- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:34 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
And how many of the 165,000 Texans who serve in the military are going to kill their mother, fathers, brothers, and sisters?
None of them, because no one is taking up arms against the US military.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:35 pm to EKG
How about the whole Gulf Coast join and really frick the Dems up.........
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:37 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:Your knowledge of Texas history seems to be ... limited.
Ignoring that as soon as Texans ousted Mexico, they begged to be brought in to the US.
Texas' first President (Sam Houston) was a strong advocate of annexation, but he was elected NOT for that reason, but rather because he led our military forces during the Texas Revolution.
Texas' second President (Mirabeau B. Lamar) was a strong advocate of continued independence, and he WAS elected based in large part based upon that platform. In fact, he favored rapid expansion to the Gulf of California. (Remember that Texas already included about half of current New Mexico at the time, pursuant to the Treaty of Velasco and the Adams-Oniz Treaty, plus about 1/4 of Colorado and tiny parts of Kansas and Wyoming.)
Texans re-elected Houston largely because European nations were declining to recognize our independence, leaving a young and sparsely-populated nation at great risk vis-a-vis the larger Mexico. It is difficult to grasp TODAY, but Mexico was a strong continental power in the 1830s. Not stronger than the US, but certainly stronger than anything between the Rio Grande and Brazil.
Even so, England was on the verge of granting recognition by 1845, and the US (north and south) annexed Texas to prevent us from falling into the British sphere of influence.
Texas today is not weak, not young and not sparsely populated.
This post was edited on 1/26/21 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:39 pm to SDVTiger
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Under no circumstances will the secession of any state be non-violent or peaceful. Either the United States or a population within the state itself will ensure that. This is inherent with any secession movement......well, ever.
This is absolutely not true. There have been MANY instances of non-violent secessions in the last 50 years. Western nations have divided peacefully more often than violently in recent decades, and you have very little evidence to suggest it wouldn't happen for us.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I don't know if the question has ever been studied.
I think you are misunderstanding my post. My comment was saying that a relative small percentage of TX's population has "Texas lineage" unless said lineage simply includes everyone born in Texas.
My guess would be somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 ... probably closer to 1/3.
For example, my 1845 lineage is paternal. My mom's ancestors did not start arriving in Texas until well-after annexation. If 1845 lineage is the determining factor, my two paternal first-cousins, my brother and I would have "Texas lineage," and my six maternal first-cousins would not (my mother's siblings each married someone with no 1845 lineage, too). 4/10.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:44 pm to AggieHank86
See you admit it. Because y'all couldn't handle going it alone.
Honestly, y'all need the upcoming kick in the arse. Maybe it'll push your eyes out your mouths and y'all can see reality again.
Honestly, y'all need the upcoming kick in the arse. Maybe it'll push your eyes out your mouths and y'all can see reality again.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:44 pm to finchmeister08
Nucor Steel in Blytheville, Arkansas.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
probably closer to 1/3.
So , as I said, a relatively small portion of the current Texas population.
quote:
If 1845 lineage is the determining factor
I can't imagine any other date being the threshold, should such a thing come to pass.
quote:
my two paternal first-cousins, my brother and I would have "Texas lineage," and my six maternal first-cousins would not (my mother's siblings each married someone with no 1845 lineage, too)
How would you prove it and how would it be verified? Do you believe that said status could possibly be verified for even a small percentage of the people claiming to have Texas ancestry pre-1845?
Point being, its not a practicable standard.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:47 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:
The good news is that I am an American first, a Californian second
Californian's prove daily they ain't Americans so you're wrong
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:49 pm to dchog
Honestly what I hope this movement generates is a reminder that the states should take back their power from the Fed. Regardless of whether Texas actually can secede, I hope it empowers states to reject unconstitutional nonsense from Washington.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:49 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
There have been MANY instances of non-violent secessions in the last 50 years
Please name one. Do you have an example other than Czechoslovakia (if we are considering them to be "the West")?
quote:
Western nations have divided peacefully more often than violently in recent decades
The number of nations in "the West" that have sub-divided in the last 50 years can be listed on one hand. Are you including the Balkans in your definition?
This post was edited on 1/26/21 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:52 pm to GhostOfFreedom
quote:
If they pull it off, they need to make sure they get control of some nuclear weapons. Maybe, a trident sub or two to keep the wacko Democrats from going to war with them.
They need a deterrence to preserve peace.
I know this was in jest, but I think it's funny that we actively try to destroy the countries that pursue nukes (NK and Iran).
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:53 pm to jaytothen
quote:
Californian's prove daily they ain't Americans so you're wrong
Mhm. Cute. Unfortunately for you, California is currently a powerhouse in the tech and agriculture industries. Possessing the best public education system in the nation and the largest population. Because Americans are an ambitious people and building a state like that takes a lot of ambition, I would say that we are Americans. Now suck up your pride like a real man, boy.
This post was edited on 1/26/21 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:53 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:In 1845? Yes, we probably needed to be part of the US in order to avoid re-conquest by Mexico.
See you admit it. Because y'all couldn't handle going it alone.
There were 100k of us and 7 MILLION Mexicans. We were newly-settled and had ZERO infrastructure (heavy settlement did not start until the late 1820s), while Mexico had been settled for more than three centuries. On a percentage basis, it was would be like Oklahoma vs. the rest of the US.
Today, our GDP is almost 50% greater than Mexico, and our infrastructure is FAR superior. More than enough to compensate for the population gap.
This post was edited on 1/26/21 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:55 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:
Mhm. Cute. Unfortunately for you, California is currently a powerhouse in the tech and agriculture industries. Possessing the best public education system in the nation and the largest population. Because Americans are an ambitious people and building a state like that takes a lot of ambition, I would say that we are Americans. Now suck up your pride like a real man, boy.
Good for you. Zero fricks given.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:57 pm to EKG
We'll succeed, then the US will Invade us for Oil under the guise of protecting their ally Mexico.
This post was edited on 1/26/21 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Strong feelings of "Texan" don't necessarily limit themselves to Sons of the Republic. I assure you that my maternal relatives are just as rabidly-Texan as the paternal side.quote:I can't imagine any other date being the threshold, should such a thing come to pass.
If 1845 lineage is the determining factor
EKG has never really discussed her Texas roots, that I recall, but I don't know anyone with even as little as three generations of Texas who feel much different about primary allegiance.
quote:My comments about linking the franchise to 1845 were a bit of a Texas inside-joke, but Texas is young on the geopolitical scale with good records. It is not hard to trace ancestry here.
How would you prove it and how would it be verified? Do you believe that said status could possibly be verified for even a small percentage of the people claiming to have Texas ancestry pre-1845?
Point being, its not a practicable standard.
Posted on 1/26/21 at 2:59 pm to EKG
Done 
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News