Armstrong, Elizabeth
A Critical Evaluation of the History of Texas Secession
In 1845, United States annexed the Republic of Texas and proclaimed it part of their
territory, only a decade after Texas’ independence from Mexico. However, in the short decade
that Texas was autonomous, strong Texas nationalist sentiment pervaded the territory. To this
day, a nationalist undercurrent in the state has remained. As a result, Texas, from the midnineteenth-century to present, has occasionally become host to secession movements that
advocate its return to self-governance. Texas, since becoming a part of the United States, has
always had a distinct identity with its Mexican heritage and colonization by southwestern
frontiersmen. Its nickname as “The Lone Star State” highlights its distinct identity and serves as
a reminder that it once was an independent state. Although it is very unlikely the Lone Star State
will ever secede to become the Republic of Texas again, the Texas secessionist movements do
raise questions about the nature of secession in the United States and the developmental
implications if Texas ever did. The United States would not have existed had the founding
fathers not declared its secession from England, which to many, justifies the secession of a state
should it decide to do the same. In order to discuss the prospect of full-fledged Texas secession,
it is important to evaluate the historical background surrounding Texas’s only successful
secession during the Civil War, which occurred only sixteen years after it became part of the
United States. This paper argues that the hypothetical secession of Texas would undermine the
concept of federalism on which the United States’ constitution is founded and would have a
significant impact on the United States economically and politically, as Texas’ secession did
during the Civil War. Moreover, the unsuccessful nature of Texas’ previous autonomy suggests
Armstrong 2
that Texas would struggle as well in its further development, which for the purposes of the paper
refers to public security, political stability, and economic prosperity.
In 1835, Texas began its experiment as an independent republic, though such an
experiment, many people in favor of its secession forget, proved unsuccessful. First, Texas
lacked adequate military resources to protect itself from rebellious Indian tribes and persistent
threats from Mexico. Second, Texas had no hard currency nor could it pay off its large debt,
from its struggles with Mexico, debt that continued to increase. As a result of all of this, Texas
economy was extremely weak, hurting its ability to develop. All of these factors ultimately
precipitated its absorption into the United States, which was a relief to many Texans. However,
sixteen years later, it appears the Texans would forget their struggles without U.S. aid when it
decided to secede and join the Confederacy (Peffer 2008, Lang 2009).
Although the controversy over whether slavery should be legal in the Texas territory
sparked talk about secession in Texas long before the election of Lincoln, Lincoln’s election
ultimately caused Texas to be the seventh and final state to secede from the Union. Texas, with
its fertile farmlands favorable to mass-agriculture, had many slave-owning citizens who viewed
slavery as essential to economic process (Sandbo 1914a). Thus, any ideas about abolishing
slavery in the federal government were met with strong opposition in Texas. Little did many
Texans realize how being part of the Union helped the development of Texas in the fifteen years
after annexation. The population of Texas nearly doubled after annexation, and with the increase
in population, Texas became a place of economic prosperity. Also, the United States provided
the resources to protect the state from the occasional Indian raids and conflict with Mexico. The
governor during the time, Sam Houston, was adamant about avoiding secession. A strong
federalist, Houston believed secession would be the suicide of Texas, and it would lose all its
Armstrong 3
rights and benefits that it had as a state. If Texas were to secede, he argued, it should become an
independent republic once again, not a territory of the Confederacy, which he believed was
doomed to fail. At many times during the late 1850s and early 1860s, talk of becoming the
Republic of Texas again did emerge. However, at this point, Texas believed it shared a close
bond with other slave states in their anti-abolitionist front. (Sandbo 1914b).
Unfortunately, Houston could not douse the flames of secession. In the Texas Declaration
of Secession, drafters accused the federal government of favoring the Northern abolitionists and
making slave states a minority in Congress, failing to protect their rights and preventing them
from enjoying the newly acquired western territories, all of which sowed the seeds of discord
that justified their secession (Texas Declaration of Secession). Where Texas differed from other
states in its argument for secession was it accused the Union of failing to protect it from slave
rebellions, Indian revolts, and Mexican threats, yet, in retrospect, Texas had more protection as
part of the Union than when it was the Republic of Texas. After passing an ordinance of
secession and a popular referendum to secede in February 1861, Texas joined the Confederate
States of America and replaced Sam Houston as governor when he failed to swear allegiance to
the Confederacy (Sandbo 1914b). Ironically, during the Civil War, Texas became more
susceptible to slave and Indian revolts because the Confederacy was too distracted with a war to
provide the military resources to protect it.
Federalism, the strong relationship between the federal government and the national
government, is not only one of the fundamental political ideologies on which the U.S. functions
but also the major contributor to political stability within the U.S. The secession of Texas and
the South in general completely undermined the constitution’s federalist principles; Texas and
other southern states severed all ties with the federal government and destroyed the notion that
Armstrong 4
the national government has certain powers while the states have others, rendering the federal
government powerless. As a result, in a domino effect, secession created not just political
discord but also economic and social discord between the Union and the Confederate, discord
whose vestiges are arguably still seen today. During the Reconstruction period after the Civil
War and on, the Union still struggled to trust the Southern states that had a seceded and regarded
them differently, as their identity was forever changed. Texas is unique in its secession because it
revealed a sort of ingratitude towards the Union, which had dramatically helped it develop in a
short time and showed that, as a newer state to the Union, it still believed it had the same
jurisdiction over certain matters that it did as an independent republic, a mindset that many
Texan secessionists have continued to adopt. While some may argue that secession of Texas and
other states was completely justified and that the federal government was violating federalist
principles in the first place with its talks of abolishing slavery, secession, nonetheless, brought
about the deadliest war in United State’s history and created a divide whose effects are still
evident today (Anderson 2004).
After the Civil War, minor secessionist movements in Texas continued to persist, ranging
from ones that wanted Texas to help recreate the Confederate States of America to others in
which proponents envisioned Texas as an independent republic once again. Most of these
secessionist movements have been relatively ignored until recently in 2009 when membership in
the Texas Nationalist Movement dramatically increased. Amidst the election of Obama,
increases in government spending, and arguments by many far right-wing conservatives in Texas
that the federal government held a disproportionate share of power, supposedly violating the
concept of federalism, Governor Rick Perry hinted at the idea of Texas secession, thereby
sparking discussion in Texas about its right to secede. Like initial secessionist sentiment in Texas
Armstrong 5
in the late 1850s, a small portion of the population actually considered it as a possibility, but the
media blew the topic out of proportion so much so that a petition of secession was sent in with
over a hundred thousand signatures to Washington. While the idea of secession of Texas today
seems nearly absurd, the media coverage of it did open up a discussion about whether Texas
secession is actually feasible and what would be the consequences. As the biggest state in the
U.S., Texas would be a midsize nation. It would be the 14th largest economy in the world. The
United States would face unprecedented economic drawbacks, losing eight percent or $1.2
trillion of its GDP. It would also lose 2 million barrels of oil a day and Houston, which is
considered the energy capital of the world (Riva 2012).
From a political perspective, the secession of Texas or any state for that matter would
bring the political system of the United States into question, as what happened during Civil War.
As the Constitution contains no reference to secession, it would raise open dispute if such an
action is within the realm of state rights. It could also raise the question concerning what right
the United States ever had to Texas or other states beyond the original thirteen colonies. With
this said, Texas secession would dramatically impact Texas as well given its economy does rely
on interstate interactions and protection by the federal government. Also, arguably, no state has
the political infrastructure to govern independently. Some argue that Texas secessionist
movements are simply idealistic, knowing full well that Texas secession is extremely and that
their purpose is simply to romanticize the former Republic of Texas. Nonetheless, the
movements are absurd given Texas’ failure in its experiment as an independent state and long
struggle to assimilate back into the United States after the Civil War. Thus, the final message of
this paper addressed to the secessionists of Texas is one that is a well-known phrase: Don’t mess
with Texas.
Armstrong 6
Bibliography
"A 'peaceful' Texas Secession Would Carry Huge Costs." Star-Telegram.com. November 20,
2012. Accessed September 21, 2013. http://www.startelegram.com/2012/11/20/4429851/a-peaceful-texas-secession-would.html.
Anderson, Lawrence M. "The Institutional Basis of Secessionist Politics: Federalism and
Secession in the United States." Publius 34, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 1-18. Accessed
September 20, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3331204.
Barr, Bob. "Secession Talk Far from Extreme." The Atlanta Journal--Constitution (Atlanta),
April 22, 2009. Accessed September 20, 2013.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/337541950/140942AA19632123388/13?accountid=1
4816.
Lang, Andrew F. ""Upon the Altar of Our Country": Confederate Identity, Nationalism, and
Morale in Harrison County, Texas, 1860-1865". Civil War History 55 (2) (June 2009):
278–306. Accessed September 22, 2013
Peffer, Shelley L. “Tenuous legitimacy: The administrative state, the antigovernment movement,
and the stability of the United States constitutional democracy (PhD)”. Cleveland State
University (2008). Docket 3316905. Accessed September 22, 2013
Rival, Alberto. "What If Texas Really Were Its Own Country?" International Business Times.
November 14, 2012. Accessed September 21, 2013. http://www.ibtimes.com/what-iftexas-really-were-its-own-country-880112.
Armstrong 7
Sandbo, Anna Irene. "Beginnings of the Secession Movement in Texas." The Southwestern
Historical Quarterly 18, no. 1 (July 1914): 41-73. Accessed September 19, 2013.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30234621.
Sandbo, Anna Irene. "The First Session of the Secession Conference of Texas." The
Southwestern Historical Quarterly 18, no. 2 (October 1914): 162-94. Accessed
September 19, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30234633.
"Texas Declaration of Secession." The Civil War Homepage. Accessed September 20, 2013.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp.