Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union

“‘Peaceable secession!’ Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle…I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven- I see that disruption must produce such a war as I will not describe.” -Daniel Webster, 1850 Civil War: 1) Relying on chronologically distant historical trends to predict US reaction to secession might be “shaky” if it weren’t so consistent. At every point in US history where secession has come up, the federal response has been that states do not have the right to secede and the government will use force. The consistency carries through to the Obama response which clearly references the Civil War as the example of how to deal with secession. 2) The U.S. has been “tired of war” since Vietnam, yet the U.S. has been constantly engaged in warfare since WWII. In the last two years alone we have exercised military intervention in 6 different countries, including significant involvement in Libya [1]. The U.S. is currently using threat or war in Iran negotiations [2]. 3) Secession is rarely peaceful. The 1837 rebellion, military pressure from war of 1812, U.S. raids on Canadian British forts, and U.S. expansionism were all key in Canadian independence [3]. 4) U.S. has massive interests in preventing Texas secession: a) Texas v White says no right to secede- US will have to forcefully preserve Union to maintain rule of law. b) Cross apply all of Pro’s points to Texas’ economic strength, all my arguments that US needs Texas to maintain Hegemony, as incentives for the US to prevent secession. The US will crash and burn without Texas, ensuring that the US will do everything in its power to preserve the Union. 5) The reason “wealthy” countries haven’t engaged in warfare since WWII is because of U.S. Hegemony:a. Countries have nothing to gain by engaging in warfare because they do not have the ability to defeat the Hegemon and starting wars with neighbors will bring in Hegemonic intervention.b. It is rarely in wealthy nations best interest to fight each other because of the economic cost- war loses out in the cost/benefit analysis. In the case of Texas, the cost/benefits favor war. Hegemony: 1) A decline in Heg is disastrous for all, including Texas; global instability causes a rise in conflicts and a rise in terrorism. I even pointed out that the large Mexican border makes Texas especially prone to terrorist attacks. 2) No current power could become Hegemon: The UN, EU, and NATO are all alliances that lack the ability to act as a single cohesive force- the failure to impose sanctions on Syria demonstrates the inherent lack of resolve in the UN [4]. NATO is propped up by US funding and military capability. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined- it is mathematically impossible for any group to become Hegemon [5]. 3) The stabilizing forces Pro cites- spreading of western values, NATO, globalization, are all directly linked to Hegemony. If Russia had won the Cold War, western values would not have spread. Globalization was fueled by US economic development, which excelled due to the stability provided by military dominance- see my next point. 4) The US has a massive capability to act as a stabilizing force- the Gulf War proves. Iraq attempted to invade Kuwait for strategic gain and the US responded by repelling Iraq and crippling Iraq militarily. The US preserved the Middle East balance of power while protecting Western economic interests by shielding Saudi Arabian oil fields from Iraqi power projection. 5) South China Sea proves US Heg is still relevant. US Heg currently balances Chinese interests and protects regional US allies. The US continues to strategically orient its Navy at the request of allies like the Philippines [6]. 6) Pro drops that Heg is key to fighting terrorism. The global reach of the US is crucial to collecting information on terrorists, launching precision attacks like the bin Laden raid, and tracking organizations like Al-Qaeda which transcend national borders. Economy: 1) Pro doesn’t dispute that if the US economy fails the global economy fails, nor that Texas secession will destroy the US economy. Even if debt is unsustainable, secession doesn’t solve the problem, it makes it inevitable. This means Texas has two choices: secede and guarantee economic destruction, or stay and work to save the Union. 2) Strong exports don’t change the fact that massive disruption of trade with the US would wreck the Texas economy. Exports are less than 15% of Texas GDP per Pro’s evidence, meaning 85% of the economy is vulnerable to a US trade war. 3) Extend my evidence that 80% of US refineries and 2/3 of US reserves are outside of Texas, meaning oil companies will side with the US. Pro’s evidence to the contrary is just a map of oil wells. Also extend that defense contractors will stay loyal to the US, meaning Texas will lose its biggest economic sector. 4) Oil exported from Texas to the US would be subject to standard tariffs, indeed all exports to the US would. This represents the introduction of a massive inefficiency on Texas’ economy. This is on top of protectionist trade policies resulting from a backlash against secession [7] 5) Pro ignores my argument that even if Texas can replace some government jobs people will follow the jobs to the US during the transition. Federal funding makes up 33% of the Texas budget- Texas will have to decide how much of this budget gap to make up, how to replace the gap, and how to allocate the money. This process will take time during which irreparable damage will be done to the economy. 6) Pro offers no evidence or argument about how or when the debt will result in an economic collapse. I have given evidence that carrying debt is often done in the private sector- note that entitlement spending is an investment in human capital; Medicaid ensures people are healthy enough to contribute to the economy. 7) The US is already implementing policies to obtain a manageable budget, cutting projected deficits by 2.4 trillion. The fiscal cliffs are also forcing hard decisions to be made to get the US on track [8]. Culture: Texas is less homogeneous than the US, with over 1/3 of the population being Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites being less than half [9]. This whole point is ridiculous. Pro offers no reason to care about cultural homogeneity and apparently wants to risk a Civil War over how many Blue Dog Democrats are in Texas. Ability to Secede: Pro concedes Texas would lose mobile infrastructure: this includes tanks, airplanes, computer systems, trucks, medical supplies, disaster response supplies. The loss of this would be devastating to Texas’ military and disaster preparedness. Econ of Scale: Go look at Pro’s failed state evidence. According to his source, ¾ of the world is at “warning” for being a failed state. Pro’s evidence suggests that geopolitics is much more critical to state stability. If economy of scale is so important, what’s with all those tiny failed African states and big successful Canada and Australia? The fact is the economies of India and China are doing quite well and both countries are rapidly modernizing [10].Conclusion:Texas lives and dies with the Union; secession is suicide. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.israelhayom.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://articles.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://www.cbsnews.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.fas.org... [8] http://articles.latimes.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://econ.worldbank.org...