RSS
Home
Debunking secession in Texas
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Looking again to the pages of Examiner for inspiration, your Texas Statehouse Examiner takes a look at the role of secession at the state capitol. Our own Austin Independent Examiner has taken a good, long look at the role of secession – what it means, how it plays out in our state, and who’s said what. The title of his piece raises the question: how will ideas of secession affect the 2010 statewide elections? It won’t. It’s a sensitive issue for Gov. Rick Perry, coming after comments about secession during recent anti-stimulus “tea parties.” The fact of the matter, however, is that this doesn’t matter. Take this headline from the perennial rabble-rousers at Fox News: “Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't”. Whoa. Just whoa. That’s pretty strong stuff. May want to secede? Probably won’t? Probably doesn’t mean definitely, so that clearly makes this the stuff of major, breaking news! It might be worth putting this in context, as our Independent Examiner does quite well. The Story First, Texas Republicans’ major beef with Washington is about the stimulus, yes, but really just the bits that are designed to bolster the unemployment system. In another shocking development, Republicans don’t like unemployment. Gov. Perry, for all his blustering and bawling (for which he probably got a few hairs out of place – a major sacrifice for his principles), accepting plenty of other federal dollars, only nixing the ones that would give him a little populist street cred. And so there he was, standing before a motley crew of libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and maybe a few angry workingman style Republicans, when he casually mentioned that secession was an option. It was all in good fun, playing on Texans’ fierce sense of independence. Some silly showboating that got blown out of proportion, right? Well, yes. In the end, this was more of a battle between Republicans and Democrats than between Washington and Austin. If this overblown secession incident affect next year’s elections in anyway, it will hurt Perry by convincing a few ready-to-believe liberals that Rick is just that crazy. Or by switching off more moderate, business-type Republicans. Rick has already cast himself as a man of the people for 2010, which is probably why he’ll lose the Kay Bailey Hutchison, a more moderate, more successful, more electable public servant. But won’t Texas’ strong independence movement support Perry, even if he’s not really a secessionist? It doesn’t matter. Lots of states have secession movements, and all of them lack a basis in reality. Take, for example, the fact that the question of secession has already been permanently settled. If you haven’t heard of this, please Google the “US Civil War” right now. The Real Story Our Independent Examiner, alluding to a potential “Texas Independence Day” (too late – there already is one, March 2), gives us some choice bits from the Texas secessionists. As he notes, they assert that the Confederate states “withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.” Now, I don’t know about you, but if I were a secessionist looking for inspirational examples, I don’t think the confederacy would be my rallying cry. Forget “Remember the Alamo!” How about “Remember Gettysburg!”? Of course, other issues with the assertion might be that they did not withdrawn lawfully, or peacefully, and that they “endured” decades of tariffs because the nature of their “Southern commerce” was slavery. Okay, slaves aside, surely these secessionists have some good points, especially if they’re getting this much press, right? No. Never mind, they can’t get off of this Civil War thing. They claim that Union victory “affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments.” These people are evidently unaware that under the modern system of nation states, governments, in fact, are the only entities that can use violent coercion. The legitimate use of force is, in fact, one of the defining factors of the nation. Besides that, Texas cannot afford to lose the benefits of statehood rather than nationhood. Having and army, for example, is nice. Having the best in the world is better. Highway funds, healthcare (though limited), interstate commerce – all these things are nice perks of being a state. If you’ll remember correctly, these are amongst the reasons we joined the Union after our foray into nationhood (Google “Texas Revolution,” if you must). Besides, that, I’d like to see Rick Perry deal with immigration any better that the Federales have. This whole row was, as our Independent Examiner notes, little more than a silly stunt. A stunt that reflects poorly on Rick and by association, all of us as Texans. Will it affect the gubernatorial election next year? Probably not. I doubt Rick has much of a chance, anyway.
Related Articles:
Comments
