T Nation

Texas Secession ?


Ive read articles for those who say its possible and those who say its not but it seems still unclear. The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states. So my question is, can Texas secede?

"Texas is a free and independent State ... All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
â?? Texas Constitution (1876)

"When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived...[it is] the inherent and inalienable right of the people to...abolish such government, and create another in its stead..."
â?? Texas Declaration of Independence (1836)

"Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever government becomes destructive to life, liberty, or property [i.e., the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it... It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
â?? American Declaration of Independence (1776)


Any state can secede. For me it's the argument of nullification taken to its logical extreme.



I'll leave the specifics to those on the Forum with more legal and/or political knowledge than myself...but here are some of the "bottom lines" as I've read these arguments in the past.

1) Secession arguments are about like the arguments people have about paying Federal Taxes. Whether or not the Constitution says its legal or not...neither can, nor will be allowed, to happen.(And if you've read the anti-tax arguments; they are constitutionally compelling...until the judge sentences the person to jail time and fines).

2) Like if or not, the States are not as "independent" from the Federal Government as some would like to believe; the States are too "intertwined" with the Federal Government on so many levels to argue legitimate "independence".

3) There is a huge difference between being "pissed off" at the Feds; whether it be for taxation, wasteful spending or imposition of certain laws...and that Government truly...and I mean truly taking away ones fundamental rights of self-determination, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

There is no question that people everyday have these rights trampled on in some way or form (and not exclusively by the Feds; but also by State, and yes, local governments.)...but it would be difficult to prove that on a State Wide Basis, thus "justifying" secession.

In other words, that the Feds have in fact singled out a particular State and its citizens; and then has systematically denied those citizens their basic and fundamental rights.

4) Now...this is where the arguments get REALLY heated...and that is whether of not the Civil War "settled" the argument of a States right to secede...and that one I'll have to leave for the more knowlegable ones on this site.

Again...these are what tend to be the most common "bottom-line" arguments when these threads come up, in what ultimately tends to be a very interesting topic for discussion.



Ain't gonna happen.


I agree with Mufasa. Whether it is legal or not, the sitting President will cockslap anyone who tries it.

"If a single drop of blood shall be shed [in South Carolina] in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach"

--Andrew Jackson in response to the Nullification Crisis


Thanks Mufasa. And I definitely agree that its almost impossible for that to happen. The amount of natl. gov property, programs, etc. would halt most attempts alone without any type of intervention. What also spiked my interest was a speech Gov. Perry gave claiming that if the national government keeps heading the way it is that the possible is high for secession.


DOI plainly states that it is allowable.



Can you elaborate, Duce?



Declaration of Independence.

The constitution is the foundation of the country, but the DOI is the foundation of the constitution.


Texas tried to secede one time. It was called the Civil War. It didn't go over very well.


No, it doesn't - the DOI explains the right of revollution, not secession.


And, no, Texas cannot secede.


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"

Succession means to gain the new rights of statehood. The American revolution was a succession.

Revolution is generally a large restructuring of a government. The civil war was an attempt at revolution.


No, secession is the legal withdrawal from an entity. "To dissolve" is to destroy the political bands - revolution.

No, it isn't. A revolution is " to revolt" - to cast off, to turn away, to repudiate the government you were a part of.

The American Revolution wasn't a secession, it was a revolution (read the DOI, for God's sakes). Jefferson was invoking the right of revolution because of the "long train of abuses", and America had no lawful right to withdraw from England.

Note also the threshold by which Jefferson notes revolution is necessary - it's a pretty high bar, not just "don't get my way in a democracy". Read up.


The only way what you said makes sense is if the 2 terms are mutually exclusive, they aren't. Both were succeeding from a governmental union. Both were attempting revolution.

I don't know how you are twisting it that America withdrawing from the British constitution to form their own separate government isn't succession? And I don't know how dissolving the American constitution to set up a new system of governance that redistributes governmental authority isn't a revolution?

The DOI specifically and rightly declares the authority of men to dissolve and re-establish government as granted by god.

And yeah, I'm probably with you on the threshold argument. But whether that criteria has yet been met is another argument.


Yes, they are mutually exclusive - secession doesn't require the "long train of abuses"...you can simply exercise your legal right to leave in accordance with agreed upon procedures. In a revolution, there ain't any such procedure - you are invoking violation of natural rights.

And normally I am not too concerned, but it's "secession", not "succession".

Americans had no lawful procedure to leave England - they had to revolt. Thus, it was no secession. Who sets up what after the fact isn't the operative aspect.

Yes, upon a breach of natural rights, not on anything else. And it declares a right of revolution, not secession.


So the us didn't secede from Brittan?

No, they are not mutually exclusive at all.


Please explain why the 2 are mutually exclusive.


He just did...

"...[in a secession] you can simply exercise your legal right to leave in accordance with agreed upon procedures. In a revolution, there ain't any such procedure..."

EDIT: I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with what he said, just pointing out the explanation he already provided.


So what was the agreed upon procedure in the civil war?

How about you guys just give a concise definition for each. Thunderbolt keeps adding conditions.