Quite a lot of these points seem to revolve around a central theme; 'we won't let you'.
From what I understand of American attitudes to secession, I get the impression that you're correct.
However, I think you're wrong about the global community. If there was genuinely a majority of Texans that wanted to be independent of the USA (just hypothetically...) then global sympathy would be with Texas. There's about zero chance of any nation intervening to protect a fledging Republic of Texas against the USA, but the USA trying to hold on to a region that wanted independence would be met with global disapproval. International opinion of the USA is not brilliant already and I could definitely see this severely hurting diplomatic relations.
I think that if you removed the USA's unwillingness to cooperate with states wanting to secede, it would be no more problematic than Scottish independence from the UK (which is unlikely to happen, but potentially possible as there will be a referendum on the issue within the next few years). Although most Scottish people don't want it and seem set to vote against it and although it's probably not to their economic advantage, it's unlikely to be disastrous and good will between the UK and a new Kingdom of Scotland would sort out any complexities amiably enough.
A moot point perhaps as support for secession is seemingly insignificant, but I can't help but feel that states ought to be have a right to it if it ever gained majority support within that state.
I do not believe the Federal government would let any state secede. It would set a dangerous precedent- dangerous enough that I think Washington would use force again if necessary. What I do question is, if the will of the general population would be behind such action. A lot of people in the Democrat-voting states seem to be against it- not because they wish the Union to remain inviolate but more because they're sick and tired of far Right GOP rhetoric. As a citizen of the UK you may not be aware of this, but the northern states which tend to support the Democrats tend to think of the Republican southern states as full of uneducated, crass, narrow-minded racists. The northerners would probably like to be rid of those states! And of course while the petition for Texas to secede (which by the way has absolutely no power or authority in of itself) has 100,000 signatures already, most Texans know this is foolish and silly and oppose it, as I do.
I understand your comment about global sympathy. However- and this may be my inherent Americancentrism speaking- I think it is much easier to formally recognize a new country in one's own backyard when there is little if any repercussion. For example, France just recently recognized the breakway Syrian rebels as a legitimate political entity, but France is not affected by this in any way: they are nowhere near Syria geographically and no one will object to it in any way that matters. I think that if the United States government contacted its closest allies and said, "This is our issue. We will handle it alone" I do think there is a good chance that those allies would keep quiet and not say much.
Regardless, even if a secession were to occur peacefully, the new nation would be economically damned. The United States has a comparatively weak central government compared to most Western nations, but one thing it does do is give each state a lot of aid money to help them pay for infrastructure, social programs, and education. Without that money the seceding state would probably become very poor, very quickly. Even with a peaceful secession I think that the economic consequences would be just as likely and just as severe- especially those states that do not have a massive, lucrative oil and gas industry like Texas does.
" As a citizen of the UK you may not be aware of this, but the northern states which tend to support the Democrats tend to think of the Republican southern states as full of uneducated, crass, narrow-minded racists. The northerners would probably like to be rid of those states! "
I'm aware of this and it adds to my surprise that Americans tend to hold secession as a fundamentally bad thing.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland were based around a minority of people in NI wanting independence whilst a majority wanted to remain British citizens, which was a very awkward situation (can't strip people of citizens to placate a minority of terrorists).
Similar to your comment, support for Irish independence was actually higher in England than in NI, not out of sympathy for Irish republicans, but mostly because it seemed like a lot of British money being spent for no reward. Out of all the constituent countries of the UK, NI still spends the most tax money per head whilst contributing the least. It would have been a -godsend- if a majority of the people living there didn't want to be British any more... that would have had a much more cheerful resolution as we could have just let them go! :oP
Scotland now seems more likely than NI ever was to achieve independence. They also spend more tax money per head and generate less per head than England (all of the others do) but it would be a much more significant blow for the UK as Scotland is a much more significant area of land and contains some key resources. Still, it would seem wrong -in principle- for the UK to hold a country captive beyond the point where they wanted union.
The referendum on Scottish independence will be for people in Scotland only; those of us in England may have strong opinions but they are irrelevant; the general feeling being that if a region wants independence then it ought to have independence. The freedom for a region to draw it's own borders almost feels like it should be an internationally recognised right of some kind.
" However- and this may be my inherent Americancentrism speaking- I think it is much easier to formally recognize a new country in one's own backyard when there is little if any repercussion. "
I think that granting independence and nationalist movements have been of consequence to the history of my nation.
In some historical cases, it was felt to be of such severe repercussion that nations had to wage war to establish themselves (the American war of Independence being a prime example)
These days, we grant independence once majority support for the idea has been established. If the majority population of a land doesn't want independence then we will protect that (as seen in the Falklands war, 1982, when Argentina tried to claim a British territory), but as soon as majority support for independence is reached then that's respected even if it's within our own national borders.
"Even with a peaceful secession I think that the economic consequences would be just as likely and just as severe- especially those states that do not have a massive, lucrative oil and gas industry like Texas does. "
I suspect that much may be true under the American model.
Scotland would likely manage it because we're likely to still have open borders, shared military products, a shared currency (etc). The UK is already practised as devolution so independence would not likely to be as severe a change as the US would make it.
Mind you, if a whole bunch of southern states seceded and banded together to make a new federation then I can imagine that working. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be economically damaging, but often the desire for independence is about more than just money.
I apologize if I sounded at all condescending. I just don't know how much y'all know about the U.S. beyond the media- or even through the media.
I only meant that the geopolitical climate of the world will probably have a lot to do with what other countries would recognize the theoretical seceding states. I still do not see most of the EU nations doing that, in fear of really angering the legitimate U.S. government (as you can probably tell by now, I would not consider secession from the United State to be a legitimate political claim). As another example, Israel would certainly not do that, but Russia and China might: Israel depends on the US too much for their national security to strain relations that much, Russia and the US have been at loggerheads over various things since the dissolution of the USSR and there is still little enough US investment in Russia that they may take the chance, and China is politically and economically a big enough frenemy that they can get away with it. I think most Middle Easterm countries would recognize the new nations only if they didn't realize how racist and anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian, and Zionist most Southerners really are.
But economic concerns are the biggest reason I predict failure. It seems to me that giving some relatively small ethnic or racial group their own nation just because they want it is not always in their best interest, simply because as geopolitical boundaries get smaller, so do resources and so does the economy. A great EU example is the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These areas might not be doing poorly, but they have very limited and therefore very vulnerable economies. One hit to their main industry will ruin things for them pretty quickly, whereas a more varied economy is more resilient. Aruba is another great example- some years ago an American girl went missing and was never found. Her family and a lot of politicians called for a boycott of travel, and Aruba lost something like 65% of the one industry they had- tourism. They still haven't recovered that lost market, even seven years later. Yes, the EU is a bit different, but remember that globally, the EU's political and economic arrangements are the exception, not the rule.
The southern states who are probably the keenest on secession are also the ones that- like Scotland and NI- take the most Federal resources and contribute the least in return. I agree that banding together into a new nation would help them, but...it still would not be easy. And given the very anti-labor and anti-regulation policies that the Republicans have right now, I predict that things would devolve within a few generations to something like India or Indonesia- a huge lower class, very few government regulations or assistance, and an absolutely wrecked environment. I would not want to live there.
There is one last reason that a lot of Americans object to secession: we do not think it is patriotic. To a lot of Americans, leaving the Union just because you do not like the results of one election is simply petty and juvenile. To a lot of us, a true patriot would stick it out and try to fix what they perceive as wrong. It's not like (as our absolutely nutso politician Ron Paul claims) the system has totally broken down. Obama did not pull off some huge Chavez-esque power grab. Everything is working exactly like it has for a couple of centuries now. The secessioners just don't understand that rhetoric and changing demographics were absolutely against them- but that's another issue and you're probably tired of me rambling on as it is.
"I apologize if I sounded at all condescending. I just don't know how much y'all know about the U.S. beyond the media- or even through the media"
No, that's fine. If I didn't want an insider perspective then I wouldn't have asked. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
"I still do not see most of the EU nations doing that, in fear of really angering the legitimate U.S. government"
I think you under-estimate the pre-existing anti-American sentiment in West Europe.
Anti-American sentiment often approaches the level of outright bigotry. Americans/America is a safe target for everyone to rally together to insult and mock. I hear more hateful comments towards the US than any other nation.
That's clearly unfair and out of proportion but my point is that if public opinion sways towards criticism of the US, politicians have little to lose from pandering to it.
(Just to note, whilst being unpleasant about Americans is very common, being unpleasant to Americans is exceedingly less common. Part of why it thrives is because there's no one around to get upset/offended)
"only if they didn't realize how racist and anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian, and Zionist most Southerners really are."
That would be the contrary influence; public support may be damaged by the fact that the newly fledged nation is likely to be the 'worst of America'.
Although I think that might actually be good for the USA. The world looks on with horror at American politics, it might be good (politically, not economically) for the US to ditch some of the red states.
"But economic concerns are the biggest reason I predict failure. It seems to me that giving some relatively small ethnic or racial group their own nation just because they want it is not always in their best interest, simply because as geopolitical boundaries get smaller, so do resources and so does the economy ... Yes, the EU is a bit different, but remember that globally, the EU's political and economic arrangements are the exception, not the rule."
Economically, I agree. Even with EU and UK support and cooperation, I suspect that Scotland would not profit economically by leaving the UK.
In Scotland's case, it's likely to result in a swing to the left, which may or may not help mitigate economic damage (depending on your perspective). Texas or other red states would presumably have the opposite experience.
I still suspect they could manage it if the US didn't decide to make it hard work for them.
"There is one last reason that a lot of Americans object to secession: we do not think it is patriotic. "
This is the other root of independence movements, but I don't see it as intrinsically bad. In fact, I'd say that there is a strong argument that it is a -better- reason to declare independence.
One of our politicians in a British political discussion show once expressed dismay about how much of the dialogue about Scottish independence was about economics; he felt that independence ought to arise from a sense of national identity rather than just wanting a few more quid in your wallet.
Scottish nationalism is not at all patriotic in the context of the current UK nation-state; they don't want to be part of the UK and they don't want to think of themselves as British. Yet, it is patriotic in the sense that they have a strong national identity as being Scottish.
Faced with a situation where you no longer feel patriotic towards your nation state then forming a new government that you can feel patriotic towards is a good option. If (and I know it's a big if) Texans ever got the point where a majority didn't even like being American any more and would rather adopt 'Texan' as a national identity, then that's a good reason for them to seek independence (economics be damned).
A strong sense of identity might actually be one thing Texas and EU nations actually have in common. Texans really do tend to think of themselves as Texans first, and from what (admittedly little) I know about European nations, it seems the EU did not do anything to harm sense of identity. France is still France, Scotland is still Scotland, Germany is still Germany, and so forth.
However, this is not necessarily true across the entire US- or even across Southern states. The U.S. is an incredibly diverse country- I don't think it is possible to truly see that without actually living here. Think of the cultural and societal differences between England, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and everyone else. The U.S. is the exact same way, but throw in people from the Middle East, Latin America, every Asian country you can name, Africa... We're actually extremely diverse here, thanks to a couple of centuries of successive waves of immigrants from various places. In addition, to Anglo Caucasians, Texas alone has huge populations of Hispanics (many of who were here before Anglo Caucasians), German-descended people, Czechs, Italians, Indians, Pakistanis, Vietnamese (many of whom were refugees of the Viet Cong regime), Chinese, Thai, and Cajuns who originally came from French Canada after the French and Indian Wars. And that's just one state- not to mention the large populations of Swedish and Norwegian-descended people in the Midwest or the large Cuban and Puerto Rican populations in Florida or the growing African populations in New York (or the many African-Americans all descended from slaves, who still practice some version of African traditions and culture). I think the European idea of "American" is based on our politicians (especially the Right) and tourists- who are mostly middle- and upper-class white people with the same boorish, insular, war hawk, racist attitudes you see from those same Right-wing politicians. I would hazard a guess that Europeans only see a very tiny demographic of Americans- one of the more annoying ones at that.
I guess my point is what constitutes an "American" is hard to pin down in reality, outside of the media lens. You would think this would make us more prone to dissolving into various smaller nations, but somehow it enriches our culture without weakening it.
I'm waxing a bit prosaic and patriotic here, but it's true.
We have some cultures based around immigration as well, with Indian-British culture probably being the most prominent example. I suppose the issue there is that British Indian culture isn't isolated to any particular region, so there's no possibility of any nationalist movement developing there. I imagine it's similar with 'ethnic identities' in the USA; more like pockets of culture through the nation rather than anything to build a nation on.
That's quite different to Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland which are very regional identities. There is even a (tiny) Cornish nationalist movement (Cornwall being the most south-western county in England, bordered on three sides by sea). They've been part of the Kingdom of England for ten centuries but that hasn't stopped a few people getting passionate about Cornish identity (there's a little campaign to get Cornish officially recognised as an ethnic identity, and the dead Cornish language officially recognised alongside the other acknowledged UK languages). :o)
There are a few English people who, seemingly just on principle, feel that we need our own regional parliament now that everyone else has in the UK has something along those lines, although I can't say that I feel a great need for one.
But that's what you definitely need; a significant region of land with the people therein feeling like 'one people'. Combine that with political dissatisfaction, you'll get people shouting for independence.
I suppose the big problem with Texas is that the economic reality of independence is a bit too grim to get too excited about. :oP
From what I understand of American attitudes to secession, I get the impression that you're correct.
However, I think you're wrong about the global community. If there was genuinely a majority of Texans that wanted to be independent of the USA (just hypothetically...) then global sympathy would be with Texas. There's about zero chance of any nation intervening to protect a fledging Republic of Texas against the USA, but the USA trying to hold on to a region that wanted independence would be met with global disapproval. International opinion of the USA is not brilliant already and I could definitely see this severely hurting diplomatic relations.
I think that if you removed the USA's unwillingness to cooperate with states wanting to secede, it would be no more problematic than Scottish independence from the UK (which is unlikely to happen, but potentially possible as there will be a referendum on the issue within the next few years). Although most Scottish people don't want it and seem set to vote against it and although it's probably not to their economic advantage, it's unlikely to be disastrous and good will between the UK and a new Kingdom of Scotland would sort out any complexities amiably enough.
A moot point perhaps as support for secession is seemingly insignificant, but I can't help but feel that states ought to be have a right to it if it ever gained majority support within that state.
Reply
I understand your comment about global sympathy. However- and this may be my inherent Americancentrism speaking- I think it is much easier to formally recognize a new country in one's own backyard when there is little if any repercussion. For example, France just recently recognized the breakway Syrian rebels as a legitimate political entity, but France is not affected by this in any way: they are nowhere near Syria geographically and no one will object to it in any way that matters. I think that if the United States government contacted its closest allies and said, "This is our issue. We will handle it alone" I do think there is a good chance that those allies would keep quiet and not say much.
Regardless, even if a secession were to occur peacefully, the new nation would be economically damned. The United States has a comparatively weak central government compared to most Western nations, but one thing it does do is give each state a lot of aid money to help them pay for infrastructure, social programs, and education. Without that money the seceding state would probably become very poor, very quickly. Even with a peaceful secession I think that the economic consequences would be just as likely and just as severe- especially those states that do not have a massive, lucrative oil and gas industry like Texas does.
Reply
I'm aware of this and it adds to my surprise that Americans tend to hold secession as a fundamentally bad thing.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland were based around a minority of people in NI wanting independence whilst a majority wanted to remain British citizens, which was a very awkward situation (can't strip people of citizens to placate a minority of terrorists).
Similar to your comment, support for Irish independence was actually higher in England than in NI, not out of sympathy for Irish republicans, but mostly because it seemed like a lot of British money being spent for no reward. Out of all the constituent countries of the UK, NI still spends the most tax money per head whilst contributing the least. It would have been a -godsend- if a majority of the people living there didn't want to be British any more... that would have had a much more cheerful resolution as we could have just let them go! :oP
Scotland now seems more likely than NI ever was to achieve independence. They also spend more tax money per head and generate less per head than England (all of the others do) but it would be a much more significant blow for the UK as Scotland is a much more significant area of land and contains some key resources. Still, it would seem wrong -in principle- for the UK to hold a country captive beyond the point where they wanted union.
The referendum on Scottish independence will be for people in Scotland only; those of us in England may have strong opinions but they are irrelevant; the general feeling being that if a region wants independence then it ought to have independence. The freedom for a region to draw it's own borders almost feels like it should be an internationally recognised right of some kind.
" However- and this may be my inherent Americancentrism speaking- I think it is much easier to formally recognize a new country in one's own backyard when there is little if any repercussion. "
I think that granting independence and nationalist movements have been of consequence to the history of my nation.
In some historical cases, it was felt to be of such severe repercussion that nations had to wage war to establish themselves (the American war of Independence being a prime example)
These days, we grant independence once majority support for the idea has been established. If the majority population of a land doesn't want independence then we will protect that (as seen in the Falklands war, 1982, when Argentina tried to claim a British territory), but as soon as majority support for independence is reached then that's respected even if it's within our own national borders.
"Even with a peaceful secession I think that the economic consequences would be just as likely and just as severe- especially those states that do not have a massive, lucrative oil and gas industry like Texas does. "
I suspect that much may be true under the American model.
Scotland would likely manage it because we're likely to still have open borders, shared military products, a shared currency (etc). The UK is already practised as devolution so independence would not likely to be as severe a change as the US would make it.
Mind you, if a whole bunch of southern states seceded and banded together to make a new federation then I can imagine that working. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be economically damaging, but often the desire for independence is about more than just money.
Reply
I only meant that the geopolitical climate of the world will probably have a lot to do with what other countries would recognize the theoretical seceding states. I still do not see most of the EU nations doing that, in fear of really angering the legitimate U.S. government (as you can probably tell by now, I would not consider secession from the United State to be a legitimate political claim). As another example, Israel would certainly not do that, but Russia and China might: Israel depends on the US too much for their national security to strain relations that much, Russia and the US have been at loggerheads over various things since the dissolution of the USSR and there is still little enough US investment in Russia that they may take the chance, and China is politically and economically a big enough frenemy that they can get away with it. I think most Middle Easterm countries would recognize the new nations only if they didn't realize how racist and anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian, and Zionist most Southerners really are.
But economic concerns are the biggest reason I predict failure. It seems to me that giving some relatively small ethnic or racial group their own nation just because they want it is not always in their best interest, simply because as geopolitical boundaries get smaller, so do resources and so does the economy. A great EU example is the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These areas might not be doing poorly, but they have very limited and therefore very vulnerable economies. One hit to their main industry will ruin things for them pretty quickly, whereas a more varied economy is more resilient. Aruba is another great example- some years ago an American girl went missing and was never found. Her family and a lot of politicians called for a boycott of travel, and Aruba lost something like 65% of the one industry they had- tourism. They still haven't recovered that lost market, even seven years later. Yes, the EU is a bit different, but remember that globally, the EU's political and economic arrangements are the exception, not the rule.
The southern states who are probably the keenest on secession are also the ones that- like Scotland and NI- take the most Federal resources and contribute the least in return. I agree that banding together into a new nation would help them, but...it still would not be easy. And given the very anti-labor and anti-regulation policies that the Republicans have right now, I predict that things would devolve within a few generations to something like India or Indonesia- a huge lower class, very few government regulations or assistance, and an absolutely wrecked environment. I would not want to live there.
There is one last reason that a lot of Americans object to secession: we do not think it is patriotic. To a lot of Americans, leaving the Union just because you do not like the results of one election is simply petty and juvenile. To a lot of us, a true patriot would stick it out and try to fix what they perceive as wrong. It's not like (as our absolutely nutso politician Ron Paul claims) the system has totally broken down. Obama did not pull off some huge Chavez-esque power grab. Everything is working exactly like it has for a couple of centuries now. The secessioners just don't understand that rhetoric and changing demographics were absolutely against them- but that's another issue and you're probably tired of me rambling on as it is.
Reply
No, that's fine. If I didn't want an insider perspective then I wouldn't have asked. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
"I still do not see most of the EU nations doing that, in fear of really angering the legitimate U.S. government"
I think you under-estimate the pre-existing anti-American sentiment in West Europe.
Anti-American sentiment often approaches the level of outright bigotry. Americans/America is a safe target for everyone to rally together to insult and mock. I hear more hateful comments towards the US than any other nation.
That's clearly unfair and out of proportion but my point is that if public opinion sways towards criticism of the US, politicians have little to lose from pandering to it.
(Just to note, whilst being unpleasant about Americans is very common, being unpleasant to Americans is exceedingly less common. Part of why it thrives is because there's no one around to get upset/offended)
"only if they didn't realize how racist and anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian, and Zionist most Southerners really are."
That would be the contrary influence; public support may be damaged by the fact that the newly fledged nation is likely to be the 'worst of America'.
Although I think that might actually be good for the USA. The world looks on with horror at American politics, it might be good (politically, not economically) for the US to ditch some of the red states.
"But economic concerns are the biggest reason I predict failure. It seems to me that giving some relatively small ethnic or racial group their own nation just because they want it is not always in their best interest, simply because as geopolitical boundaries get smaller, so do resources and so does the economy ... Yes, the EU is a bit different, but remember that globally, the EU's political and economic arrangements are the exception, not the rule."
Economically, I agree. Even with EU and UK support and cooperation, I suspect that Scotland would not profit economically by leaving the UK.
In Scotland's case, it's likely to result in a swing to the left, which may or may not help mitigate economic damage (depending on your perspective). Texas or other red states would presumably have the opposite experience.
I still suspect they could manage it if the US didn't decide to make it hard work for them.
"There is one last reason that a lot of Americans object to secession: we do not think it is patriotic. "
This is the other root of independence movements, but I don't see it as intrinsically bad. In fact, I'd say that there is a strong argument that it is a -better- reason to declare independence.
One of our politicians in a British political discussion show once expressed dismay about how much of the dialogue about Scottish independence was about economics; he felt that independence ought to arise from a sense of national identity rather than just wanting a few more quid in your wallet.
Scottish nationalism is not at all patriotic in the context of the current UK nation-state; they don't want to be part of the UK and they don't want to think of themselves as British. Yet, it is patriotic in the sense that they have a strong national identity as being Scottish.
Faced with a situation where you no longer feel patriotic towards your nation state then forming a new government that you can feel patriotic towards is a good option. If (and I know it's a big if) Texans ever got the point where a majority didn't even like being American any more and would rather adopt 'Texan' as a national identity, then that's a good reason for them to seek independence (economics be damned).
Reply
However, this is not necessarily true across the entire US- or even across Southern states. The U.S. is an incredibly diverse country- I don't think it is possible to truly see that without actually living here. Think of the cultural and societal differences between England, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and everyone else. The U.S. is the exact same way, but throw in people from the Middle East, Latin America, every Asian country you can name, Africa... We're actually extremely diverse here, thanks to a couple of centuries of successive waves of immigrants from various places. In addition, to Anglo Caucasians, Texas alone has huge populations of Hispanics (many of who were here before Anglo Caucasians), German-descended people, Czechs, Italians, Indians, Pakistanis, Vietnamese (many of whom were refugees of the Viet Cong regime), Chinese, Thai, and Cajuns who originally came from French Canada after the French and Indian Wars. And that's just one state- not to mention the large populations of Swedish and Norwegian-descended people in the Midwest or the large Cuban and Puerto Rican populations in Florida or the growing African populations in New York (or the many African-Americans all descended from slaves, who still practice some version of African traditions and culture). I think the European idea of "American" is based on our politicians (especially the Right) and tourists- who are mostly middle- and upper-class white people with the same boorish, insular, war hawk, racist attitudes you see from those same Right-wing politicians. I would hazard a guess that Europeans only see a very tiny demographic of Americans- one of the more annoying ones at that.
I guess my point is what constitutes an "American" is hard to pin down in reality, outside of the media lens. You would think this would make us more prone to dissolving into various smaller nations, but somehow it enriches our culture without weakening it.
I'm waxing a bit prosaic and patriotic here, but it's true.
Reply
That's quite different to Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland which are very regional identities. There is even a (tiny) Cornish nationalist movement (Cornwall being the most south-western county in England, bordered on three sides by sea). They've been part of the Kingdom of England for ten centuries but that hasn't stopped a few people getting passionate about Cornish identity (there's a little campaign to get Cornish officially recognised as an ethnic identity, and the dead Cornish language officially recognised alongside the other acknowledged UK languages). :o)
There are a few English people who, seemingly just on principle, feel that we need our own regional parliament now that everyone else has in the UK has something along those lines, although I can't say that I feel a great need for one.
But that's what you definitely need; a significant region of land with the people therein feeling like 'one people'. Combine that with political dissatisfaction, you'll get people shouting for independence.
I suppose the big problem with Texas is that the economic reality of independence is a bit too grim to get too excited about. :oP
Reply
Leave a comment