But, I think Texas would have issues fighting Mexico if they succeeded in separating from the states. Because I think the civil war would be devastating to the region.
True, Texas would face some critical issues regarding Mexico. Here's the gist from a conversation I had with someone else. I explained to the person that secession can be possible but quite difficult. First off, the Federal Government will muster the US Army for a campaign to seize and secure Texas. Secondly, there are other states who may or may not agree. There may become 'factionalized' republics, confederacies, unions that may comprise of other states but not likely possible. Thirdly, Texas is in an unique position because of their robust economy, the landmass and population that California surpasses, and faces possible choices.
Annexation of Mexico could bring different results. It is possible that the Mexican Army may refuse to accept an alliance under Texas to be granted their protected rights or face annihilation. Due to current affairs, the Mexican army has been very anemic in dealing with the drug cartel problem. It is possible for 'Republican' battalions to face light to moderate resistance though heavy fighting may start in larger, central Mexican cities held by the army. Either submission or annihilation for the men clad in green is the option before an advancing Texan army. Then you have the drug cartels who may possess a fleet of vehicles, manpower, and a drug economy driven by greed, selfishness along with a 'lucrative' sex trade that may propel Texas to use the 'sex trade' as one of the primary reasons to 'free' Mexico though annexation is the only thought.
Granted, a full-frontal fight by the Texan army may not be the best route so we may decide to use psy-ops warfare and propaganda. We may seize news stations and incorporate Spanish-speaking messages that Texas intends to free all who are enslaved, beaten down, or are unable to fend for themselves. Though shady and sneaky, we may encourage a "liberation day" of Mexico though it won't be possible with the capture of the capital of Mexico; it would become ours and come "Liberation Day", the Mexican peoples may fight alongside the Lone Star against the drug cartels. It is possible many Mexican lives may be lost but it could be possible the cartels could be reduced their strength of hostility and volatility. They may end up fleeing or requesting that Texas cease from all operations concerning firefights, bombings, and/or HVT-capture-and-execute to save face and hope they survive doing the business they once were doing. Once the drug cartels are out of the picture, Texas may annex Mexico for the sole reason that the Mexican peoples can no longer take care of themselves. They were in fear, afraid, and were forced along like mules from the drug cartels for years; and Texas is about to show them what it means to be a Texan: to be independent, strong, a Lone Star state of mind, among others.
Mexico may become a protectorate or simply a part of the 5th Republic of Texas as land. In Mexico, we have Coca-Cola, DuPont, and other factories wealthy businesses stored in there. Conversations of those factories to manufacture clothes, war materiel, and more of what Texas needs from labor are the spoils of a victor. The land is abundant and Mexico can be used as a buffer state.
Though Mexico has a lot of what Texas can grab as the victor, usually the problem is how far long will it take for Texas to quickly: suppress the Mexican Army's fighting strength, eliminate the drug cartels' existence, and reform the Mexican economy by encouraging labor to put toward the war effort a la WWII.
Texas might get the Tex-Arkana region of Arkansas to come along. I'm not so sure They'd be able to convince entire other states to go, though. Not unless they revived the idea of a confederacy.
Possible Texas may revive an ages old Republic (not Confederacy) that never was back in 1861 when Texas seceded from the Union when Lincoln became President.
However, Texas may not be able to form what may originally have been the South. It is absolutely guaranteed that Montana will never accept an alliance with Texas because there's been an underlying quarrel that Montana is the real land of cowboys when we, Texans, have had cattle and delivered it to Montana thereby we were the first real cowboys. This kind of spate will never end but Montana will never accept. They will end up believing that Texas misrepresents what Montana has: free land, no sales tax (of which Texas does have and one of the reasons why it has a strong economy and Montana lags so far behind), rebellious "country" boys and girls, and ice-cold roads (even if we did have specialized Special Forces, we'd face blistering cold weather, dangerous trails, and all sorts of other things that may affect a Texan on his missions.
Even a wealthy Montanan may turn coat and accept Texas annexation only to preserve their power circle and wealth while the poor continues to fight. Some wealthy people are willing to put their money, lives, and homes at stake in order to effect what they wanted out of it. Possibly a rogue nation but highly unlikely since Montana is so relatively poor economically wise. Last I lived there, there was a HUGE gap between the wealthy and the poor. If you were poorer, you would end up poorer quicker; if you were wealthy, you'd be a businessman who owned a business, made more money, and ended up more comfortable. This was back in 2004. Not sure what their economy is now.. It depends on the experience and combat strengths both states have against each other.
In order to promote a confederacy, Texas would have to promote certain ideals or values that may appeal to other states. Each state has their own motivations, desires, needs, wants, and hopes to make sure their state ends up with the winner. They also hope that whosoever they joined with actually delivers their promises and possibilities of curbing/eliminating whatever problem they had. For instance, Arizona may curtsy to an alliance with Texas provided the 5th Republic offers her soldiers to build the border and man gun-towers to effectively keep Mexicans at bay. One motivation, and possibly one way. Another could be to assist the Arizonan capitol in seizing cities of their own, round up all the illegals and transport them to Mexico without the help of the incompetent, understaffed, undermanned INS or Border Patrol. Every state has problems, issues that they'd love to resolve and with politics, it's the only way to get other people on board by sharing that enthusiasm.
But, to be entirely realistic, no, I don't think Texas could secede unless there were major strength changes federally. As soon as there was the threat of separation, I think the US would pull all but symbolic presence out of other fronts in order to crush the rebellion fast. Wow, can you imagine the propaganda campaigns on both sides?
The United States may or may not be able to put all their forces to suppress the rise of a 5th Republic. You're forgetting that the issue with the trillion dollar debt left states wondering if Obama will deliver or if Congress would stop bickering and start resolving this problem without committing themselves to greed, pocketing their money. I am sure most states would love to secede in order to force the trillion dollar debt on Washington D.C. (which may end up a nation all by themselves). Washington D.C. may end up having to PAY ALL of the debt while other states may fractionalize, form into smaller but more cohesive empires with their own legislation, laws, etc. Even ObamaCare could easily be rid of by declaring that all American laws developed by Congress that burdened or created more hardships for all American citizens are repealed effectively the moment a faction, for the People by the People, was born. Or a more harsher regime may declare more difficult laws.
Also, there's Afghanistan, and other fronts that have spread the US Army so thin they may not be able to contain or win the civil war through brute strength. It is possible but with the fronts we're opening and kept opening, the Army's strength to hold the states together may prove more difficult. Even if California is so self-sustaining, it is possible California may declare her independence and take control of all US Army assets; Texas would do the same; Alaska would; etc. This further breaks down the US Army's efforts to retake or seize back the states provided Washington D.C. keeps hawking over war fronts and maintaining those costly, expensive wars. The more the US Army conducts operations overseas, the harder it will be and the hardest impact for those who are used to seeing an United America but setting foot seeing factionalized states being born and taking Army assets.
I agree! Very fun to discuss.
What were you thinking would sustain Texas echnomicaly? I doubt the US would be interested in any trade right off the bat. Actually, California would probably have an easier time seceding in that regard--they're fairly self sustaining.
True the US may consider not trading with the 5th Republic. However, if the states secede from Washington D.C. (aside from Texas) the power of the bargaining chip in trade would wane. The problem Texas may face, including other rogue states, are from the United Nations. Though if Texas successfully secedes and carefully legislates a piece of paper that says Texan sovereignty is protected and that they refuse to join the United Nations, it is possible to conduct trade with other nations. China might see Texas a viable partner though we may never trade. India might and we have things we want from India. Europe might consider Texas a trading partner as well for other rogue states.
California is self-sustaining, yes; and Texas is starting to be in a way self-sustaining though we've found budget shortfalls. Our economy remains strong, the sales tax remains in place, and we're quite an independent-thinking lot. We may not be able to self-sustain ourselves in the long run but with the annexation of Mexico and assorted "Latin" countries, we may be able to fully self-sustain ourselves and become a feared rival of California.
However, the 5th Republic's most dangerous enemy is the United Nations and her assorted countries. It is possible the United Nations may place trade sanctions, resolutions to pass, and order countries to 'willfully' invade Texas to put her back in place or to be liberated for the USA. Like I indicated before, countries out there who invade Texas may not have honorable intentions and may want something else for it. It's as if Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan Army managed to seize Texas, he would naturally form Texas into a communist regime, a puppet for his native homeland. We'd possibly become Chavistas provided it goes smoothy or with a few bumps for Chavez. Propaganda is key, even in warfare.
Secession would not be the smart thing to do - and Texans are not stupid. The 5th Republic rhetoric serves a purpose and galvanizes heretofore silent factions to muster their political might and critically examine the actions and inactions of the current administration.
No one need take my word for it; just watch the election results in Nov 2012.
No Texan is stupid, I agree. However, there's more than just serving a purpose or to mister their political might. We might underestimate the tenacity or secrecy of the Bilderbergers but once the US factionalizes into different but smaller "rogue nations", that political might Congress has will have weakened. Even the POTUS may have reign over Washington D.C. and only D.C.! Nevada may become a haven of crime, trafficking, the sex trade, and introduce organized crime factions. It may even invite the Russian, Italian, and other assorted Mafias to regroup there and force an upbringing of the Syndicate caste. Or just duke it out old school like it was in the old days. It's possible but too remote to happen. Just a possibility. Think about Gangs of New York and how it happened.
As for the election results, I do not know what can happen. But if Obama takes office, there's no telling what can happen. If someone else does, we don't know. Simply making a prediction and then waiting since 2012 is just child's play. All I know is that every American hates the trillion dollar debt, wants it resolved, and wants to feel freer, have more money to themselves and to their families. Never underestimate the power of the people, not the political might of Congress. Congress is NOTHING without the people. A revolution and quick lynching of Congress can happen and you'll see just how powerful it can be to have the "follow the mob" mentality once enough people join. The more friction the mob train rolls over, the harder it'll be for Washington, D.C. and emergency personnel to suppress. The Army might be too late to save Congress and the White House... Think of how the French Revolution went. If it echoes here, it could be a success like the French did for a new France.
One factor here that prevents a revolution from happening is alcohol.
Alcohol is a silent killer yes, but it is an effective remedy for suppressing rebellions. Alcohol was meant to be drunk with celebrations, to be happy, to enjoy and love life with one's heart. However, it can never be underestimated as a crutch to launching a successful revolution. Firstly, alcohol may introduce the ire of many citizens according to their feelings; secondly, it puts them to sleep since alcohol has inhibiting factors that PREVENT citizens from making logical, reasonable choices; and thirdly, a drunk combat force would just literally do an epic fail on securing towns or choke points. They will wake up one day to cry for revolution again but it just won't happen. A fully AWARE citizen mob is more potent, more fearless, and capable than one that's drunk, irate for only a few hours, and less potent. They're also easier for police to form into riot gear, and beat down with batons.
Or perhaps Canada invades and takes all the northern states, leaving the Texans and other southerners to fight for their right to still be Americans? It could happen, eh?
Sorry, I digress...
Sneaky, sneaky Canadians! The Maple Leaf flag weaves to and fro proudly with no shame! Shame on youuuu! Haha. Just kidding.
It is possible, Shayla. There was a possible annexation of Canada from a video game
here. It could be the other way around today since Canada does boast of a larger military, has different training techniques, and possibly could gain advantage from taking poor states first then encircling those that were richer to pressure a quick surrender or a bloodbath.
It is possible, Shayla. You may have to explain how Canada may be able to, what they would do, and how the war would be fought.
