south would have left but much of the upper south, including IIRC Virginia, Tennessee and N Carolina would have stayed slave states in the union. Which might have complicated the removal of slavery inside the union without a war. Possibly Texas was the 4th state, can't remember off the top of my head?