And while the boys over at BOR are correct, that Texas was not given any special permission or "out" to secede if it chooses, they are wrong in simply stating that Texas "can't" secede.  They would be better off making a case for why Texas "shouldn't" secede - make a good case for why we should stay.  I'm not advocating secession, but since it came up, why not have a good intellectual debate over it?

 

I think it's important to remember that in 1776, when the colonists declared their independence from Great Britain, they were essentially seceding, it just wasn't the word that was used for it.  Secession itself is "the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity."  Revolution is defined in the eye of the beholder.  A secessionist is called by those from whom he wishes to detach a "rebel."  While many of us may hold that term dear, it's not really supposed to be an endearment so much as an insult - I doubt, though, that many Americans consider "rebellion" a bad thing when applied to the American Revolution and our separation from Britain.  In the 1860s, the idea of secession was born of the same revolutionary attitude that spurred that earlier struggle (it had, in fact, been a common idea in the intermediary years - I'll spare you the history lesson and refer you to the Nullification Crisis).

 

Texas herself was able to be admitted into the United States because of a fight to secede from Mexico, and it's worth noting that those who fought to do so were primarily former American citizens (former governors and congressmen, even!).  Because they were Americans, they had this idea that centralized, tyrannical government was a bad thing, and when Mexico pressed her bootheel down, Texians (as they were called) fought back.  Stephen F. Austin went to Mexico City thinking negotiation would change their situation, and came back, to use the term again, a secessionist.

 

When the time came that Texas was to be annexed by the United States, the reasoning for Texans to want that was primarily protection.  There was the constant threat of war with Mexico, the continual battle with Indian tribes on the borders and throughout the state, and the fact that Texas had no money to sustain an army or a navy.  It was in Texas' best interest to avail itself of U.S. military protection, and Sam Houston knew this.  But had the U.S. wavered on protected Texas' southern border from Santa Anna's army, it's doubtful that many Texans would have agreed to annexation.  

Given their attitude about big government in 1836, it's not surprising that come 1861, many Texans supported secession.  Sam Houston was not among them, knowing full well that Texas would not be anymore able to sustain itself than it had been almost thirty years earlier.  But the reasoning is not the point of this debate - the question is whether or not Texas had a right to secede.

 

Secession is not in itself a legal act - it is an act of separation spurred by rebellion.  The United States are bound together by a contract.  Breaching that contract is enough to warrant separation if negotiation does not work.  And frequently the federal government has done exactly that, ignoring the points within the Constitution that bind us.  

 

I will say that I think Gov. Perry is playing to the crowd, because there's no way that someone in his position is ready to actually think about secession.  Yesterday was not the first time the Governor has been heard to talk like he did.  For at least several months, he has been talking about Texas' strength and sovereignty, almost but not quite saying that Texas could secede if she wished.  I know that various Democrat state officials and others believe that secession is not a topic at dinner tables, but I believe, being in the thick of a political movement that is growing and attracting many people who have never been political before in their lives, that the ideas that lead to secession are spreading.  

 

Texas is one of many states now asserting her rights under the 10th Amendment - sovereignty, the right of the states to assert all those powers not designated to the federal government.  Or at least, we're trying.   If the federal government continues it's encroachment, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear the secession talk grow louder (and let's face it, Obama as president or not, the federal government's tentacles are firmly and deeply attached, and nothing short of true rebellion would change that).

 

I doubt this will be my last post on the issue.  It seems like the topic is gaining some momentum (if the Texas left had to employ the likes of Austin's Rep. Eddie Rodriguez to denounce the Governor, I imagine the momentum may continue).  And I've got more thoughts on this besides.