Critics of Texas independence frequently cite Texas v. White (1869) as the definitive legal barrier to TEXIT. “The Supreme Court already decided,” they claim, “secession is unconstitutional and that’s the end of it.” This argument represents one of the most persistent myths used to condition Texans into believing they are powerless to govern themselves.
The reality is far different. Texas v. White was not originally about secession at all—it was a post-Civil War bonds dispute related to the 1850 Compromise. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase used the case as an opportunity to retroactively legitimize federal actions during the war, but his legal reasoning was fundamentally flawed.
Chase’s Fatal Foundation
Chase based his entire “perpetual union” argument on two sources: the defunct Articles of Confederation declaring the union “perpetual,” and the Constitution’s Preamble establishing a “more perfect union.” “What can be indissoluble,” Chase asked, “if a perpetual Union, made more perfect is not?”
The problem? Chase cited no actual constitutional provision that prohibits a state from withdrawing. Instead, he grounded his decision entirely in the Constitution’s Preamble—a source the Supreme Court itself later ruled cannot grant federal powers.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Court explicitly held that “the United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution.” The decision stated clearly: “it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.”
This ruling effectively dismantled the legal foundation of Texas v. White. If the federal government cannot derive powers from the Preamble, then Chase’s “more perfect union” argument collapses entirely.
Chase’s Own Contradictions
Even more damaging to the decision’s credibility, Chase had previously stated that “by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.” This created an internal contradiction that legal scholars have noted for decades. How could Chase simultaneously argue that secession was both constitutional and unconstitutional?
The answer lies in politics, not law. As TNM President Daniel Miller explains, 99 percent of those who cite Texas v. White have never actually read the decision. When they do, they discover Chase’s reasoning was politically motivated rather than legally sound.
What the Constitution Actually Says
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists what states are forbidden from doing. Withdrawal from the Union is not among them. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not explicitly granted to the federal government or prohibited to states are reserved to states and the people.
Meanwhile, Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution explicitly protects Texans’ right to “alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” This provision, adopted after the Civil War, directly contradicts any claim that Texans surrendered their right to self-determination.
International Precedent Supports Self-Determination
Modern international law consistently recognizes the right to self-determination. The UN Charter, which the U.S. has signed and ratified, affirms “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Under the Supremacy Clause, treaty law becomes the law of the land.
Recent examples demonstrate this principle in action. When the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that Scotland couldn’t hold an independence referendum unilaterally, the Scottish independence movement didn’t disappear—it adapted. Legal obstacles often give way to political negotiation when popular will persists.
Similarly, Kosovo’s declaration of independence faced constitutional challenges from Serbia, yet the International Court of Justice found that “declarations of independence are not prohibited by international law.” Today, Kosovo functions as an independent state recognized by over 100 countries, including the United States.
The Legal Path Forward
Texas meets all four criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention: defined territory, permanent population, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. As the world’s ninth-largest economy, Texas possesses greater international capacity than most existing nations.
The TEXIT process would not rely on Texas v. White‘s flawed reasoning but on established principles of self-determination. As legal experts have noted, questions of national self-determination are ultimately political, not judicial matters.
Beyond the Conditioning
The persistent citation of Texas v. White serves a conditioning function—to make Texans believe they are trapped in an abusive federal relationship with no legal recourse. This myth ignores both the decision’s legal deficiencies and the broader principles of self-government that Texas has always championed.
Chase’s 1869 decision was politically motivated, legally flawed, and later undermined by subsequent Supreme Court rulings. It cannot serve as a barrier to Texas independence any more than British law could have prevented American independence in 1776.
The right to self-government is not granted by courts—it is inherent in free peoples. Texas v. White represents not the final word on Texas independence, but rather a 19th-century political document that has outlived whatever limited legal authority it once possessed.
Texans have the constitutional right, international legal standing, and economic capability to govern themselves. The only question remaining is whether we have the political will to exercise that right. Texas v. White certainly won’t stop us.
