The Legality of Texas Secession, And Why It Simply Wouldn’t Matter

Just try to type “Texas Secession” into your search engine and see how many snarky liberal publications will pop up deriding “the rednecks” for even considering such a possibility.  There is nothing more irritating than seeing a Liberal quote the U.S. Constitution to suit their own ends, when we know they blatantly disregard it when it does not.

Dripping with condescension, the Progressives patiently explain why Texas cannot legally secede from the union.  They point out that despite the myth to the contrary, our constitution does not give us the legal right to secede from the United States (this is true).  They further explain that this issue was clarified by a Supreme Court case, Texas vs. White in 1869 (also true).

As usual, the Liberals are missing the ever-loving point.  If Texans ever got to the place where we were ready to leave the union, we would be found to be in violation of U.S. law no matter the strength of our legal argument.  But by our very actions, we would be stating that U.S. law no longer had authority over our people.  We would be declaring ourselves free from an oppressive and corrupt federal government that no longer honored the very Constitution it was trying to wield against us.  During the American Revolution, do you think we were overly concerned about our violation of British law?

And that question takes us to the nut of the issue: semantics.  It all comes down to the use of the word “secession” versus the word “revolution”, and the legal consequences of proposing each.  Moreover. the word “secession” implies a peaceful, passive, and defensive action, which is how most of us see ourselves on the issue.  The word “revolution” is far more aggressive and brings to mind bloodshed and war, which nobody wants.

The most important question liberty-minded Texans need to ask is how to achieve a peaceful secession, and that is something I plan to write more about in the future.


Just a side note to those of you who might find this interesting – – while reading legal arguments regarding Texas secession, I came across this little tidbit:

Texas does reserve the right to subdivide itself into five separate states, meaning we could go from two Texas senators to ten Texas senators, overnight.  It has been argued (by Tom DeLay no less) that because Congress would never allow such a thing to happen, they would be forced to nullify the Texas annexation treaty.  A back door to legal secession?


One Response to The Legality of Texas Secession, And Why It Simply Wouldn’t Matter

  1. Bill Miller says:

    Unfortunately, you have accepted two so-called truths that are anything but — that secession is forbidden by the Constitution and that Texts v. White decided it was in fact illegal.

    To begin with your first statement on the right or legality of secession:

    There are three grand principles our States can call upon—either one of which—can be used to justify secession:

    1. The Declaration of Independence (aka Declaration of Secession) establishes the right of the people to withdraw from a government not effecting their safety and happiness as one of our Natural God-given rights as so stated: “… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …”

    2. The Constitution reserves ALL unspecified powers to the individual States as clarified by the Tenth Amendment. The federal government was never delegated the authority to dictate the terms for a State to exercise their right to withdraw from the agreement we call the Constitution, and therefore the States, and the States alone, decide the issue for themselves.

    3. Finally, the States are clearly the superior sovereign party in the Compact between the States (aka the Constitution), and therefore, they cannot be controlled, or dictated to, in the making of any political decision by an inferior political entity, created by these same States, such as the central government.

    Next, as for Texas v. White:

    This case was nothing but a sham, and some even believe (although without any evidence of such) that it was manufactured in order to invent some justifications for the North’s horrors. There are three basic reasons this case is illegitimate:

    First, it was not a case about secession; it was a case about the legalities of the sale of bonds. The parties did not present evidence and debate the question if secession was legal or not. The case therefore did not “test” the arguments and counterarguments regarding the right of secession.

    This was a Lincoln court (5 justices appointed by Lincoln) and the Chief Justice was in Lincoln’s Cabinet and one of only two supporting Lincoln’s attempt to draw fire by resupplying Fort Sumter. Lincoln later appointed Chase to be the Chief Justice. Of all people who should not be issuing a bogus ruling on Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions, it would be Lincoln’s crony, Chief Justice Chase; he should have recused himself. His ruling was nothing but self-serving hogwash.

    Finally, what “ruling” was made that the States could not secede? Well, there was no evidence upon which the Chief Justice made his claim; it was a well-debunked theory (the Union is perpetual) of Lincoln’s upon which the Chief Justice ruled. Numerous scholars have found this theory to be nothing more than nonsense.

    I hope this offers some clarification on an otherwise thoughtful posting. I look forward to your next post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: