Texit: Can It Succeed?
Hopefully freedom succeeds, but difficulties lie ahead
Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. Speak with a legal professional regarding your case.
Paying subscribers previously voted for The Daily Beagle to investigate Texit. Become a paying subscriber so you can vote on the next article.
The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) led by Daniel Miller has managed to hit the voting threshold to have Texit (Texas Exit) appear on the Republican primary ballot in March 2024, after hitting a rate of 2000 signatures per day.
Texit is the idea that Texas will secede from the United States, with parallels often drawn to Brexit (British exit) and the EU (European Union). The success of the vote in appearing on the ballot shows the brewing discontent within Texas over the direction the US (United States) Federal government are taking things.
The Texas National Movement was created in 2005 by Daniel Miller, a sixth generation Texan who is a tech consultant. In 2011, he previously wrote the book “Line in the Sand”, and in 2018 he wrote the book “TEXIT: Why And How Texas Will Leave The Union” for a surprising $25. It is unclear why he hasn’t published the details of Texit for free, given informing his supporters so they can succeed ought to be more important.
Not The First Call For Secession
In 1997, often written by media outlets as a way to discredit calls for Texas secession despite not having any involvement with current movements, one group of secessionists took hostages and demanded Texas secede from the Union, which went about as well as you would expect: they surrendered, and their leader, Richard McLaren, got 99 years in jail.
In 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to secede from the Union, although it appears he undertook no action to achieve this.
In 2012, a White House petition calling for Texas to secede from the Union gained over 25,000 signatures (this was despite the system being accused of making petitions and signatures disappear). 25,000 was enough at the time to require a formal response from the President, however in 2013 the White House set the requirement to 100,000 signatures. Ron Paul at the time remarked ‘secession is very much an American principle’.
In 2016, a vote to secede from Texas was scarcely avoided, likely barely avoided given at the time there were hopes the President could fix the rife corruption within the Federal government.
During Texas’ 2021-2022 session, State Representative Kyle Biedermann previously filed House Bill 1359 calling for a vote to leave the Union. It did not leave committee.
The March 2024 Republican primary ballot by the Texas National Movement represents the most recent call for seccession.
Could Texas Leave The US?
Well, yes and no, paired with a ‘it depends’. There’s the legal reality and then there’s the physical reality. Let’s start with the legal reality as it is the ‘clearest’ in this nebulous fog of uncertainty.
Legal Matters
Supporters of secession point to Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which states:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.
Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Some critics of the secessionist movement will point to an Ordinance from March 15 1866, titled “Declaring the Ordinance of Secession Null and Void”, which on title read sounds like they’re giving up all forms of seccession, but if you read the text body…
[…] an Ordinance adopted by a former Convention of the people of Texas on the 1st day of February, A.D. 1861, entitled "An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled 'Constitution of the United States of America,'" be and the same is hereby declared null and void […]
…you’ll find they’re ‘just’ declaring a prior ordinance from 1861 null and void, one with the wordy title “An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States, united under the compact styled 'Constitution of the United States of America,'“. It does not say anything about future secessions, only the prior ordinance of which it applies.
The Supreme Court does comment, and they’re not in favour: they previously ruled against Texas secession in Texas v. White (1869), where judge Salmon P. Chase declared the Federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”. Read: no breaking it up into small chunks.
At least one modern day Supreme Court judge has similarly aired dissent against secession: Antonin Scalia explicitly declared: “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”.
Indeed, there is formal documentation relating to the annexing of Texas by the Union in 1845, titled the “Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, Approved March 1, 1845”, which details (emphasis added) cession to the United States:
[…] That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian [sic] territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States […]
Essentially, the argument boils down to: the Federal government took Texas by force, so it controls Texas by force. The only vague legal pathroute out is via the US Constitution, and it is a long-shot, found in Article 4, Section 3:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Those are two major hurdles: it requires the ‘Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned’ (it is unclear if it means only those seceding or those affected by the seceding, which would be all States), and ‘of the Congress’. It is unlikely any political make-up or form of Congress would willingly approve the loss of an economic powerhouse such as Texas.
Physical Matters
In International law there is the concept of the right of self-determination as a right of ‘all peoples’, however this typically boils down to whether or not a nation has a means to defend itself against external encroachments.
For example, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) versus the British government, taking over the Republic of Ireland; or the Catalan government versus the Spanish government, still controlled by the Spanish.
Whilst Supreme Court judges can point to law, for the law to work there has to be a will to enforce. And whilst the 1800s saw the Federal government use brutalistic force to annex Texas, would a government in the 2000s be inclined to such barbaric practices? Bearing in mind the pretext “justifying” such barbarism in the 1800s of ‘civil rights’ and ‘slavery’ doesn’t exist this time: Texas simply wishes to leave the Union.
Non-Compliance?
If Texas voted to secede, the Federal government ruled against it, and Texas simply refused to comply as a nation state, what exactly would or could the Federal government do in response?
Start a bombing campaign against peacefully leaving citizens and create a humanitarian crisis? Lock up the politicians drawing attention to their cause and install an unpopular puppet government? Implement any number of unwinnable measures? A Federal government going to war with a State could risk alienating other States; it could cause the fragmentation of the entire US as a Civil War breaks out.
Then there’s other questions: what does Texas do with Federal property within their borders if they do secede, such as nukes? Keep it as an implied threat? Return it to the Federal government? Negotiate using them as a bargaining chip?
The Daily Beagle Doesn’t Know
Whilst The Daily Beagle could certainly say it is legally difficult for Texas to secede, legality only matters if a State even cares to comply. What if it doesn’t? Federal courts go out the window; the Supreme Courts demands go unenforced; and the Federal government can write as many unenforced diktats as it wants to no avail. And if other States join them in leaving, then what?
The real question is: does the Texan people have the resolve to secede? Can they stand up to the Federal government and win? Do they want to?
We will find out in March 2024, dear reader.
Found this informative?
Help inform and share?
What do you think, dear reader? Let us know in the comments.
British exit didn't give them any freedom, didn't stop the influence of WEF and the bs of globalization and great reset...
If Texas secedes, this sends a signal to the entire planet that the "Right to Self-Determination" trumps the coercive state. In effect, this would declare the concept of 'New World Order' obsolete and, by implication, terminate political representationalism in favour of direct representation; as is so indelibly inherent in Abraham Lincoln's defnition of Democracy "Government of The People, by The People and for The People". ERgo... self-determination and personal sovereignty.
What we are talking about here is all government policy being formulated by the fully-informed People, presumably through some kind of referenda (citizen initiated referenda or CIR) or through local cells. This also demands free access to information, which means an end to media monopolies and restrictions on infromation and news. It also spells the end of the impressive pomp and splendour of Parliaments/Congresses, elections, political parties, and so-called majorities.
Ironically, I just described the policies of America's Populist Party, which campaigned in the decades following Lincoln's assassination by the Plutocrats.
The power lobbies, ergo the plutocrats, will never permit this. In other words, change can only occur through force by The People. In my opinion, most people today have not benefited from the strength borne of love as a child and, therefore, are too weak and spineless to force change, even for their own survival and that of their children. Then we will truly foresee the terrible price exacted by child-minding and pre-echool.