10 ms·

Core to many Texans identity is a belief that someday Texas is going to secede from the Union again and become its own independent country. Don't get me wrong,

Core to many Texans identity is a belief that someday Texas is going to secede from the Union again and become its own independent country. Don't get me wrong, I love Texas and I love many of the Texans I've met for being some of the chillest, most down to earth, pragmatic and welcoming people I have ever met, but they are a bit weird about this particular issue sometimes.

Leader2light 7y ago
It may not seem so weird when the USA as a whole is going down in flames someday.
rgrieselhuber 7y ago
Why is that weird?
- techsupporter 7y ago
  As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons: a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal government because the feds didn't get any when Texas joined the Union, but the land that is owned by the feds contributes a massive amount to our economy. Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.) b) It promotes an "us vs. them" philosophy that's not healthy. Texas tries to hold itself out as separate and, to some extent, "above" the rest of the United States. Yet we get the same two Senators and elect representatives to the same federal House as everybody else. Our way of doing things is not necessarily the right way simply because it's the Texan way. (Our legislature, proudly to some people's way of thinking, only meets once every other year and only for a couple of months. That's a terrible way to govern a state of several million people, especially with a phenomenally weak executive.) c) When do we move on from trying to live history to remembering it? In order to graduate from college, I had to take courses in both federal and state history (3 credit hours of "HIS 1024 History of Texas I" is on my transcript), just because we're so wrapped up in our own mythology. Yes, Texas was its own country. So was California, and Alaska, and Hawaii. Those are things for the textbooks and to explain weird language on deeds and why so many flags fly over the state capitol. It's not the basis for some inexplicable "independent" streak. Texas needs to get off its predisposition with its past and look towards its future, preferably being one that doesn't embrace fossil fuels--good job on the wind production, thanks T. Boone Pickens--and a car-focused, sprawling development culture. I hope it does, though I'm watching from afar, having decamped to Washington State many years ago.
  - rgrieselhuber 7y ago
    Fair enough, sounds mostly like a matter of opinion, with the exception of point #1, which sounds more like a matter of fiscal priorities that aren't necessarily set in stone. I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    This seems to assume the US would close its borders to an independent Texas. I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico. Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.
  - SllX 7y ago
    As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B. I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments. The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?
    - techsupporter 7y ago
      Given our respective points of origin, I don't know if I'll be able to give you an explanation that will be satisfactory, but I'll try. First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too. I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)? Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise. I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
- delecti 7y ago
  It was kinda a whole todo the last time some people tried to secede from the Union. It's weird to think it's a good idea to try again.
  - rgrieselhuber 7y ago
    Texas is a special case in this context, although highly contentious.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    It was a whole todo for myriad reasons at a particularly fragile time for the union. I think it's weird to reject the idea out of hand in 2019. Practically, I doubt there'd be much difference between living in Texas in 2019 and living there one year after independence. As globalism increases in the wake of colonialism, I actually think this could be a very positive thing. Empires and consolidated power are a problem. Tribalism is a problem. Nationalism is a problem.
roenxi 7y ago
~ I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future that I'm always impressed when they get it right; but trying to do so often has a lot of positive side effects. Being ready to secede is a stupid one, but as a metaphor for "something goes wrong and we can't rely on people 1,000km away to provide for us" it would lead to some excellent planning. Modern society is extremely efficient, extremely cheap and profoundly untested. We've had commercial electricity for 15 decades, the internet for 3 decades and quality GPS for 2. These are not long times on the scale that a country's logistics channels operate at; because things so central to how we work need to be ready for 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year style events. Excessive caution may not actually be excessive.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  > Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future. They are pretty good at creating the future, though. As in - separating the power grid is a step towards separating other things and finally "separating the country". Classic Soros' reflexivity.
  - Elof 7y ago
    Isn’t the future inevitably created
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      It is, of course. But I'm talking about this, specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy Which can be summed up as "if you think this hard enough it may just come true". Soros developed this idea after studying under Popper and put it to test in his ridiculously successful hedge fund manager career.
  - stanfordkid 7y ago
    Not sure I understand where reflexivity applies here. It’s a pretty straightforward concept mostly concerned with feedback loop driven price behavior (bubbles).
rayiner 7y ago
One if my favorite season finales ever: https://youtu.be/xFgNZG3gmqc https://youtu.be/xFgNZG3gmqc The people with this view are also a big and growing minority: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-second https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-s... > Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 40 percent identify as Texans before they identify as Americans, far outpacing any other age group.
- jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
  No reason at all to believe those same people will feel the same in a decade, or even still live in Texas. The state is politically shifting blue. Some may head to redder pastures. Climate change could make it intolerable to the masses. If recent history was an iron clad predictor of the future we’d all be focused on Brexit, and going on about those royals
- mstade 7y ago
  Wait what – they made a second season of Jericho?! You sir just made my day!
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Prepare to be disappointed at a season ending cliffhanger... all over again.
    - philsnow 7y ago
      This show felt like so many other shows on American TV in the last decade: somebody had the core of a good idea, but the writers had no idea how to turn that into a show. The first couple episodes of Jericho were tantalizing. The interesting part was the world and the geopolitical situation, but then so little about that actually changed over the course of the following episodes, it was just a bunch of small town politics and side stories among a few uncompelling characters. I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way. The mini-series and the first episode of season one are a completely different animal from the rest of the show. The rest of the show was just the writers releasing dribs and drabs of what the Cylons actually were and actually were planning, among a bunch of side stories between characters (okay these were more compelling characters for the most part, though largely unsympathetic).
paulddraper 7y ago
"Texas: Greatest Nation On Earth"
fastball 7y ago
Many is a stretch. It's a running joke for sure, but being fiercely independent does not mean we actually want to secede from the Union.
- jabagonuts 7y ago
  Yeah, many of us do. TX isn’t just a state, it’s a state of mind, and also a former independent state. Besides, if TX secedes, how is Trump supposed to build his border wall?
  - kick 7y ago
    Around Texas?
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    > and also a former independent state All of America used to be independent. Especially Hawaii and Alaska. Should they secede?
    - brobdingnagians 7y ago
      If it meant they improved their prospects for economics, culture, etc. then sure, but it wouldn't. And currently it wouldn't for Texas. But if at some point people thought it would be a better deal to be independent for economic or ideological reasons, why should violence determine whether they stay? Might as well just put it to a vote. Britain has got that right, they have let their former colonies leave (mostly) peacefully. And in the case of Scotland, they have even stronger historical ties and integration than a lot of US states, but it was actually put to a vote.
- rayiner 7y ago
  “Many” is not a stretch. Nationwide polls consistently find upwards of a quarter of the population supporting secession of their state. (That’s about the same percentage os households that own a cat.) In the Southwest, it’s a third. Hispanic people in particular are relatively strong supporters of secession: https://mises.org/power-market/reuters-poll-shows-hispanics-support-secession-more-general-population https://mises.org/power-market/reuters-poll-shows-hispanics-.... (In the Southwest, opposition to secession among hispanics only slightly outweighs supports.)
krick 7y ago
Why "weird"? Texas is a great country.
Sanzig 7y ago
It's still a bit weird to have a separate interconnection. Even if Texas was an independent nation, it wouldn't necessarily harm anything to be synchronized with another interconnection. The western and eastern interconnections already straddle international borders.
- pm90 7y ago
  The implication is that the new Republic wouldn’t secede peacefully (not unreasonable, considering what happened the last time it tried seriously) and will be on its own for a little while.
frogpelt 7y ago
You can call them weird but they may be right.
ramraj07 7y ago
I've had the (mis? Fortune) of living in that one state in every country - Texas, Quebec and "Tamil Nadu" in India
- 205guy 7y ago
  What about Catalonia? They seem to actually want independence more than the ones you list.
  - brobdingnagians 7y ago
    And it would probably be one of the best things that happened to them if they could manage to do it peacefully. They are a completely different culture, language, economic prospects, etc. Spain just wants to keep taxing them to support the rest of the country. But how is that ever a good reason for keeping an entire culture subject to historical imperialism?
    - PunchTornado 7y ago
      rubbish. completely different culture and language? I lived in Barcelona and you could do everything in Spanish. The same can be said about various regions in Italy. Have you been to Sicily? Very different language, culture, food etc. And by the polls ~50% of Catalonians don't want independence.
      - victoro0 7y ago
        Of course you could do anything, it is a very touristic city and Spain forces Castilian spanish to be taught in schools. Also, you can tell the polls are not that favorable or the central govmt would have made a referendum on the issue.
- namdnay 7y ago
  To be fair to Quebec, there are major linguistic, cultural and historical differences with the rest of Canada. /rant over :)
josephjrobison 7y ago
Took me a bit of time to learn that Texans have this exceptionalism attitude, especially for those who were descendants of the original 300 families. I can’t confirm it broadly but I witnessed preferential hiring treatment for those that were part of that clique.
neffy 7y ago
In which case I guess it's good that they already have a significant part of the US military C&C under their control.
philwelch 7y ago
The US is a truly gargantuan country; large states like Texas are already richer, bigger, and more populous than many or most independent countries. In fact Texas once was an independent country.
- sorokod 7y ago
  Right - was it not Mexico?
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Texas existed as a self-proclaimed sovereign nation for the better part of a decade. It began with the Texas Revolution and independence from Mexico. (Remember the Alamo!) Texas immediately wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the U.S. was reluctant about a potential war with Mexico. (Which when Texas was finally annexed, is exactly what happened.)
tifellow 7y ago
Is it really that weird to believe that one day the country might fall apart? Wouldn't it be weirder to believe that the country will last forever? There is absolutely zero historical precedence for the later belief.

Leader2light 7y ago

It may not seem so weird when the USA as a whole is going down in flames someday.

rgrieselhuber 7y ago

Why is that weird?

techsupporter 7y ago
As a native Texan, it's weird for a few reasons: a) Pragmatically, separating from the rest of the United States would be devastating to our economy. Much like the United Kingdom from the EU, but on a much larger scale, because the vast majority of our trade, people, and connectedness come from being part of the U.S. Texans like to trot out the factoid that relatively little land in Texas is owned by the federal government because the feds didn't get any when Texas joined the Union, but the land that is owned by the feds contributes a massive amount to our economy. Metro areas like Killeen and a good chunk of San Antonio would simply cease to exist if the military left. (Never mind that a lot of that oil that Texans are so proud of us dragging out of the ground has to go on pipelines that cross the U.S.) b) It promotes an "us vs. them" philosophy that's not healthy. Texas tries to hold itself out as separate and, to some extent, "above" the rest of the United States. Yet we get the same two Senators and elect representatives to the same federal House as everybody else. Our way of doing things is not necessarily the right way simply because it's the Texan way. (Our legislature, proudly to some people's way of thinking, only meets once every other year and only for a couple of months. That's a terrible way to govern a state of several million people, especially with a phenomenally weak executive.) c) When do we move on from trying to live history to remembering it? In order to graduate from college, I had to take courses in both federal and state history (3 credit hours of "HIS 1024 History of Texas I" is on my transcript), just because we're so wrapped up in our own mythology. Yes, Texas was its own country. So was California, and Alaska, and Hawaii. Those are things for the textbooks and to explain weird language on deeds and why so many flags fly over the state capitol. It's not the basis for some inexplicable "independent" streak. Texas needs to get off its predisposition with its past and look towards its future, preferably being one that doesn't embrace fossil fuels--good job on the wind production, thanks T. Boone Pickens--and a car-focused, sprawling development culture. I hope it does, though I'm watching from afar, having decamped to Washington State many years ago.
- rgrieselhuber 7y ago
  Fair enough, sounds mostly like a matter of opinion, with the exception of point #1, which sounds more like a matter of fiscal priorities that aren't necessarily set in stone. I'm not a Texan but I do see the rationale behind freedom to associate or not associate with people based on shared values or a lack thereof.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  This seems to assume the US would close its borders to an independent Texas. I would expect there to be a free trade agreement at least as good as for Canada and Mexico. Canada has similar population as Texas and does very well outside the US. I don't see why Texas couldn't do the same.
- SllX 7y ago
  As a non-Texan, I would like to ask more about point B. I myself am increasingly of the opinion that while government, national and State (I’m a Californian) has a role, it has unfortunately carved out too big of a chunk and allocated itself too many roles, often on the most specious of arguments. The idea of a legislature that meets infrequently, and where politician is a hat, not a job title, actually looks pretty ideal from where I’m standing. Why should I be disabused from this notion?
  - techsupporter 7y ago
    Given our respective points of origin, I don't know if I'll be able to give you an explanation that will be satisfactory, but I'll try. First, the Texas government was designed, post-Reconstruction, to give as little authority as possible to the state government and to move government as close to the citizens as possible. That's all well and good. Had we stuck with that model, I would have few complaints, but we didn't. The Legislature has, over the intervening hundred years or so, routinely chipped away at the ability for cities and counties to run themselves as their citizens see fit. To pick on a popular thing to get riled up about, as soon as Austin and Dallas tried to regulate plastic bags and Uber-style taxi services, the Legislature fell all over itself to prohibit cities from enacting ordinances of such a type. When Denton wanted to regulate (but not prohibit) fracking, the Legislature yanked that, too. I take the view that there must be some government and that, in a state with as varied of interests and as many moving parts as Texas has, a rural-style, infrequent central government with a weak executive (the Texas Governor has some of the most limited authority out of all 46 states and 4 commonwealths in the United States), and limited home-rule city authority is not a desirable state. Running such a large entity should be a full-time job, both for the executive and the legislative, because a government should be able to react to changing conditions and the needs of its citizens. That stands separate from the scope of authority that a government should or should not have. If the government is not even present most of the time, how does it serve the oversight and governance functions? And if we wish to have limited central government, why should cities not be able to do what their citizenry wants with limited exceptions? Why can Dallas voters not tax themselves for all of the light rail they want (DART can only exercise the tax authority granted it by the state)? Another example of "we've always done it like this" is the sunset bill. Most Texas agencies sunset after a specified time, usually 10 years. There's always a scramble in the legislative session to reauthorize some minor agency like the Texas Department of Prisons or, my personal favorite, the Railroad Commission (which, despite its name, has not regulated railroads for generations; it is the oil and gas regulator for the state). Yet, somehow this mad dash to get the work done before the Legislature goes sine die is seen as a useful exercise. I don't understand the thinking that makes the word "politician" a pejorative, nor that it should be something that someone does in his or her spare time. Running a system that directly impacts the lives of almost thirty million people should be the singular focus of the people we send to do it. Maybe not their entire lives, but for sure while they're in office.
delecti 7y ago
It was kinda a whole todo the last time some people tried to secede from the Union. It's weird to think it's a good idea to try again.
- rgrieselhuber 7y ago
  Texas is a special case in this context, although highly contentious.
- nkozyra 7y ago
  It was a whole todo for myriad reasons at a particularly fragile time for the union. I think it's weird to reject the idea out of hand in 2019. Practically, I doubt there'd be much difference between living in Texas in 2019 and living there one year after independence. As globalism increases in the wake of colonialism, I actually think this could be a very positive thing. Empires and consolidated power are a problem. Tribalism is a problem. Nationalism is a problem.

roenxi 7y ago

~ I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future that I'm always impressed when they get it right; but trying to do so often has a lot of positive side effects. Being ready to secede is a stupid one, but as a metaphor for "something goes wrong and we can't rely on people 1,000km away to provide for us" it would lead to some excellent planning. Modern society is extremely efficient, extremely cheap and profoundly untested. We've had commercial electricity for 15 decades, the internet for 3 decades and quality GPS for 2. These are not long times on the scale that a country's logistics channels operate at; because things so central to how we work need to be ready for 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year style events. Excessive caution may not actually be excessive.

H8crilA 7y ago
> Large groups of people are so embarrassingly bad at predicting the future. They are pretty good at creating the future, though. As in - separating the power grid is a step towards separating other things and finally "separating the country". Classic Soros' reflexivity.
- Elof 7y ago
  Isn’t the future inevitably created
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    It is, of course. But I'm talking about this, specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy Which can be summed up as "if you think this hard enough it may just come true". Soros developed this idea after studying under Popper and put it to test in his ridiculously successful hedge fund manager career.
- stanfordkid 7y ago
  Not sure I understand where reflexivity applies here. It’s a pretty straightforward concept mostly concerned with feedback loop driven price behavior (bubbles).

rayiner 7y ago

One if my favorite season finales ever: https://youtu.be/xFgNZG3gmqc https://youtu.be/xFgNZG3gmqc The people with this view are also a big and growing minority: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-second https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/texan-first-american-s... > Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 40 percent identify as Texans before they identify as Americans, far outpacing any other age group.

jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
No reason at all to believe those same people will feel the same in a decade, or even still live in Texas. The state is politically shifting blue. Some may head to redder pastures. Climate change could make it intolerable to the masses. If recent history was an iron clad predictor of the future we’d all be focused on Brexit, and going on about those royals
mstade 7y ago
Wait what – they made a second season of Jericho?! You sir just made my day!
- ethbro 7y ago
  Prepare to be disappointed at a season ending cliffhanger... all over again.
  - philsnow 7y ago
    This show felt like so many other shows on American TV in the last decade: somebody had the core of a good idea, but the writers had no idea how to turn that into a show. The first couple episodes of Jericho were tantalizing. The interesting part was the world and the geopolitical situation, but then so little about that actually changed over the course of the following episodes, it was just a bunch of small town politics and side stories among a few uncompelling characters. I'll catch hell for this, but Battlestar Galactica was the same way. The mini-series and the first episode of season one are a completely different animal from the rest of the show. The rest of the show was just the writers releasing dribs and drabs of what the Cylons actually were and actually were planning, among a bunch of side stories between characters (okay these were more compelling characters for the most part, though largely unsympathetic).

paulddraper 7y ago

"Texas: Greatest Nation On Earth"

fastball 7y ago

Many is a stretch. It's a running joke for sure, but being fiercely independent does not mean we actually want to secede from the Union.

jabagonuts 7y ago
Yeah, many of us do. TX isn’t just a state, it’s a state of mind, and also a former independent state. Besides, if TX secedes, how is Trump supposed to build his border wall?
- kick 7y ago
  Around Texas?
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  > and also a former independent state All of America used to be independent. Especially Hawaii and Alaska. Should they secede?
  - brobdingnagians 7y ago
    If it meant they improved their prospects for economics, culture, etc. then sure, but it wouldn't. And currently it wouldn't for Texas. But if at some point people thought it would be a better deal to be independent for economic or ideological reasons, why should violence determine whether they stay? Might as well just put it to a vote. Britain has got that right, they have let their former colonies leave (mostly) peacefully. And in the case of Scotland, they have even stronger historical ties and integration than a lot of US states, but it was actually put to a vote.
rayiner 7y ago
“Many” is not a stretch. Nationwide polls consistently find upwards of a quarter of the population supporting secession of their state. (That’s about the same percentage os households that own a cat.) In the Southwest, it’s a third. Hispanic people in particular are relatively strong supporters of secession: https://mises.org/power-market/reuters-poll-shows-hispanics-support-secession-more-general-population https://mises.org/power-market/reuters-poll-shows-hispanics-.... (In the Southwest, opposition to secession among hispanics only slightly outweighs supports.)

krick 7y ago

Why "weird"? Texas is a great country.

Sanzig 7y ago

It's still a bit weird to have a separate interconnection. Even if Texas was an independent nation, it wouldn't necessarily harm anything to be synchronized with another interconnection. The western and eastern interconnections already straddle international borders.

pm90 7y ago
The implication is that the new Republic wouldn’t secede peacefully (not unreasonable, considering what happened the last time it tried seriously) and will be on its own for a little while.

frogpelt 7y ago

You can call them weird but they may be right.

ramraj07 7y ago

I've had the (mis? Fortune) of living in that one state in every country - Texas, Quebec and "Tamil Nadu" in India

205guy 7y ago
What about Catalonia? They seem to actually want independence more than the ones you list.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  And it would probably be one of the best things that happened to them if they could manage to do it peacefully. They are a completely different culture, language, economic prospects, etc. Spain just wants to keep taxing them to support the rest of the country. But how is that ever a good reason for keeping an entire culture subject to historical imperialism?
  - PunchTornado 7y ago
    rubbish. completely different culture and language? I lived in Barcelona and you could do everything in Spanish. The same can be said about various regions in Italy. Have you been to Sicily? Very different language, culture, food etc. And by the polls ~50% of Catalonians don't want independence.
    - victoro0 7y ago
      Of course you could do anything, it is a very touristic city and Spain forces Castilian spanish to be taught in schools. Also, you can tell the polls are not that favorable or the central govmt would have made a referendum on the issue.
namdnay 7y ago
To be fair to Quebec, there are major linguistic, cultural and historical differences with the rest of Canada. /rant over :)

josephjrobison 7y ago

Took me a bit of time to learn that Texans have this exceptionalism attitude, especially for those who were descendants of the original 300 families. I can’t confirm it broadly but I witnessed preferential hiring treatment for those that were part of that clique.

neffy 7y ago

In which case I guess it's good that they already have a significant part of the US military C&C under their control.

philwelch 7y ago

The US is a truly gargantuan country; large states like Texas are already richer, bigger, and more populous than many or most independent countries. In fact Texas once was an independent country.

sorokod 7y ago
Right - was it not Mexico?
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Texas existed as a self-proclaimed sovereign nation for the better part of a decade. It began with the Texas Revolution and independence from Mexico. (Remember the Alamo!) Texas immediately wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the U.S. was reluctant about a potential war with Mexico. (Which when Texas was finally annexed, is exactly what happened.)

tifellow 7y ago

Is it really that weird to believe that one day the country might fall apart? Wouldn't it be weirder to believe that the country will last forever? There is absolutely zero historical precedence for the later belief.