Facing a tough challenge in his primary for reelection, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has taken up a curious new campaign slogan: Secession. In the audio tape below, Perry threatened that Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union in when it became a state in 1845. While Perry’s call for secession is likely to be echoed by many liberals across the country who have long criticized the state’s politics and politicians like George W. Bush, it may be a bit early to buy those Republic of Texas license plates and exchange your currency.
Crowds appear to have reacted well to Perry’s call, shouting “secede, secede.” Putting aside the obvious pandering and demagoguery, it is fascinating that Perry and the anti-tax demonstrators have rallied in opposition of what they see as a massive expansion of government and the denial of states rights. I happen to oppose many parts of the stimulus program and I have equal concerns over the tax increases being planned by the Democrats. However, it is a bit curious that these Texans were not demonstrating when the Bush Administration attacked the rights of states to determine for themselves how to handle such things as medical marijuana, assisted suicide, or same sex marriage. They were not in the streets when Bush massively increased the use of the military in domestic law enforcement and operations. There were no demonstrations when Bush asserted the right to detain U.S. citizens and strip them of their constitutional rights with access to courts or lawyers. It is taxes that appear to have pushed Texans to call for secession.
It appears that the great love for nation in this very patriotic state evaporates the minute that taxes are increased. For some love-it-or-leave-it Americans, they have little love and a great desire to leave. I do not support the proposed tax increases, but I would consider a call to leave the United States to be distinctly unpatriotic and unAmerican. To do so over taxes shows how shallow the patriotism of some of these demonstrators truly is.
I particularly loved the conflicting image of many of these people waving American flags while shouting “secede.” Perry is not generally viewed as the sharpest tool in the shed of Republican governors, but he may want to inform people that we will keep the flag if they secede. It will also be interesting how Perry is going to pursue his national ambitions when he first response to higher taxes was to suggest the possibility of dissolving the Union.
Perry told reporters, “[t]here’s a lot of different scenarios. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” “We’ve got a great union”? Sounds like the line you get when your boyfriend or girlfriend is about to dump with you. “Honey, we have a great relationship, but . . . .”. Perry did indicate that Texas wants to stay the best of friends after the breakup.
Of course, Texas did secede once — not that long after joining the Union. It ended with Union troops crushing the confederacy and imposing martial law. They then faced increased taxed with occupation. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that no state may unilaterally secede. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Salmon Chase noted that a state could be removed from the Union by consent of the states, but not unilaterally as Perry suggests: “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”
Putting aside Perry’s interpretation of the Constitution, no one less than Madison rejects the idea of secession at will. In a March 15, 1833 letter to Daniel Webster. Madison noted:
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
In point of fact, secession is not a handy option preserved to Texas despite a website for a Texas nation and secession. There are also websites supporting the right of all states to secede. even Vermont has secessionists, which could then embargo the nation in denying use readily available Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In 1845, Texas preserved the right to divide into four additional states. For people in Austin, this option has always been enticing to form a separate state rather than live as a political island in the state.
Texas, however, does not have an express authority to secede — a common myth. While some argue that any state may secede from a voluntary union, the Civil War was fought over such claims. The right to form four other states (for a total of five) can be found in the 1845 joint resolution that admitted Texas to the Union. The resolution includes the following language:
“And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: . . . Third — New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.
Perry’s suggestion of a new state brings a certain quote from Sam Houston to mind: “All new states are invested, more or less, by a class of noisy, second-rate men who are always in favor of rash and extreme measures, but Texas was absolutely overrun by such men.”
That is indeed unique and was a byproduct of the raging debate over free and slave states. Thus, Texans may want to pay their taxes, stay in the Union, but form four more perfect state unions. The State of Austin awaits recognition.
For the audio recording, click here.
For the full story, click here.
“Texas, Our Texas”
Texas, Our Texas! all hail the mighty State!
Texas, Our Texas! so wonderful so great!
Boldest and grandest, withstanding ev’ry test
O Empire wide and glorious, you stand supremely blest.
(chorus)
Texas, O Texas! your freeborn single star,
Sends out its radiance to nations near and far,
Emblem of Freedom! it set our hearts aglow,
With thoughts of San Jacinto and glorious Alamo.
(chorus)
Texas, dear Texas! from tyrant grip now free,
Shines forth in splendor, your star of destiny!
Mother of heroes, we come your children true,
Proclaiming our allegiance, our faith, our love for you.
Chorus
God bless you Texas! And keep you brave and strong,
That you may grow in power and worth, throughout the ages long.
God bless you Texas! And keep you brave and strong,
That you may grow in power and worth, throughout the ages long.
Well ta heck with Texas–where I was ‘borned’–and they can leave but they just caint take them good ‘ol Texas Women with them.
Promises, promises.
Here cometh a flip flop!
Slavery, is that the price that we pay for an organize government? or am I confusing that with Taxes?
Is Texas trying to reinstitute slavery?
Hey, we don’t want no Chuck Norris here, or Perry or Bush. what do you have to Trade.
What mespo and Vince said, but I’d have to differentiate from Vince in that I’m more than willing to let Texas go. In fact, I encourage them to leave as soon as possible and will be signing the petition to expel right after Raff. And they can take Chuck Norris with them.
Fear and demagoguery are wonderful allies. Gov. Perry’s comments nicely complemented all of the “Tea Party” rallies yesterday. But after watching summaries of the day’s activities, I was struck by the following:
1. The right wing in this country doesn’t have a clue when it comes to organizing demonstrations. As one who came of age in the ’60s, I vividly remember student strikes, marches on Washington, Selma and Birmingham and the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Those events were electrifying. There was a passion and intensity completely absent in the “tea parties.” In those days the debates and arguments were endless. What I saw yesterday was barely coherent. High school football games are more emotionally engaging than what Republicans have to offer.
2. The base whom the rallies were attempting to mobilize consisted largely of the same folks who fawned over Sarah Palin and who worship at the altar of Rush Limbaugh. Forget the signs and posters about guns and freedom and armed revolution and socialism and secession and Obama’s birth certificate. Those are new code words for a new century. Honest racists like George Corley Wallace could stand in front of adoring crowds and vow, “Segregation forever.” Now they hide behind euphemisms. When people speak of wanting to “take our country back,” we know what they really mean.
3. The remaining base of the Republican Party is now operating in full desperation mode. There is an absence of leadership because there is an absence of ideas. The most extreme elements of the party recognize a vacuum when they see one and have now consolidated their control. The new report by the Department of Homeland Security warning of intensified recruitment efforts by home-grown militias among the disaffected is probably accurate, notwithstanding the right’s expressed outrage over the very suggestion that appeals to hatred can increase membership in hate groups.
So we need not be concerned about the comments of Gov. Perry. I am not convinced he can spell “secession,” let alone actually generate any meaningful support for it. He will wind up in the same dust bin with Huey Long and George Wallace, gradually ignored and ultimately forgotten.
What does it mean when comment is waiting moderation?
I was listening to NPR, for folks that need interpreting on that “National Public Radio” and heard a Russian Professor predict that the US will fall into problems and break up.
I am not sure if he was talking about the Political climate or The FINANCIAL MACABRE that ensues the very citizen that writes this. Here is the link to the Article:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/29/the-coming-collapse-of-the-united-states/
Here is a link to the 4 states of the former US.
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-12/igor-panarin-us-breakup.jpg
I also heard about a Amero Currency and here is the link for that as well, the Internet is Wonderful is it not:
http://www.ameroinfo.com/
Well who’d thunk that mere words could be more mortally true. Thank G-d that he cannot fashion an act much past the Texas borders.
I heard an analysis last night of Gov. Perry’s bafoonery. It was stated he faces a considerable challenge for reelection, or even renomination, from Kay Bailey Hutchison in the next cycle and that he’s trying to connect to “the base”. That’s one scary base.
An anecdote was recalled where then out-going-Governor-incoming-President George W was alleged to have said on his departure, “If you think I was bad, wait ’til you see the next guy”.
Sorry about the duplication. Last 4 paras are new.
The argument for unilateral secession by a state is legally frivolous. The Supreme Court held that a state cannot secede unilaterally in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), and that is the law until a future Court reverses it. The Constitution is not an employment-at –will contract.
But there is a legal and constitutional method for a state, or a group of states, to secede from the United States if they want to. It is set forth in Article V of the Constitution.
If the secessionists were serious, they would draft a constitutional amendment providing that the state or states are no longer part of the United States and no longer subject to the Constitution. The proposed amendment may then be introduced in Congress, where it must be passed by a two-thirds majority of both Houses.
In the alternative, the legislatures of two thirds of the states may apply to Congress for it to call a Convention for proposing amendments. The amendments could allow unilateral secession either for particular states or for any or all states in the future.
In either case, three fourths of the states must ratify the amendment. It would be up to the proponents to convince the country that it would be a good thing to let them go.
Of course, none of the so-called secession movements, whether in Texas, Vermont or Alaska, have ever made such a proposal. This just confirms that their agitation for secession is nothing but empty rhetoric, posturing and playing for cheap publicity,
As JT noted, the language of the 1845 Joint Resolution does not allow secession.
The Resolution does not allow Texas to split into four states unilaterally. It only says that the splinter states “shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.” Article IV, section 3, states that “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”
The Constitution in its own words requires that the admission of new states be “by the Congress,” so the consent of Congress would also be needed in addition to the consent of Texas.
The entire 1845 resolution was premised on the ability of some of the new states to be admitted, “with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire.” This provision was expressly invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment.
I think the 13th Amendment also invalidated the entire Resolution. Today, it is nothing by a historical curiosity. It has some antiquarian interest, but nothing else.
Mespo/Rafflaw/Vince:
great posts.
I knew that one would get a good reaction, what with all the Texas hijinks.
Raf:
maybe we should get one going, I used to work with Texans in the oil field and can tell you truthfully it would not be a great loss. They drink more, fight harder, work longer, have better looking women, more obediant dogs, bluer sky, wetter water, sandier beaches, can jump tall buildings in a single bound, run faster than a speeding bullet, and they only sleep 2 hours per night.
I would not vote to expel Texas. There is a substantial minority in the State who disagree with the folks in charge at the present time, and they would be expelled along with them.
Ohhhh, The Most Beautiful, Beautiful, Beautiful Texas, the most Beautiful Texas I know. . . .
I do believe that Texas can divide into 4 states. There is some debate as to whether Texas may succeed from the Union as it is. The Dallas Morning News stated last night that Texas does not have that right. I believe it was the Historical Library that stated this.
The problem with Perry is he is not as good at misstating the truth as Bush. Some people are very convincing even when they don’t know all of the facts.
This has been the problem with politics. The take the menial mentality that is is what they want and nothing else including the truth will do, if it gets in in the way of logic and fact.
Of course, the danger of Article V is that it could also be used to expel a state or group of states.
Barry Goldwater wanted to saw off the east coast of the U.S. and let it float out to sea. The Goldwater Amendment ousting the 12 eastern states could be ratified by the other 38 states.
The argument for unilateral secession by a state is legally frivolous. The Supreme Court held that a state cannot secede unilaterally in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), and that is the law until a future Court reverses it. The Constitution is not an employment-at –will contract.
But there is a legal and constitutional method for a state, or a group of states, to secede from the United States if they want to. It is set forth in Article V of the Constitution.
If the secessionists were serious, they would draft a constitutional amendment providing that the state or states are no longer part of the United States and no longer subject to the Constitution. The proposed amendment may then be introduced in Congress, where it must be passed by a two-thirds majority of both Houses.
In the alternative, the legislatures of two thirds of the states may apply to Congress for it to call a Convention for proposing amendments.
The amendments could allow unilateral secession either for particular states or for any or all states in the future. In either case, three fourths of the states must ratify the amendment. It would be up to the proponents to convince the country that it would be a good thing to let them go.
Of course, none of the so-called secession movements, whether in Texas, Vermont or Alaska, have ever made such a proposal. This just confirms that their agitation for secession is nothing but empty rhetoric, posturing and playing for cheap publicity,
I will echo Mespo’s words. It would be a great benefit to have Texas removed from the Union. The government of Texas has been overrun by right wing radicals and I don’t think we would miss much if Texas was no longer in the United States. Where can I sign the petition to have them expelled?
Secede hell! What about expulsion? Oh not the entire state mind you, just those neo-confederates who pine for the good old days of rule by conservative white guys looking after themeselves. Maybe I can now self-righteously say (and I never thought I would), “If you don’t love it, leave it.”