# Could Texas secede any time they want **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281 "2009-04-16T12:55:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/61 "2009-04-17T06:12:44Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > The secession movements in democracies–Quebec, Scotland, Flanders, Lombardy, Catalonia–all have one thing in common: none of them ever actually secede. They demand (and sometimes receive) autonomy and money, and may compete electorally for decades, but they never quite cut the apron springs. I’ll believe that a modern democratic welfare state can break up when I see it. I know you said “since World War II”, but Ireland did separate from the UK early in the 20th century. The Irish did have representation in Parliament (that is, they weren’t really a colony), but we could argue they were oppressed in other ways. Other than that, you’re right that established democracies splitting is rare. Most of the time it happens a few years after democracy is (re)established. This is probably because democracies are more likely to recognize the different national or sub-national groups in their midst. But that’s not to say that people cannot feel disempowered even under democratic regimes; it obviously does happen. The “tyranny of the majority” is a serious risk. I say there is nothing that makes it impossible for a region to secede from a democratic country. It’s just less likely because the central government may be more open to compromise. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/62 "2009-04-17T14:26:36Z")
> [@Notassmartasithought](#): > > Not gonna happen if any sane Texans think about it. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you- practically nobody in Texas IS really thinking of it!!! INCLUDING Rick Perry. He was talking nonsense to score points with a few rabid tax-cutters, and he KNEW he was talking nonsense. Texas isn’t going anywhere, and practically nobody in Texas WANTS to go anywhere. You’re taking secession talk more seriously than anybody in Texas is. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/63 "2009-04-17T14:43:07Z")
Montana would be more likely to secede than Texas, annd they aren’t going anywhere either. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/64 "2009-04-17T14:56:13Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Our state’s shape makes a much better cookie cutter than your’s does, for starters. 🙂 That depends on what kind of cookies you like. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/65 "2009-04-17T15:09:27Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you- practically nobody in Texas IS really thinking of it!!! > > INCLUDING Rick Perry. He was talking nonsense to score points with a few rabid tax-cutters, and he KNEW he was talking nonsense. Texas isn’t going anywhere, and practically nobody in Texas WANTS to go anywhere. > > You’re taking secession talk more seriously than anybody in Texas is. But it would be amusing to call their bluff. Maybe have some sort of loopy Democrat in Congress introduce a bill to make Texas a new country in 2012. Make sure to put in the bill things like pulling Social Security from new Texas citizens and reclaiming military assets before leaving. Make a little noise about it. Let the media make fun of it. i.e. take their nonsense seriously to prove its nonsense. ETA: I have a Texas cookie cutter - it is a good shape for cookies. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/66 "2009-04-17T15:27:13Z")
[Poll: 75% of Texans say no to secession.](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/states_general/texas/in_texas_31_say_state_has_right_to_secede_from_u_s_but_75_opt_to_stay) N.B.: That’s a **Rassmussen** poll. They’re not known for liberal bias. What’s disturbing is that 31% think Texas has the **right** to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/67 "2009-04-17T15:40:11Z")
> [@Notassmartasithought](#): > > Here’s another view– > > If a majority of Texans really want to secede, then let’s negotiate. We’ll take back all of the military bases, NASA, and all the subsidies to Texan energy. Energy is fungible, so their production is not as important as they think.We won’t do anything to defend the border (which some Texans might applaud). There won’t be a Galveston any more, because Texas alone won’t be able to rebuild it. Texan agriculture won’t have immediate access to the USA, until they sign a treaty (how much leverage is that?). And that’s just a quick inventory. > > Not gonna happen if any sane Texans think about it. No sane\* Texan is thinking about secession. From [The Burnt Orange Report](http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8412/rick-perry-secession): > [@](#): > > Where have you gone Sam Houston, a state turns its lonely eyes to you. > > Yes, it’s true. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was proudly pandering to secessionists at the Austin tea bagging event today, saying he thought the Union was okay, but if Washington didn’t shape up, you never know what could happen. > > How insane is he? Even George Bush had enough sense to stand up to wacko secessionists. Anyone remember the West Texas shootout of 1997? > > Anyone remember that Texas’ great hero, Sam Houston, stood up to secessionists at the 1861 convention, even though it cost him the governor’s mansion? - Re “sane”: I knew Governor Good Hair will probably face Kay Bailey Hutchison when he goes up for re-election. And he fears her. I’ll be voting for our Democratic candidate but I’d not feel bad to see a slightly smarter Republican in the office. However, Wikipedia revealed that [Larry Kilgore](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kilgore) might run, as well. Hey, he advocates secession–so we’ll be free to live under Biblical law. Looks like Perry has decided to court the “not-sane” vote! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/68 "2009-04-17T16:36:08Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Texas isn’t going anywhere, and practically nobody in Texas WANTS to go anywhere. Right, Texas is going to be right between Oklahoma and Mexico no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/69 "2009-04-17T17:11:21Z")
So Texas isn’t going to secede and few Texans would want to. And Perry is saying it to court a particular demographic of the GOP, one likely overrepresented at “tea parties”. I am still curious, let’s limit it to likely GOP primary voters, what percentage hear this kind of talk as unamerican and disloyal vs those who see it as a positive or at least acceptable to consider? ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/70 "2009-04-17T18:05:46Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > He was talking nonsense to score points with a few rabid tax-cutters, and he KNEW he was talking nonsense. I categorically reject your assertion that Rick Perry knows when he’s talking nonsense! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/71 "2009-04-17T18:18:31Z")
That reminds me… we’ve been talking so long about right wing nutball secessionists, we’ve forgotten about the left wing nutball secessionists: > **[The Once and Future Republic of Vermont](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076.html)** > > The winds of secession are blowing in the Green Mountain State. Are these guys still seceding, or is all forgiven and forgotten now that the Lightworker is President? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/72 "2009-04-17T19:01:30Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > I think it is a bit more nuanced that BrainGlutton asserts. For instance, the UN charter mentions it in chapter 1 part 1 paragraph 2:[http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml). > > Okay, they just call it a “principle”, but as I said in my first post, international law is a lot less tangible than national law. I think you are totally misunderstanding this. A people, as a whole, have the right to self determination. What that means is that Germany does not have the right to impose its will on the French people. It does not mean that Mr. Lejournal can declare his apartment in Paris an independent republic. Really, I mean, use some common sense. If you read something and your interpretation is really, really stupid and makes no sense maybe you need to look for another interpretation. As an example of self determination I give you **[The Maritime Republic of Eastport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Republic_of_Eastport)**, not an hour’s drive from Washington DC. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/73 "2009-04-17T19:12:16Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > A people, as a whole, have the right to self determination. What that means is that Germany does not have the right to impose its will on the French people. It does not mean that Mr. Lejournal can declare his apartment in Paris an independent republic. Right, but here you’re choosing two extreme cases. I think everyone would agree that the French and the Germans are distinct peoples, but that Mr. Lejournal or even him and his family don’t make a people. But between these extremes, there are several cases that aren’t so clear-cut. This is why, when attempting to apply this principle of self-determination of peoples, the main problem is defining what composes a people. Does such-and-such group form one, or are they simply a subgroup of another people? And often these decisions are taken on the basis of politics and not on principle. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/74 "2009-04-17T20:00:25Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > The only countries to split, since World War II, have been dictatorships or countries just emerging from colonialism (India) or dictatorship (Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia). > > The secession movements in democracies–Quebec, Scotland, Flanders, Lombardy, Catalonia–all have one thing in common: none of them ever actually secede. They demand (and sometimes receive) autonomy and money, and may compete electorally for decades, but they never quite cut the apron springs. I’ll believe that a modern democratic welfare state can break up when I see it. East Timor? Not modern/democratic, but did gain independence. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/75 "2009-04-17T20:32:51Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > Right, but here you’re choosing two extreme cases. I think everyone would agree that the French and the Germans are distinct peoples, but that Mr. Lejournal or even him and his family don’t make a people. But between these extremes, there are several cases that aren’t so clear-cut. This is why, when attempting to apply this principle of self-determination of peoples, the main problem is defining what composes a people. Does such-and-such group form one, or are they simply a subgroup of another people? And often these decisions are taken on the basis of politics and not on principle. Nope. The principle is that of the maintenance of the status quo which should not be altered by violence. The Republic of Texas is free to secede as soon as the rest of the USA is in agreement but not before. The Basques will be free to secede as soon as the rest of Spain is in agreement, but not before. That is the principle of International Law. Except that some countries will not respect it and will recognise the independence of, say, Kosovo, because it suits their agenda. Which only ensures that if one day Texas unilaterally declares independence ther are going to be a number of countries who will not wait one minute to recognize it. But the declaration of the right to self determination in no way is meant as a right for a region to secede form a country. No way. No country would sign that. ---
**Author:** ![Bender44](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Bender44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bender44)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/76 "2009-04-17T21:05:20Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > In theory, there is a principle of self-determination of peoples. But this principle is very difficult to apply in practice, starting with the definition of what constitutes a “people” in the first place. The question of what peoples should be allowed to form independent countries depends more on politics than on grand principles. Even colonized or oppressed peoples, whose right to self-determination we may find more reasonable than for other peoples, often find it difficult to get recognition. And this, recognition, is what really makes an independent country. Slight threadjack here, but I just wanted to say that was brilliantly put. Simple, concise and accurate. Self determination was one of the founding principles of the UN Charter, mentioned in Art. 1 and 55. However, in most cases, unilateral succession isn’t allowed. There almost must be an exhaustion of other remedies to fix the problems your group is claiming(i.e. using the political process, civil disobedience, etc.) before your succession movement can gain international legal footing. And then there’s all the problems that **Hypnagogic Jerk** mentioned. Basically self-determination is core principle of International Law, but one that is more or less just theoretical. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/77 "2009-04-17T21:46:54Z")
> [@Bender44](#): > > However, in most cases, unilateral **succession** isn’t allowed. There almost must be an exhaustion of other remedies to fix the problems your group is claiming(i.e. using the political process, civil disobedience, etc.) before your **succession** movement can gain international legal footing. You keep repeating that word. It does not mean what you think it means. > [@Bender44](#): > > And then there’s all the problems that **Hypnagogic Jerk** mentioned. Basically self-determination is core principle of International Law, but one that is more or less just theoretical. Nope. The UN charter talks about the “self-determination of peoples” meaning “peoples of countries who are members of the UN”. It does not in any way, shape or form recognize any right to self-determination for the people of Texas separate from the USA. None. Theoretical or not. None. ---
**Author:** ![Bender44](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Bender44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bender44)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/78 "2009-04-17T22:18:26Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You keep repeating that word. It does not mean what you think it means. Secession. My bad. > [@sailor](#): > > Nope. The UN charter talks about the “self-determination of peoples” meaning “peoples of countries who are members of the UN”. It does not in any way, shape or form recognize any right to self-determination for the people of Texas separate from the USA. None. Theoretical or not. None. Wasn’t talking about Texas. Talking about SECESSION and self determination in general. Texas doesn’t have any right to unilaterally secede for a variety of reasons, Texas v. White being first and foremost. That wasn’t my point. And last I checked Texas was part of the United States, a member of the UN. I don’t see how the Charter wouldn’t apply to them. ETA: Not that I’m saying that Texas does have the right to self-determination. I’m just saying that if they could make a case that they were a unique people separate from the rest of the US, they would have at least have a better argument. Not a winning argument, but better than the one they have now. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/79 "2009-04-17T22:24:05Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Nope. The principle is that of the maintenance of the status quo which should not be altered by violence. The Republic of Texas is free to secede as soon as the rest of the USA is in agreement but not before. The Basques will be free to secede as soon as the rest of Spain is in agreement, but not before. That is the principle of International Law. There is legal precedent that under international law, colonized or occupied peoples, that is, peoples who do not have access to self-determination under their current national government, have a right to independence. According to the [Supreme Court of Canada](http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html): > [@](#): > > 113 While international law generally regulates the conduct of nation states, it does, in some specific circumstances, also recognize the “rights” of entities other than nation states – such as the right of a people to self-determination. > […] > 122 As will be seen, international law expects that the right to self-determination will be exercised by peoples within the framework of existing sovereign states and consistently with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of those states. Where this is not possible, in the exceptional circumstances discussed below, a right of secession may arise. > […] > 131 Accordingly, the general state of international law with respect to the right to self-determination is that the right operates within the overriding protection granted to the territorial integrity of “parent” states. However, as noted by Cassese, supra, at p. 334, there are certain defined contexts within which the right to the self-determination of peoples does allow that right to be exercised “externally”, which, in the context of this Reference, would potentially mean secession: > > . . . the right to external self-determination, which entails the possibility of choosing (or restoring) independence, has only been bestowed upon two classes of peoples (those under colonial rule or foreign occupation), based upon the assumption that both classes make up entities that are inherently distinct from the colonialist Power and the occupant Power and that their ‘territorial integrity’, all but destroyed by the colonialist or occupying Power, should be fully restored. . . . So yes, while it is true that the territorial integrity of states is a recognized principle of international law, there are cases where it does not have primacy. And in any case, this same Canadian Supreme Court decision recognized cases where a secessionist movement cannot be ignored by the national government, even if the circumstances aren’t those specified by international law for unilateral secession. > [@](#): > > Except that some countries will not respect it and will recognise the independence of, say, Kosovo, because it suits their agenda. Which only ensures that if one day Texas unilaterally declares independence ther are going to be a number of countries who will not wait one minute to recognize it. And this is why I say the question of whether secession is acceptable or not is a political question. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281/80 "2009-04-18T00:43:36Z")
Texas or any state can secede whenever they like… of course they will have to fight a war to at least a stalemate, where the rest of the US decides that it is better to just let them go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-texas-secede-any-time-they-want/493281.md?page=5)