It seems like the biggest concern is a humanitarian one - that sane people who remain in Texas will be worse off - but it significantly improves that same problem for everyone else in the union. And a war would possibly be even worse for sane Texans. It would be cheaper to subsidize relocation costs.

I just don't get why we'd fight to keep them, or pretty much any state these days. They don't have slavery, and there's nothing huge that we were right about to change.

[–] prayer@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maintaining the union is important. Without solidifying that every state is in it together, the federal government loses it's power, then states start to push the limits, not paying taxes here, disobeying federal law there.

If we wanted to let states secede, we would have formed a Confederacy, or not a country at all. As it stands now, the US government will always fight for a United States, as to not do so puts everything in jeopardy. Maybe you don't think that's the best action overall, but until the US government is reformed under a heavily modified constitution that probably won't happen.

[–] HumanPenguin@lemmy.cafe 1 points 9 months ago

Worth noting the US government needs indevidual US citize s to fight for that United States.

The % of citizens who feel the constitution is likely due for some change. While not near the 66% in 50 states needed to change it, is likely enough to seriously effect the resources forcing other to follow it.

Even congress and the senate are far from 100% in agreement. Or ever likely to be on such things. The further from the head of the snake you go. The more likely the US military is to question orders to attack domestic targets.

A d lets face it. Any attempt by the military to force orders in a situation like that, where the enemy is considered to be a part of your own team by a significant % of the people pulling tigers and dropping the actual bombs. Will harm rather then rebuild that unity.

load more comments (20 replies)