In this fifth installment of our “Winning the Texit Debate” series, we delve into the most profound arguments for Texas independence—those based on fundamental principles of power, legitimacy, and liberty. These approaches get to the heart of what makes Texit not just practical but morally necessary.
Master these logical frameworks, and you’ll elevate the conversation beyond mundane policy disagreements to the foundational principles that should govern the relationship between people and their government.
The Might vs. Right Paradox
When opponents cite the Civil War as having “settled” the secession question, expose the moral bankruptcy of this position with this challenge: “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?”
Continue with: “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 rhetorically powerful because it forces opponents to either admit they’re upholding a power-over-principle view (which makes them look anti-liberty) or try to find a principled reason beyond sheer force—which is difficult given American history.
The Federal Government is the stereotypical bully in every sense of the word. When I was a kid our school had a bully. I think that every school back then had one. It was part of the standard equipment. But true to his understanding of the US Constitution, Sam Houston remained first a Texan and secondly a Jeffersonian federalist. Despite his devotion to the United States, the liberty of the people of Texas remained his foremost legal and heartfelt concern. Texas was his country.
The Independence Hypocrisy Trap
This approach exposes the inconsistency in how opponents view independence movements: “Ask your opponent, ‘Do you support the right of countries like Scotland or Catalonia to hold independence referendums?'”
If they answer “Yes,” follow with: “You recognize independence as legitimate elsewhere but deny Texans even the opportunity to vote on it. Why is democratic self-determination acceptable for others but not for Texans?”
If they say “No,” point out: “Your position puts you at odds with international norms that recognize the right of peoples to determine their own political status.”
This trap works by highlighting selective application of principles. Most Americans support independence movements in other parts of the world, especially those seeking freedom from authoritarian regimes. By forcing them to either apply those same principles to Texas or reject them altogether, you expose the inconsistency in their position.
The United States government has consistently supported independence referendums around the world—from Kosovo to South Sudan. On what principle can they deny Texans the same right?
The Consent of the Governed Reality
This approach focuses on the fundamental principle that legitimizes all government: “The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Has the federal government ever asked Texans for their consent to be governed? Has it ever verified that consent through a referendum?”
Follow with the pointed question: “If consent was never explicitly given or has been withdrawn due to federal overreach, on what moral basis does Washington claim authority over Texas?”
This trap is effective because it challenges the very foundation of governmental legitimacy. In a system supposedly based on consent, the federal government has never actually confirmed the consent of Texans. This realization can be jarring for those who have never considered it.
As the world witnessed the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we saw how quickly a supposedly “permanent” political union can dissolve when the consent of the governed is withdrawn. The principle that government requires consent is not merely an American ideal—it’s a universal truth.
The Protection Contract Approach
This strategy frames the relationship between Texas and the federal government as a contract: “The primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. When a government consistently fails to fulfill that purpose—or worse, becomes the primary threat to those rights—the contract is broken.”
Ask directly: “Given the federal government’s track record of trampling Texas’s rights and interests, hasn’t it essentially breached its contract with Texans? And in any other context, when one party breaches a contract, isn’t the other party released from its obligations?”
This approach uses contract law, something most people intuitively understand, to explain why Texas would be justified in withdrawing from the Union. By framing the relationship as conditional rather than permanent, you establish that continued membership should depend on mutual benefit and adherence to agreed terms.
The Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico used similar reasoning, stating that when a government “has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived,” it forfeits its claim to authority.
The Tyranny of the Majority Perspective
This approach addresses the structural imbalance in the federal system: “In a union where Texas’s interests are consistently overridden by the votes of other states, isn’t Texas effectively subject to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that the Founders warned against?”
Follow with: “The current system allows voters in California, New York, and other populous states to impose their will on Texans despite our fundamentally different values and priorities. How is this compatible with the principle of self-government?”
This strategy highlights how the U.S. federal system, despite its original design, has evolved to allow other states to dictate terms to Texas. By framing the issue as one of Texas being governed without meaningful consent, you appeal to the deeply held American value of self-determination.
Power, once consolidated, is reluctant to surrender. Given our understanding of the founding and construction of the Union, power should reside in the States. Yet Washington’s gravitational pull has only grown stronger, drawing ever more authority away from Texas and its people.
The Natural Right Approach
This fundamental argument appeals to first principles: “Do you believe that the right to self-determination is a natural right that precedes and transcends government? If so, then on what basis can that right be permanently surrendered or denied to Texans?”
Continue with: “If you recognize the natural right of people to form their own government, then you must also recognize their right to alter or abolish it when it no longer serves their interests—a principle affirmed in both the U.S. and Texas constitutions.”
This approach taps into natural law theory, which underpins much of American political philosophy. By establishing self-determination as a natural right rather than a legal privilege, you position Texit as the exercise of an inalienable right rather than a privilege to be granted or denied by others.
Even Abraham Lincoln, before he became president, recognized this principle when he said in 1848: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”
Strategic Applications
These power and principle approaches are most effective when tailored to specific audiences:
- With liberty advocates: Emphasize the natural right of self-determination and how the federal government has betrayed its obligation to protect Texans’ freedoms.
- With constitutionalists: Focus on the original understanding of the Union as a voluntary compact and how federal overreach has violated the constitutional balance of power.
- With pragmatists: Highlight the practical reality that a government cannot legitimately rule without the consent of the governed and how federal policies increasingly lack that consent from Texans.
- With internationalists: Stress how international norms and laws recognize the right of peoples to self-determination and how denying that right to Texans contradicts those principles.
Countering Common Objections
Anticipate these common counterarguments and prepare your responses:
“The Supreme Court has ruled secession illegal.”
Response: “Courts don’t determine natural rights; they merely interpret written law. The right of self-determination precedes and transcends any court ruling. Furthermore, courts have reversed themselves numerous times throughout history when their rulings contradicted fundamental principles of justice and liberty.”
“Leaving would be an act of disloyalty to America.”
Response: “Loyalty to principles is more important than loyalty to political structures. The American founders weren’t being disloyal to liberty when they left the British Empire—they were being loyal to the principle of self-government. Similarly, Texit isn’t about rejecting American principles; it’s about preserving them when the federal government has abandoned them.”
“Independence would lead to conflict.”
Response: “That assumes the federal government would choose violence over respecting Texans’ peaceful, democratic expression of their will. Is that really the position you want to take—that Washington would wage war against its own people for exercising their fundamental right to self-government? That’s hardly a moral argument for maintaining the Union.”
The Permanency Fallacy
This approach directly challenges the notion that political arrangements must be eternal: “Do you believe political boundaries and unions are permanent and unchanging? If not, then why should Texas be an exception to the universal truth that political arrangements evolve?”
Follow with historical perspective: “The map of the world has been redrawn countless times as peoples exercise their right to self-determination. The United States itself was born from this process. What makes Texas unique in being denied this right?”
This strategy undermines the unspoken assumption that the current political boundaries are somehow sacred or immutable. By highlighting the constant evolution of political arrangements throughout history, you normalize the idea of Texit as part of a natural and ongoing process rather than a radical departure from the norm.
History consistently shows that political boundaries shift and change. Even stone gives way to water given enough time and pressure. The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and countless other political unions have dissolved in our lifetime. Why should the United States be immune to this historical pattern?
Principles Over Power
The power and principle case for Texit transcends practical considerations to address the most fundamental questions of political legitimacy. By focusing on these core issues, you shift the debate from whether Texas can leave to whether Texas has the right to leave—a question that has only one morally consistent answer.
Remember, in making these arguments, your goal isn’t to convince opponents that Texas should leave tomorrow. It’s to establish that the decision rightfully belongs to Texans, not to Washington or to voters in other states. Once that principle is accepted, the path to Texit becomes clear.
Throughout this series, we’ve explored the logical strategies that make the case for Texas independence compelling and unanswerable. From self-determination to historical precedent, from economic reality to cultural identity, and now to the fundamental principles of power and legitimacy, the case for Texit is comprehensive and irrefutable.
The question is no longer whether Texas can become independent, but when Texans will finally exercise their natural right to self-government. And when they do, they’ll be standing on the firm ground of principle, not yielding to the shifting sands of power.
