Osler's Razor

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Not today or tomorrow--but someday, probably.

Please don't hear me saying that the root cause of the Civil War was economics. The root cause of the Civil War was slavery (although it was NOT a war fought from the beginning to end slavery).

However, irrefutably, preserving the Union was in the economic interest of almost everybody involved. So, when the Confederates seceded (to preserve slavery), the war came, and, over the course of four long years, the North persevered and the Union endured.

As for constitutional arguments, the South argued that they had entered the Union via a voluntary compact; they had entered of their own volition, and any reasonable person, they argued, would hold that they could exit the Union at a time of their own choosing. President Lincoln argued that the states threatening secession had actually entered into a perpetual union contract in which they could check in anytime they wanted but they could never leave. A very uncommon agreement, indeed. I once asked a colleague if he had ever entered into a perpetual union contract, and he said he had once but then eventually got divorced. In the end, much more than logic or legal reasoning, the constitutional question was resolved at the end of a bayonet, with the perpetual union side winning the case.

That is, much more important than law or political theory, was force--which was dictated by interest.

Texas secession? When it is clearly in the economic interest of Texas to secede, it is likely to happen. That is, if there ever comes a day when the state of Texas is sending more money to the Capital or losing more money based on federal rules & regs than the state is getting in return, the Union will no longer make sense. The other half of that equation will be that the Union must be so degraded that it can no longer rein in seceding states or sections (fiscally and morally bankrupt).

Right now that is hard to imagine. But it could happen at some point (if, for example, the social security system went bust or Medicare collapsed or the service on the debt choked off all the federal largesse). The interest of the states would clearly be to disavow the national debt. In essence, a series of regional secessions would serve as a national bankruptcy (reorganization).

Not today or tomorrow or next week--but it could happen.
 

WF-- that makes sense. But why Texas and not, say, California? It could be a self sufficient economy, but we never hear talk about it seceding...
 

In re California: TWO Reasons (at least): in the past, when California was at its zenith as the Golden State (world's eighth largest economy, the Promised Land, etc.), the benefits of the Union were so great that they exceeded even the benefits of the best state going out on its own. Now, when one can conceive of a moment when states might actually prosper individually, California is down and more in need of the feds and, at least for the moment, not "interested" in going it alone.

And, of course, there are personality issues: Texas is after all the Lone Star State--and a Red State in an increasingly Blue political world. California doesn't have those perfect storm ingredients. But, in the end, if we ever got to the necessity of national break-up as a device for economic reorganization, one could see many options for California as a stand-alone entity--or in partnership with other Western states--or even as something in almost partnership with Mexico.
 

I should add:

I don't think my completely plausible "economic interest" argument drives all the secession talk in Texas. Texas bravado and political angst drives the secession talk in Texas. However, if and when the economics swing around and makes secession viable, the cultural propensity to consider secession for other reasons will make Texas a likely place where real secession will be on the front burner--and, perhaps, if my hypothetical were to come together, Texas could potentially be a trailblazer in the new era.
 

Interestingly, the only other state where I've heard any legitimate argument for secession is Vermont-- which is not big enough to reasonably do so. Still, there is an intriguing connection, in that both Vermont and Texas (along with Hawaii and California) joined the Union at a time when they were independent nations.
 

I have a good number of friends living in Texas and I don't think any of them are interested in secession. If so, they will move away!

I have visited in the summer and it made Florida seem down right comfortable.
 

Vermont is too small for independence? Why can't it follow the European micro-state model, like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Liechtenstein? Who says you need a full blown economy to be independent? All you need is a king.

I fear Texas secession because I don't trust Texas courts and politicians with my (federal) constitutional rights. I fear that, if Texas suddenly gained its independence, a lot of the yokel politicians would become tyrants.

I also don't see Texas sticking together. West Texas, East Texas, the Panhandle, Coastal Texas, the Valley, they're all too different with interests that are too different. If times get tough enough to leave the United States, why should Lubbock keep worrying about the drug cartel issues the Valley will have to deal with?
 

Football will keep 'em in.

But, what a hoot if A&M should find itself ineligible for membership in the NCAA and got itself booted from the SEC.!

Guess College Staton could turn around and secede from Texas, as a number of counties did during the late unpleasantness, e.g the "Free State of Van Zandt." But, would the U.S. want them back?

Lots to consider here.
 

Football will keep 'em in.

But, what a hoot if A&M should find itself ineligible for membership in the NCAA and got itself booted from the SEC.!

Guess College Staton could turn around and secede from Texas, as a number of counties did during the late unpleasantness, e.g the "Free State of Van Zandt." But, would the U.S. want them back?

Lots to consider here.