In this second installment of our “Winning the Texit Debate” series, we’ll explore the historical and constitutional arguments that provide a powerful foundation for Texas independence. While our previous article focused on self-determination, these approaches leverage our shared history and the fundamental principles upon which both Texas and America were founded.
Master these logical frameworks, and you’ll be able to dismantle some of the most common objections to Texas independence using the very principles that opponents claim to uphold.
The Constitutional Consent Conundrum
When debating the legality of Texit, force your opponent to define what kind of union they believe we have by asking: “Is the United States a voluntary union of states or a permanent marriage with no exit clause?”
If they claim it’s a voluntary compact, ask on what constitutional or moral basis they can claim Texas has zero right to leave. If they insist it’s a permanent arrangement regardless of the will of Texans, point out that this contradicts the fundamental principle of “consent of the governed” on which American government was supposedly founded.
This trap is particularly effective because it forces them to choose between two untenable positions. If they say the union is voluntary, they must concede that Texans can voluntarily withdraw. If they insist it’s permanent regardless of consent, they’re admitting the union is held together by coercion rather than free will – a position that betrays the very ideals they claim to defend.
As Fisher Ames stated during the Massachusetts ratification convention: “A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and local interests of the people.”
The 1776 Independence Hypocrisy
One of the most powerful historical arguments involves drawing a direct parallel between Texit and America’s own founding. Ask your opponent: “The United States was born by declaring independence from an existing union (the British Empire) – an act opposed by the lawful authorities of the time. Do you consider our Founding Fathers wrong for seceding in 1776?”
Follow with the pointed question: “Or is the right to self-govern only valid when it’s someone else leaving their mother country, but not when it’s Texas contemplating the same? How do you square celebrating July 4th with condemning Texans for asserting the very principle of self-determination America was founded on?”
This historical parallel forces the opponent to either denounce America’s own fight for independence (a politically untenable position) or accept that the principle of secession can be legitimate. By drawing a direct line between Texit and the American Revolution, you frame their opposition as hypocritical – they cheer independence in one breath and forbid it in another.
The Declaration of Independence itself states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” and 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.” If these principles were legitimate for the American colonies, they must be legitimate for Texas.
The Annexation Absurdity
This approach uses an often-overlooked historical fact to reveal a fundamental contradiction in federal policy toward Texas: “Did you know Texas’s 1845 annexation agreement allows it to split into as many as five states? Apparently, Washington was (and is) okay with the idea of ‘Five Texases’ sending ten pro-Texas senators to D.C. someday.”
Then pose the logical question: “Why is carving Texas into pieces legally acceptable, but letting one Texas go free is unthinkable? If multiplying Texas’s influence in the Union is permitted, isn’t it bizarre that simply restoring Texas’s independence is forbidden?”
This trap uses an unusual historical fact to expose inconsistency. It shows that the system is willing to entertain a drastic change (multiple Texan states) that benefits Texas’s representation, yet flatly rejects a change (independence) that benefits Texas’s self-determination.
The key strength of this approach is that it reveals the arbitrary nature of objections to Texit. There’s no logical principle that makes “five states from Texas” acceptable but “one Texas nation” forbidden – except the desire to maintain control over Texas.
The Might vs. Right Paradox
When opponents cite the Civil War as having “settled” the secession question, expose the moral bankruptcy of this position: “Is your argument against Texit essentially that the Civil War ‘settled’ the issue by force? In other words, Texas must stay only because the federal government has the power to compel it?”
Add the pointed follow-up: “If so, you’re saying might makes right – that brute force, not law or principle, keeps Texas in the Union. Are you comfortable defending the idea that the Union is maintained not by Texans’ consent but by the threat of force?”
This approach is particularly effective because it forces the opponent to either admit they’re upholding a power-over-principle view (which makes them look undemocratic) or try to find a principled reason beyond sheer force – which is difficult given the history.
As Thomas Jefferson noted, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” The notion that military victory permanently “settles” questions of self-governance contradicts everything America claims to stand for.
Strategic Applications
These historical and constitutional approaches are most effective when tailored to specific audiences:
- With constitutional conservatives: Emphasize the Founders’ vision of a voluntary union of sovereign states. Quote Madison from the Virginia Ratification Convention: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”
- With patriots: Focus on the parallels between Texit and America’s own independence movement. Ask why principles that applied to American colonists shouldn’t apply to Texans.
- With legal scholars: Challenge them on Texas v. White by noting that Supreme Court decisions have been overturned throughout history, especially when they contradict fundamental principles of liberty and self-determination.
Countering Common Objections
Be prepared for these common counterarguments:
“Texas can’t leave because it joined the Union voluntarily.”
Response: “That’s precisely why Texas can leave – because it joined voluntarily. A voluntary association by definition includes the right to withdraw. Otherwise, it’s not voluntary – it’s coercive. The very fact that Texas chose to join means Texas can choose to leave.”
“The Constitution doesn’t provide a mechanism for states to leave the Union.”
Response: “The Constitution doesn’t prohibit states from leaving either. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people. Since the power to force a state to remain in the Union is nowhere granted to the federal government, that power – and the corresponding right to leave – remains with Texas and its people.”
“Texas v. White settled this question legally.”
Response: “Supreme Court decisions reflect the political climate of their time, not eternal truth. The Court has reversed itself on numerous major issues, from segregation to same-sex marriage. More importantly, no court decision can permanently abrogate the natural right of a people to determine their own political future.”
The Texas Historical Perspective
When appropriate, remind your opponent that Texas has a unique history that strengthens its case for independence:
- Texas was an independent republic before joining the Union.
- Texas was annexed by joint resolution, not admitted like other states.
- The Texas Constitution explicitly reserves the right of the people to “alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
History on Our Side
The historical and constitutional case for Texit is powerful precisely because it appeals to the very principles that America claims to hold dear. By focusing on the founding principles of both Texas and the United States, you force opponents to confront the contradictions in their position.
Remember, you don’t need to win every point in every debate. Sometimes success means simply getting an opponent to acknowledge that the historical and constitutional questions aren’t as clear-cut as they initially believed. Even small shifts in perspective can eventually lead to greater openness to the Texit cause.
In our next article in this series, we’ll explore the economic arguments for Texas independence – debunking myths about Texas’s economic viability and exposing the financial advantages of independence that opponents don’t want Texans to consider.
Until then, recall the words of our Texas Constitution: “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” That conditional relationship was established by Texans and can be altered by Texans when the conditions no longer serve our interests.
