Will Texas Secede from the Union?


Back in 2004, when George W. Bush won the smallest precentage victory for the re-election of a president in wartime, HBO host Bill Maher had a commentary on Real Time where he used a phrase to descrive the South, “Upon further review, you can go.” making a reference to the South’s attempt to secede from the Union.  Now Texas Governor Rick Perry is featured on a YouTube video calling for the secession of Texas from the Union due to the interference of the Federal Government (while still claiming a vast majority of stimulus money, mind you).

more after the jump….

Our friends at www.fivethirtyeight.com had this fascinating piece about what the Texas secession would mean for American and its two leading political parties.

The Bottom line is the loss of Texas from the union means greater political power for California and New York, and even stronger Democratic Party control of the federal government.

We are in no way advocating the secession of Texas from the Union; but aren’t there any sane voices from the Republican right to tell Rick Perry to shut up?

Remove Texas from the equation, and the folks at www.fivethirtyeight.com say these things would be revised:

If Texas were not in the Union, the Democrats would currently have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — or at least they would once Al Franken gets seated. This is because, in a 98-seat Senate, only 59 votes would be required to break a filibuster.
— If Texas were not in the Union, the Republicans would operate from a significantly weakened position in the House, since the net 8-vote advantage their congressional delegation gives them in the state (they have 20 seats to the Democrats’ 12) is by far their largest.
— If Texas were not in the Union, George W. Bush would never have become President in 2000 — not because he’d be constitutionally ineligible (Bush, despite his Texas twang, was born in posh New Haven, Connecticut). Rather, he wouldn’t have had enough Electoral Votes to defeat Al Gore.
— If Texas were not in the Union, Barack Obama would have won the Electoral College 389-147 instead of 365-173 (note that there are two fewer votes total, because there would be two fewer Senators). The vast majority of Texas’ electoral votes would be redistributed to lib’rul states like California (which would go from having 55 electoral votes to 59) and New York (34 rather than 31):

California    55 --> 59  (+4)
New York      31 --> 34  (+3)
Florida       27 --> 29  (+2)
Illinois      21 --> 23  (+2)
Michigan      17 --> 19  (+2)

  9 comments for “Will Texas Secede from the Union?

  1. Ron
    April 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    For once, Texas Governor Rick Perry is correct. Many conservative and libertarian Americans agree that the right of peaceful, democratic secession by state convention is a legitimate constitutional right of every state in the union.

    There are only two solutions to the massive Washington national debt now threatening the economic future and prosperity of every productive American. One is peaceful secession on the state level from the Washington Empire leaving the illegitimate federal debts with the Washington and Wall Street interests who created the debts. The second alternative is a constitutional amendment by the states to cancel the Washington national debt. The cancel the Washington Debt by 12/21/2012 Constitutional Amendment is now online at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

    • April 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm

      Ron —
      Where were you when President Bush, a Texan, ran up the National Debt and exploded the budget deficit? Not a peep from conservatives or Republicans. Even John McCain last September said “the fundamentals of the US economy are sound.” So it all went to hell between September and March?

      Considering how much federal aid Texas gets compared to other states, why not swear cold turkey of Federal Tax dollars going to Texas. Educate your children, build your roads, and pay your police and fire from Texas state income taxes. Ah, but you don’t have a state income tax.

      Even conservatives and Republicans know that Abraham Lincoln believed when the free market failed the national’s econmic security, it was the role of the federal government to step in.

      I think our governor is an idiot, incapable of leading. But I’m glad we don’t have your moronic governor running our state.

  2. Eric Cooper
    April 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    I think that the US Congress should meet in emergency session this weekend and boot ’em out! (as long as the town of Crawford goes with them).

  3. duplojohn
    April 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    Dan asks: Should Texas seceed from the union?

    I sure hope so.

    We’ll keep Austin and maybe parts of Dallas, whose groovy mayor is cool.

    Truth is, Texas recieves FAR more federal support than they contribute, unlike California and New Jersey.
    So I’m not sure what they are bitching about.

  4. Jim
    April 18, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Hell, let’s just sell it to Mexico. Where was this idea 10 years ago. We could all have avoided the Bush years.

  5. Disabled
    April 25, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Bye Texas! Good luck! I know I won’t miss you.

  6. Jason Buchanan
    May 15, 2009 at 8:33 am

    Hey morons,

    Read between the lines literally if Texas secedes, other “red states” are soon to follow. Which means the Blue states will be seperated completely. I am not advocating secession but if it happens it will be the fault of the feds.

  7. Dan Chmielewski
    May 15, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Jason —
    Refrain from the Moron chatter; if Texas secedes, it will be the fault of the Republicans who don’t like the fact they lost the last election. And nice of Governor Perry to tell the feds where to stick it and then ask for millions in aid for swine flue relief. There’s a word for that and its “hypocrite.” Secession simply means patriotism on the right only applies when they are in power. There are lots of Democrats in Texas who wouldn’t want to secede. Its high time to turn that red state blue again.

  8. rlh
    May 15, 2009 at 11:21 am

    What I wonder about in all this (well, one thing, anyway) is how those who proclaim the right to secede can ever recite the Pledge of Allegiance with a straight face, or without being baldfaced liars. What part, exactly, of “one nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE” (emphasis added, of course) don’t they understand??

    It’s amusing, in a cynical way, that those who have spent so much time in the past “protecting” the Pledge of Allegiance (Bush I made its recital a major campaign issue, the Right made attempts to delete the Pledge’s McCarthy era-inserted reference to God into a litmus test of patriotism, Obama was questioned and excoriated for supposedly not showing enough reverence for it) now are bandying about the very doctrine that the Pledge was explicitly designed to bury. The Pledge arose, let’s remember, within a generation after the Civil War, and served as a means of acknowledgment by all of that war’s result: that America was one nation and indivisible. The concept of secession had been put to the supreme test of battle, and had been defeated. It was as dead a doctrine as nullification, primogeniture, human slavery, and the divine right of kings. The Plegde was the nation’s means of telling itself, and its posterity, that it must remain just as dead.

    So the next time Rick Perry is on TV at some function, unctuously placing his hand over his heart to recite the Pledge, ask yourself: is he not bearing false witness? Is he not lying about his loyalty to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands? Is he not, in essence, advocating treason?

Comments are closed.