Trains.com

Seceding from Amtrak Locked

10061 views
80 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:29 PM

Bucyrus

What it boils down to is the people pulling the wagon want to secede from the people riding in it. 

Last I checked, Texas took more money from the feds than it put in.  Who is pulling who?  But this whole secession thing is pure silliness. 

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:35 PM

 

zugmann
Last I checked, Texas took more money from the feds than it put in. 

Source please.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:06 PM

According to 24/7 Wall Street, which is reasonably reliable source, Alaska, Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, New Mexico, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Connecticut, and North Dakota were the top ten states receiving more monies from the U.S. Treasury than they paid in federal taxes. The figures are per capita, which is more meaningful than raw numbers.

According to Ezra Klein, who writes for the Washington Post and Bloomberg, amongst others, Texas was not one of the states that received more from the federal government than it contributed. But it has in the past for a variety of reasons.

States with large military installations, immigrant populations, retirees, etc. get back more than they send to Washington because of federal programs. Virginia has numerous federal installations, including one of the largest Naval ports in the world. And some of the southern states, i.e. Texas, Florida, etc. have a relatively high retiree population that receives Social Security and Medicare payments.  

Texas, which has approximately 8.2 per cent of the nation's population, has an estimated1,650,000 or 15 per cent of the nation's illegal immigrants. To help offset the cost of their impact on the state's schools, hospitals, police departments, etc., the state receives federal funds. Also, Texas has the longest border with Mexico of any of the states. The border is guarded by the U.S. Border Patrol, which is paid for by the United States. 

Just looking at raw dollars without drilling into the funds flow patterns and the reasons for them is not helpful.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:08 PM

Whatever happened to people that were ticked that their guy didn't win threatening to leave the country?

Now they want to take the whole state with them.  What a bunch of whiners.  Get over it already - there will be another election before we know it.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, November 25, 2012 5:49 PM

The US Supreme Court ruling against secession in "Texas vs. White" in 1869 doesn't surprise me, considering the time, four years after the end of a horrific war that lead to 600,000 dead.  Court decisions can be affected by the mores and political sentiments of the time.  There's the "Dred Scott" decision that said no black man, especially a slave, had any rights a white man was bound to respect.  Then there was "Plessy vs. Ferguson"  in 1896 that legitimized segregation for any state that chose to practice it.  No Supreme Court justice in his or her right mind would make decisions like that today.  The fact remains the Constitution still doesn't specifically forbid secession, no matter what the 1869 Supreme Court said.

At any rate, even though secession of states from the Union doesn't make much sense, counties breaking away from states to form new states has happened in the past and for legitimate reasons.  Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia are good examples of same. It's happened before, and may just happen again.

  • Member since
    August 2012
  • 3,727 posts
Posted by John WR on Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:30 PM

Sam,

You suggest there could be some downsides to secession.  For example Medicare payments cannot be made to doctors or hospitals in foreign countries with a very few exceptions for hospitals along the border.  Medicare payments now made to Texas hospitals would stop.  Also, there would be no more border patrol along the Texas--Mexico border and Border Patrol officers along the other borders would most likely live in the US.  Not to mention the most important loss:  No more Amtrak routes through Texas.  Never again would you be able to ride the Sunset Limited to New Orleans or Los Angeles.  

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:40 PM

SCOTUS decisions remain the law until reversed by the court at a later date (by the principle of stare decis) or changed by amendment to the Constitution. The ante-bellum decisions you cite were overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.  White v Texas has never been overturned by a subsequent decision or amendment.  That is how constitutional law works. 

Generally actions are either banned or a method for undertaking an act is specifically described.  The constitution describes no provision for engaging in secession.  Secession of counties from one state is a different matter altogether.  In 1819, Massachusetts agreed to permit secession if voters in Maine approved. Due to these considerations and rapid population growth, in 1820 Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts. The secession and formation of the state of Maine as the 23rd state occurred on March 15, 1820 as part of the Missouri compromise.  Vermont did not secede from either new Hampshire or New York, as it was disputed land and functioned as an independent republic from 1777 until 1791 when it joined the federal union as the 14th state. 

West Virginia a special case.  It was formed because the residents and legislators from the western counties regarded Virginia's secession from the federal union as illegal.  Since the VA Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were declared void and that all who adhered to it had vacated their offices.  Those office holders from the western counties who had not voted for secession then declared themselves the legitimate rival government.  Later it applied for admission to the Union which was approved in Dec. 1862.  Meanwhile, on March 10, 1866, Congress passed a joint resolution recognizing the transfer. The Supreme Court, in 1870, decided in favor of West Virginia.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:44 PM

John WR

Sam,

You suggest there could be some downsides to secession.  For example Medicare payments cannot be made to doctors or hospitals in foreign countries with a very few exceptions for hospitals along the border.  Medicare payments now made to Texas hospitals would stop.  Also, there would be no more border patrol along the Texas--Mexico border and Border Patrol officers along the other borders would most likely live in the US.  Not to mention the most important loss:  No more Amtrak routes through Texas.  Never again would you be able to ride the Sunset Limited to New Orleans or Los Angeles.

I am not advocating succession.  Neither is any other responsible person in Texas.  This is a nutcase issue that  a NY Times reporter has picked-up on and reported out of context.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:50 PM

West Virginia came about in large part because George B. McCellan moved into the western Virginia counties early in the war and secured them for the union. Had the military outcome been otherwise, the results might have been different.  The legal nicieties played out after the outcomes had been decided on the battlefield.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:56 PM

zugmann

Whatever happened to people that were ticked that their guy didn't win threatening to leave the country?

Now they want to take the whole state with them.  What a bunch of whiners.  Get over it already - there will be another election before we know it.

Because the "people that were ticked that their guy didn't win" are a just a few percentage points fewer then those folks who supported the guy that did win. We are a completely polarized nation. The last time that happened was the 1860s. Things didn't turn out too well back then either.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 25, 2012 8:50 PM

Although McClellan's forces were victorious in West Virginia, they did not enter until June, 1861, move south on  June 27, and gain victory until July 11.  Already the legislators from the western counties in Virginia General Assembly had voted against the Ordinance of Secession on April 17.  At the election on May 23, 1861, secession was ratified by a large majority in the state as a whole, but in the western counties 34,677 voted against and 19,121 voted for the Ordinance.  The Second Wheeling Convention met as agreed on June 11 and declared that, since the Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were void.  An act for the reorganization to be the legitimate government of all Virginia was passed on June 19.  June 20 Francis Pierpoint was chosen by other delegates at the convention to be governor of Virginia, other officers were elected and the convention adjourned.   So to state the legal niceties were after the battle is misleading.  The process was well underway prior to McClellan.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:08 PM

schlimm

schlimm

Although McClellan's forces were victorious in West Virginia, they did not enter until June, 1861, move south on  June 27, and gain victory until July 11.  Already the legislators from the western counties in Virginia General Assembly had voted against the Ordinance of Secession on April 17.  At the election on May 23, 1861, secession was ratified by a large majority in the state as a whole, but in the western counties 34,677 voted against and 19,121 voted for the Ordinance.  The Second Wheeling Convention met as agreed on June 11 and declared that, since the Secession Convention had been called without the consent of the people, all its acts were void.  An act for the reorganization to be the legitimate government of all Virginia was passed on June 19.  June 20 Francis Pierpoint was chosen by other delegates at the convention to be governor of Virginia, other officers were elected and the convention adjourned.   So to state the legal niceties were after the battle is misleading.  The process was well underway prior to McClellan.

And had McCellan been driven out of West Virginia by the Confederates, the territorial outcome would have been? The West Virginia decision was rendered possible by McCellan's victory. Had he not been victorious, it is doubtful that the western counties of Virginia would have been able to break free of Virginia regardless of how the citizens or their representatives voted.  The validation of the vote came about because of military conquest; had it gone the other way the vote would have been nullified.  

There was strong union sentiment in Texas, Eastern Tennessee, and Northern Alabama. Many of the people in the Texas hill country, as well as those near Munster, Gainesville, etc. in North Texas, were strongly opposed to succession.  They were not able to breakaway from the Confederacy because they did not have the military muscle to do it. The military force that holds the ground decides the outcome. 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:11 PM

D.Carleton
Because the "people that were ticked that their guy didn't win" are a just a few percentage points fewer then those folks who supported the guy that did win. We are a completely polarized nation. The last time that happened was the 1860s. Things didn't turn out too well back then either.

Yes, all this talk of secession is an expression of a polarized country. 

Some may feel that the prospect of a state seceding is just too radical and farfetched to contemplate.  But the fact that there is so much talk of multiple states wanting to secede is actually about as radical as one state actually seceding.  I think we're in for a rough ride. 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:27 PM

Bucyrus

D.Carleton
Because the "people that were ticked that their guy didn't win" are a just a few percentage points fewer then those folks who supported the guy that did win. We are a completely polarized nation. The last time that happened was the 1860s. Things didn't turn out too well back then either.

Yes, all this talk of secession is an expression of a polarized country. 

Some may feel that the prospect of a state seceding is just too radical and farfetched to contemplate.  But the fact that there is so much talk of multiple states wanting to secede is actually about as radical as one state actually seceding.  I think we're in for a rough ride. 

I think that we are missing a key point here.  There is no serious talk in Texas by responsible citizens about succeeding from the union. 

The United States, as well as most other countries, has always had a lunatic political fringe. Mercifully, they have never been more than a tiny fraction of the population. I don't see anything today that leads me to believe that any mainstream Texan is in favor of succession from the United States.  This discussion has gone off the rails big time. 

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:45 PM

It never was on the rails.  This is the most off topic political thread that I've seen.

We gotta get out of this place

If it's the last thing we ever do

We gotta get out of this place

'cause girl, there's a better life for me and you

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:47 PM

greyhounds

It never was on the rails.  This is the most off topic political thread that I've seen.

We gotta get out of this place

If it's the last thing we ever do

We gotta get out of this place

'cause girl, there's a better life for me and you 

Agreed!  Lets put it to bed.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:49 PM

You totally miss the point.  Of course, military force permitted the choice by the people to continue to be without interference from rebel units.   But the military did not cause West Virginia to breakaway from VA.  Parts of other states of the Confederacy were occupied by union forces, but did not have conventions to break away from their mother states.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, November 26, 2012 6:43 AM

The new republic should consider a new law. All railroads shall be of 6 foot gauge. This will stop invaders from using the republic's rail system to their advantage.

Enemy troops will not be able to simply cross into conquered territory unhindered. Their Amtrak cars will not be compatible with the republic's track.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, November 26, 2012 7:06 AM

Victrola1

The new republic should consider a new law. All railroads shall be of 6 foot gauge. This will stop invaders from using the republic's rail system to their advantage.

That is the prime reason why Russia established a 5 foot gauge for its railroads.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 26, 2012 8:58 AM

schlimm

You totally miss the point.  Of course, military force permitted the choice by the people to continue to be without interference from rebel units.   But the military did not cause West Virginia to breakaway from VA.  Parts of other states of the Confederacy were occupied by union forces, but did not have conventions to break away from their mother states. 

Oh, I forgot. People who disagree with you don't get it.  Thanks for reminding me.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, November 26, 2012 9:01 AM

No sam1:  You always insist you right, even when the facts argue otherwise, and then get sarcastic.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 26, 2012 9:26 AM

schlimm

No sam1:  You always insist you right, even when the facts argue otherwise, and then get sarcastic. 

I did not say that I am right.  I am placing a different emphasis on historical events. Stating that someone who disagrees with you is missing your points is a put down. You can make your point without putting people down.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Monday, November 26, 2012 9:36 AM

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Orig: Tyler Texas. Lived in seven countries, now live in Sundown, Louisiana
  • 25,640 posts
Posted by jeffrey-wimberly on Monday, November 26, 2012 11:10 AM

OK guys, let's play nice.Smile

Running Bear, Sundown, Louisiana
          Joined June, 2004

Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running Bear
Space Mouse for president!
15 year veteran fire fighter
Collector of Apple //e's
Running Bear Enterprises
History Channel Club life member.
beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam


  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Monday, November 26, 2012 1:50 PM

jeffrey-wimberly

OK guys, let's play nice.Smile

Ok, Mr. Moderator, we are back to being friends again.  This is a nice warning for all to see and realize there are teeth behind the bark.  I just hate to be reading a topic (agree or disagree) and then have it stopped in mid-air.  If nothing else, these long, involved topics are something different than the photos, videos and blogs that were all that was left on the forum for awhile. 

Reasonable discussions are always fun.  Maybe for the more blatant ignoring - a time-out - rather than locking?  Or is that not possible?

Shy

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, November 26, 2012 3:30 PM

BroadwayLion

John WR

While we should never say never it is not at all clear to me that all of the states you list would want to secede.   For example, I looked up Michigan and Iowa.   Barack Obama won those states.   Why would a majority now vote to secede?

John

It is ture, the LION said MI, but maybe you do not realize that LION thought MI meant Missouri Smile, Wink & Grin

Yes, when the Post Office came up with two-letter abbreviations for state names, it opened the door to misunderstandings as to what state is meant by a particular abbreviation.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Monday, November 26, 2012 3:34 PM

If Texas did leave the United States and establish their own government, consider what they would lose in U.S. Government funding:

Fort Hood, the largest military base in the U.S., closed.  Military and civilian payroll probably over $1 billion annually.
Fort Bliss in El Paso, closed.  Military and civilian payroll probably close to $1 million annually.
Federal courts throughout the state closed.  How many federal judges and support staff would that eliminate?
Internal Revenue processing center(s) closed and employees out of work.  Professional tax preparers out of work.  Perhaps 10,000 employees total out of work.  Add attorneys who specialize in IRS cases, and the figure might double.

And there are no doubt many more U.S. Government agencies with offices throughout the State of Texas, such as the U.S. Forest Service, Agriculture Department, Health and Human Services, Border Patrol, Immigration, etc. that would be eliminated, along with their payrolls.  

And then the Republic of Texas would have to set up their own agencies to carry out all these functions.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, November 26, 2012 3:43 PM

If we (New America) left the onion, the military bases would become OUR military bases, and the jobs would stay right where they are. Your IRS workers would become OUR IRS workers (if we decide that we even need an IRS). There is nothing else that the USA has that we need.

Instead you will be buying our grain, coal, oil, electricity and other farm products, and you will be paying REAL PRICES in real gold. (No US dollars allowed). And remember, NORTH DAKOTA will be a nuclear power.

So Nah nah nah nah-nah!

and *I* will *still* have the largest subway layout in North Dakota.

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, November 26, 2012 3:46 PM

Back to Amtrak in foreign countries: Amtrak does not operate the Maple Leaf into Toronto; Amtrak does operate the train into Ontario, stopping at Niagara Falls, Ont., and VIA operates it between there and Toronto. Incidentally, the schedule allows two hours and one minute in Niagara Falls, N.Y., for customs and one hour in Niagara Falls, Ont., for customs.

Back when there was through passenger service between Toronto and Chicago, VIA operated the train between Toronto and Port Huron, Mich., and Amtrak operated the train between Port Huron and Chicago.

Johnny

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MA
  • 562 posts
Posted by dmoore74 on Monday, November 26, 2012 4:49 PM

Shouldn't the new Republic of Texas also be required to assume its portion of the national debt?  Based on its population that would be close to 10%, presumably to be paid in gold.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy