From the Dallas Observer: Here's Why #Texit Can, but Won't, Happen

Just in case you are curious.

- Click here for the article.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, 'one Nation, indivisible.') Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

"I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay," Scalia wrote.

If Scalia's legal opinion is correct, Texas cannot force the United States to let it secede if the U.S. refuses. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who's written extensively about potential secession.

"A state couldn’t legally force the U.S. to let it secede, if the U.S. refused. But if the state and the U.S. agreed, that would be doable; at worst, it would require a constitutional amendment (always possible, though it requires two-thirds of the vote of each house of Congress and a majority vote in three-quarter of the state legislatures), but most likely an act of Congress, coupled with a majority referendum that the state government views as binding, would suffice," Volokh writes in an email

Whether Texas left or not, Volokh says, would be a political decision by the United States and the people and government of Texas, rather than a legal one. Still, he says that's unlikely to happen, at least as things stand. 

"I very much doubt that the political will would be there today, or any time in the immediate future. Most Texans, I think, are proud to be Americans, whether or not they like what the federal government is doing, and they can see the benefits of remaining part of a powerful country that can defend their interests. But if things change, and Texans want to leave and can persuade the rest of the country to let them go, then that could certainly happen," he says.

At the 2016 Texas Republican convention in May, Texas state GOP delegates, perhaps one of the most conservative and federal-government loathing groups that could be put together, wouldn't even go so far as to endorse secession at the platform level, knocking down a plank that would've called on Abbott to do what the TNM wants.

For more: Texas v White.

From the Texas Tribune: The Texas Secession Debate is Getting Kind of Real

For out look at state parties and how the rank and file can bring items up the leadership would rather not deal with.

- Click here for the article.

When Texas Republicans assemble for their state convention next month, it's possible they will debate whether the state should secede from the United States.

There's almost no chance Texas Republicans will actually vote in favor of seceding, mind you — not least because most of the party wants nothing to do with this — but the fact we're even mentioning secession and the Texas GOP convention in the same sentence suggests that the once-fringe movement has become a priority for at least some conservative grassroots Texans.

To be sure, that seems to be a relatively small group. The Texas secession movement says 22 out of the 270 county GOP conventions passed some kind of independence resolution this spring. A party official said he'd be "surprised" if that were the case, and the Houston Chronicle was able to confirm only 10 counties. But 10 is a lot more than the one county that passed an independence resolution in 2012.

Texas Republicans say these independence resolutions are just a handful of tens of thousands various resolutions to be considered at their convention. But it does seem like the secession movement is growing, or at least organizing, and may have become too big for party officials to ignore.

From My San Antonio: Texas nationalists see hope in possible Scottish secession

- Something fun to chew on:

Texas nationalists are awaiting Scotland's pending vote on seceding from the United Kingdom in the hopes it could happen in Texas.

Scottish voters will hit the polls Thursday to decide whether to break long-standing ties with the United Kingdom, which currently contains Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Secessionists in Texas have seized on Scotland's possible independence: in a post about the vote, the Texas Nationalist Movement wrote on their website, "Scotland's internal and external opponents of independence sound like the typical battered wife syndrome."

"Centralists in America fear that, if Scotland votes yes, it may set a chain of events in motion that could affect many more western regions," the movement organizers wrote. "Suddenly, the impossible seems possible."

With some new attention on Texas nationalism comes repeated arguments for independence: Yahoo columnist Rick Newman notes that — with its GDP of $1.6 trillion and population of 27 million — Texas would be the 13th largest country in the world if it obtained independence from the United States. He also wrote Texas could lure companies away from the United States and survive on the strength of its economy.

On the flip side, Newman pointed out that Texas would have to create its own defense apparatus and adapt to losing federal funds.

In addition, support for Texas nationalism is relegated to a relatively small contingent of Texas residents and is not a mainstream view, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University.

"That [popular] support is severely lacking," Jones said.

Secession is still illegal - but dreams die hard.

Happy "Texas Being Readmitted to the Union Day!"

We tend not to celebrate this one, but its as momentous as the rest.

From the TSHA:

On this day in 1870, U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant signed the act that ended Congressional Reconstruction and readmitted Texas to the Union. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Texas had been in turmoil, first under Presidential Reconstruction and then, beginning in 1867 with the passage of the First Reconstruction Act, under Congressional Reconstruction. The latter required that Texas have a constitutional convention, with delegates elected by all male citizens over the age of twenty-one, regardless of race, color, or "previous condition of servitude." The convention was to write a new state constitution that would provide for universal adult male suffrage. When the constitution had been written and the state had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Congress would consider the case for readmission to the Union. The convention met at Austin in June 1868 and did not adjourn until February 1869. The constitution it produced differed significantly from previous constitutions by authorizing a more centralized and bureaucratized system of government, with greater power in the hands of the governor. In February 1870 the Twelfth Legislature assembled at Austin to adopt the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments and select United States senators in preparation for readmission to the Union. They quickly approved the amendments and selected Morgan C. Hamilton for a six-year term and James W. Flanagan for a four-year term. This completed the requirements set by Congress for readmission.

Also on this day in 1849, a seccessionist paper was founded in Marshall:

On this day in 1849, the Marshall Texas Republican was established by Trenton A. and Frank J. Patillo. The paper is most closely identified with Robert W. Loughery, who became associate editor in July and editor in November, and two years later bought the paper outright. Under his fiery leadership, the Republican became one of the state's most articulate voices for secession, and his editorials were reprinted around the state. Loughery's support played an important role in the election of his fellow townsmen James Pinckney Henderson and Louis T. Wigfall to the United States Senate, and the Republican was among the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy during the war years. Once the war ended, however, Loughery vigorously advocated conciliation and compliance with the requirements of surrender, though he changed his stance after the imposition of congressional Reconstruction. His last great journalistic fight involved the Stockade Case at Jefferson, in which a number of citizens were held without formal charge and finally tried by a military tribunal. Loughery's complaints about the military's refusal to turn the case over to civilian courts or to release the prisoners on bail came to the attention of President Andrew Johnson, who asked for an explanation from Gen. Joseph J. Reynolds, commander of the troops in Texas. After the Republican ceased publication in 1872, Loughery went on to help found several other Texas newspapers. He died in 1894.

So some Texans began agitating for seccession 4 years after joining the union. We really have ongoing issues with being a part of the US don't we?

Arguments Texans make for secession

In response to a student's request about this week's assignment, here are some links where you can find the rationale supporting secession from the union. Remember that your task this week is to compare these to the argument made in the Texas Declaration of Independence, for extra points also looks at the argument made in the US declaration. Justifying secession required clearing a high bar. How do recent supporters of secession match up?

Here are some random links that might be of use, I can't vouch for their quality, but they should be able to give you a start.

- For a look at the argument made in 1861, click here for the Texas Ordinance of Secession.
- The original 2012 petition sent to the White House. This also contains the official response.
- The Case for the Secession of Texas.
- Texas Secession Facts.
- How Texas could mess with us.
- Here's a detailed critique of Texas v White, the case which has been taken to prevent any state from seceding from the union. The author disagrees with the claim.
- The Fantasy that is Texas Secession, this makes a forceful defense of Texas v White among other things.
- Tumblr - Texas Secession.
- Texas can't secede....

I hope this helps. Have fun with this assignment. Aside from getting used to the argument contained in the Texas Declaration, I just want to activate some brain cells.

Texas Self-Sufficiency Act

James White (campaign site), a member of the Texas House has introduced a bill "that would require the state to study the effects of cutting financial ties with the federal government."

The Texas Tribune has details. The bill is HB 568, The Texas Self-Sufficiency Act. Here's the press release.

Rep. James White, R-Hillister, said he filed HB 568 because the state needed to be prepared for the possibility that the federal government could not meet its financial obligations because of "fiscal dysfunction" in Washington, D.C.

Called the "Texas Self-Sufficiency Act," White's bill would create a select committee to look at the consequences of "a possible reduction in or elimination of federal funding" on the state budget, which gets about a third of its revenue from federal funding. The committee would be made up of legislators, budget experts and "citizens from the non-profit sector" appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, and state comptroller.

White said he viewed his proposal as an extension of a House interim committee's work to study the effects of sequestration in the state.

"We always talk about Tenth Amendment rights but there are Tenth Amendment responsibilities. If Texas is an independent nation or if we continue to be a part of the United States, which I am for, we still need to have a strong Texas," he said.

The legislation was not, White said, intended as a call for secession.

Even so, survivalists seem to like the idea behind the bill.

I guess we don't get to seceed

The Texas Tribune gives us the bad news:

Responding to petitions from Texas and seven other states calling for the right to secede, the White House has called for healthy debate, but to not let "that debate tear us apart."

"In a nation of 300 million people — each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs — democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing," Jon Carson, director of the Office of Public Engagement, wrote in a statement called "Our States Remain United." "Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted."

"Whether it's figuring out how to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way, or protect our country," he added, "we will need to work together — and hear from one another — in order to find the best way to move forward."

The White House's response addressed nine petitions filed on the White House's We the People website, which allows any petition to receive a response provided it gets 25,000 signatures. The petition asking for Texas secession, which noted that "it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union," received 125,746 signatures. Many of the individuals who signed, however, are not from Texas.

Not from Texas? What do they want us to leave? We need another petition. 

Closely Inspecting the Farewell Address: Washington on Sectionalism

If you read through Washington's address it becomes apparent why the Senators declined to sit while the address was being read. He counsels against the sort of animosity and division common today and advises that we distrust anyone who would try to create them. In fact much of what he says suggests that he would be opposed to the state oriented flavor in the campaigns of current candidates for public office. Here's some relevant text:

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.

I do think its worth comparing this comment with Madison's observations in Federalist #10. Madison tells us that divisions are inevitable and are to be expected. Is Washington simply being unrealistic?

No Right to Secede

So says Antonin Scalia.

Secession

This might be worth chewing over next semester when we discuss federalism. Secession continues to be on the minds of some.

From Edward Tenner:

. . . Breaking up is on the minds of some Americans, too, and not only the Alaskans we read about during the 2008 campaign. The Chronicle of Higher Education has just spotlighted a less familiar society of academic Southern traditionalists. The 64-member Abbeville Institute, founded in 2003 by the Emory University philosophy professor Donald W. Livingston and named for the original home of the statesman and political theorist John C. Calhoun, is about to hold a public conference on two of Calhoun's own themes, secession and nullification. And the speaker list leaves little doubt about what side they're on.

Among the speakers are the professed neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale and the emeritus economics professor Thomas Naylor, advocates of the Second Vermont Republic, a movement admiring the New England secessionism of the early nineteenth century.

The Vermont separatists don't tell the full story of New England intellectuals and secession. Take Yale President Timothy Dwight, John C. Calhoun's mentor. The Web site Yale, Slavery & Abolition quotes him on separation (and justifying slavery):

The evils of disunion would be so great, that nothing like an advantage which appears to be promised by it, is worthy of a moment's regard. Dissolution would involve so many calamities, that it would be childish to weigh it against a few questions of local interest, which are as nothing when put in contrast to it.

And Abbeville's hero, Calhoun himself, began his political life as a nationalist, and turned to nullification and secession ideas only beginning in the late 1820s.The Abbeville conference still is a good thing, because it focuses attention on a growing and--on balance--disturbing trend. But the issue is a complex one involving environment and security issues as well as political theory; look especially at the map on the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. Secession is too important a subject to be left to the secessionists.

Secession!!!!

Perhaps this is due to Texas' unique history, but from time to time some of our fellow Texans start talking about secession. This time that group includes out governor. The talk tends to occur during periods of time when the state's influence on national affairs is waning, like when Democrats dominate national office. It happened during the Carter and Clinton years, so why not now?

There seems to be a general sense that secession is a possibility. Thanks to Susan for sending me a copy of a email which has apparently floated around for some time, you can see versions here, and here, and here, and here. I'm sure its all over the place.

The problem is that there is no such thing as the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848. Texas, as history buffs will recall, was annexed in 1845. The treaty signed then dealt mostly with the status that the Republic of Texas had accumulated, and said nothing about secession. The congressional resolution which authorized Texas' entry into the union did stipulate that Texas could divide into five states, but again nothing about secession.

An 1869 Supreme Court case not only stated that Texas could not seceed, but that it did not actually seceed when it entered the Confederation.