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 nationalist sentiment pervaded the territory. To this day, a
nationalist undercurrent in the state has remained. As a result, Texas, from the mid-nineteenthcentury 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. Although it is
very unlikely the Lone Star State, Texas’ nickname that highlights its distinct identity as a
previous independent 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. 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 a mere sixteen years after it became
part of the United States in order to better understand the implications of a modern secession.
This paper serves to examine the consequences of Texas secession for the United States, arguing
that 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.
Furthermore, this paper argues that the unsuccessful nature of Texas’ previous autonomy suggests
that Texas as a modern independent state would struggle again 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
Armstrong 2
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 and ever-growing
debt from its struggles with Mexico. As a result, 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, the Texans would forget their
struggles without U.S. aid when they decided to secede and join the Confederacy (Peffer 2008,
Lang 2009).
Upon President Abraham Lincoln’s election, Texas became 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 progress (Sandbo 1914a).
Thus, any ideas about abolishing slavery discussed 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 had
nearly doubled since its 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. Accordingly, it would lose all its 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 recreating the Republic of Texas did emerge. However, at this
point, Texas believed it shared a close bond with other slave states in their anti-abolitionist front.
After passing an ordinance of secession and a popular referendum to secede in February 1861,
Armstrong 3
Texas joined the Confederate States of America (Sandbo 1914b). Ironically, during the Civil
War, Texas, which argued that one of its reasons for secession was that the Union failed to
protect it militarily, 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.
Texas secession during the Civil War, by itself, did not have a significant impact on the
already present conflict between the Union and the South; it was the final state to secede, and
given its previous assertions of its position on slavery and location, its withdrawal was expected
as other southern states withdrew from the Union. During the Civil War, Texas was mainly a
supply state, meaning that it mainly provided resources for the war effort. However, the secession
of Texas and the South in general during the Civil War completely undermined the constitution’s
federalist principles. 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. Texas and other
southern states severed all ties with the federal government and destroyed the notion that the
national government has certain powers while the states have others, rendering the federal
government powerless. Secession created not just political discord but also economic and social
discord between the Union and the Confederate. During the Reconstruction period, in which the
Union worked to reincorporate the South into the United States, the Union still struggled to trust
the Southern states that had seceded and regarded them differently, as their social and economic
identity was forever changed without slavery. 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
Armstrong 4
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 have persisted, 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 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 (Barr 2009). 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. Texas would be a
midsize nation with 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
Armstrong 5
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. Also, 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. Lastly, it raises the question
concerning what right the United States ever had to Texas or other states beyond the original
thirteen colonies.
Many Texas secessionists argue that Texas would be successful as an independent state,
but given Texas’ previous failure in its experiment as a republic and struggle to assimilate back
into the United States after the Civil War, its secession would cause a serious blow to Texas from
a developmental perspective. From an economic perspective, Texas could start as a prosperous
and well-developed independent nation relatively speaking. However, first, it is highly unlikely
the federal government, with the economic issues Texas’ secession would pose, would peacefully
cede the territory to Texas. Second, secession would dramatically impact Texas as well given its
economy does rely on interstate interactions and protection by the federal government.
Additionally, no state has the political infrastructure to govern independently because, by the
Constitution and, more specifically, the federalist principles espoused in the Constitution, the
state governs over certain matters while the federal government presides over others. In other
words, Texas is not developed in a way that would ensure its success as an independent state. For
example, it would have no currency and no constitution that would outline how the state would
function autonomously. Texas has been a state now for nearly a century and a half during which
it has enjoyed all the benefits as a state, benefits that have made it so developed and that leave
Texas secessionists with very little to justify actual secession.
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.