Would President Obama use military force to keep Texas from seceding?

First of all, this is highly hypothetical, and there is no way to know what would really happen.

I think that if a state attempted to secede, it would result in military force being used, because it would mean the end of the union if even one state seceded. Others would want to,

If Texas tried to secede? Good riddance, I’d say.

well, it’s a safe bet that Texas has WMDs.

Any secession would be met with military force unless it was so widely condemned in every other state that allowing it would not encourage others. Even then the “security of the nation” would likely be considered at risk to the point of taking military control over the seceding area would almost be a given.

@Marina This is one of the reasons – other than oil – with the Chechen war in Russia. They can’t let one region secede without others following. Though Texas is hardly the same as Chechnya, there are some similarities.

It’s way too hypothetical, there are a lot of steps we would have to go through first. I have no idea how a modern president would treat secession in general, but assuming that Texas is going to secede and take all the federal facilities in the state, including military bases and nuclear weapons with them, then yes, any president would use military force.

Well, it is a pretty safe bet that no President is going to let that much oil slip out of US control, Obama would actually be smart to let Texas go. Think about it:

The Democratic candidate would have beaten George Bush in 2000 and 2004 no matter how much he cheated. Can’t turn back history, but it bodes well for future elections.

The US would lose 2 Republican Senators, making the balance of power still rest at over 60% Democrat even IF the Republican candidate wins Teddy Kennedy’s seat. In the House, only 12 of 32 districts are represented by Democrats, so Republicans would lose another 8 net seats there. It would virtually ensure 8 years of Obama’s presidency with a majority in both houses of Congress, and might represent the death knell of the Republican party.

It would decrease the number of Republican held governorships and state legislatures as well.

It would mean George Bush was no longer a US citizen. Nor would a number of wealthy oilmen who donate money to the Republican party, but who couldn’t donate as much if they weren’t US citizens.

Why is it always Texas people talk about when the idea of secession comes up? I mean, Vermont has many times fussed about wanting to secede, and since 2004 the Second Vermont Republic has been trying to garner interest in secession. Montana (2008), the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket (1977), Georgia (2009), and Alaska (2006) have all entertained the idea.

The First North American Secessionist Convention was attended by a number of secessionist groups, including Alaskan Independence Party, Cascadia Independence Project, Hawaiʻi Nation, The Second Maine Militia, Free State Project participants, the Republic of New Hampshire, the League of the South, Christian Exodus, the Second Vermont Republic, Texas Secession, and the United Republic of Texas.

Additionally some members of the Lakota people of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakota region are also making steps to separate from the United States. The self-proclaimed Republic of Lakotah has made a point to say that their actions are not those of secession, but rather an assertion of independence of a nation that was always sovereign and did not join the United States willfully.

So why pick on Texas all the time?

PS If Dubya thinks he will be a Texan if Texas secedes he needs to remember that he was born in Connecticut.

I’d move to Texas and fight Obama.

@Darwin Maybe it’s the fact that they Governor of Texas is the one suggesting it?

I don’t think he would have to.

@Snarp – But everyone knows that Governor Goodhair is less than intellectually gifted.

I’m smelling a screenplay.

Despite the rhetoric, Texas receives much more federal funds than it pays in, so it will never secede, it will only jawbone. Republicans love to take your money, they just like to pretend that they don’t.

Reminded of an interesting situation with Florida in Frederik Pohl’s Eschaton trilogy where Florida is operating independently of the rest of the Union (customs, substantially different laws, etc.), but hasn’t succeeded, much for the reasons you state @pdworkin.

First off, it’s crazy talk and anyone who’s saying it is an idiot who’s just bitter that a guy they don’t like is in office (seriously, get over it you morons).

Second, Texas cannot legally leave the Union. That was made illegal at the end of the Civil War. The “clause” that many believe would allow Texas to leave, is actually a clause many believe would get them kicked out. BASICALLY, there is a clause in the charter that allowed Texas into the Union that would allow Texas to be split into 4 separate states. Since adding 3 states to the Union would quickly shift the balance in the senate and house, and cause a host of other logistics/bureaucratic problems, it is believed this would get Texas booted out.

But again, it’s crazy talk. People need to just suck it up and realize Obama, while likely having different ideas than many people, is not a bad guy… and the bat-sh*t insane people on the radio are just feeding you crap to get ratings.

Great answer, @westy81585!

Texas is red, but it isn’t that red. Lot of hot air from a lot of hotheads. Might play well at tea parties, but the only people who are serious about it would be locked up by the ones who aren’t. – or should be.

Can’t we just give Texas back to Mexico instead?

Also noted that the Supreme court did rule on this in Texas v. White that Texas cannot, on its own, secede without “consent of the States”, meaning that the US Federal Gov’t could permit a state to leave, but it cannot do it on its own.

Hmm… now how do we convince the Feds to let Texas go?

Would an independent Texas use force to keep Houston from seceding?

@jctennis123 In the equally unlikely case that Texas had seceded under Bush, and assuming that Bush would also use military force rather than allow a new country to spring up with control of a significant number of U.S. military facilities and other federal assets (I assure you he would be at least as likely to as Obama) would you also want to move to Texas and fight Bush?

@mattbrowne I think Austin would be more likely to secede…

@Dr_Dredd – Good point. Fragmentation of functioning countries is foolish. Go back to tribal order? Instead of this people in the US or Texas should think about an EU-style North and Central American Union.

Probably but I favor the succession of Texas. It’s a scary place and not some place you should go unarmed. Look at the people we had as presidents that came from there, Lyndon Johnson and George Bush, two scary guys that just couldn’t see a way to settle thing without blowing up brown people.

@Snarp Yes I would fight Bush too. Let’s be clear – it’s been a long time since we had a good president. Besides, states challenging the status quo and not letting the federal government walk all over them is a good thing.

@Ron_C – One thing – Lyndon Johnson didn’t start the war in Vietnam. He just tried to finish it. It was started when the Viet Minh opposed the French coming back in after WWII. We started sending “advisors” back in 1950, when Eisenhower was in office. And he was from Kansas.

Then Kennedy upped the number of “advisors” in 1963. And he was from Massachusetts.

And both Bushes, father and son, were originally from Connecticut. In addition they are related to a number of other Presidents, none of whom were Texans, including Franklin Pierce, Fillmore, Lincoln, Grant, Hayes , Garfield, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Coolidge, Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, and Ford.

Your prejudices are showing big time.

@Darwin I have always hated Johnson because he tried to get me killed. He was president while I was in Vietnam. Kennedy was planning to pull out of Vietnam after his version of the “surge” didn’t work. That and his stance on organized crime is probably what got him and his brother killed.

The fact that the Bushs are related to so many presidents is an indicator of what happens when big business takes over the government. They were also related to supporters of Hitler and have interests in weapons manufacturers and distributors. There is nothing honorable about the Bush family and most of the presidents to whom they are related.

I am surprised about them being related to FDR, I guess that apple fell pretty far from the tree.

@Darwin And another thing. The Vietnamese asked the U.S. for help getting free of French colonial rule. The French sent the Foreign Legion to quell the rebellion and they got their asses kicked.

Since the Ho Chi Min couldn’t get help from the west, the Chinese stepped in. I say the main blame goes the the U.S. State Department (as usual). I wounder why we can’t find a secretary of state that understands people instead of posturing for the diplomatic elite. Ms. Clinton seems to be doing a much better job than many of her predecessors.

Ms. Clinton may be a lot smarter than any of her predecessors.

@Darwin agreed. Anyone that can stay married to Bill and keep him somwhat under control must be very tough and smart, indeed!