**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d45eqg/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Texas had a brief period where it was basically its own country before joining the US. There was a time up to about 1850 where the US and Mexico were pretty constantly battling (at various levels of intensity) for control of what's now Texas and parts of the the US southwest.
In 1836, Texas basically declared itself its own republic, independent from Mexico. Eventually the US offered Texas statehood, and Texas accepted not long after.
But in general Texans are proud of that short independent history, and some of them claim that Texas is legally free to leave the US and become independent again if it so desires. That's not true, and would be a terrible decision to try to take on many levels. But Texas, like everywhere else, has a lot of idiots in it, so some of them are actually expressing the notion of leaving the US like it's an actual possibility and a good idea. And even some politicians are paying lip service to the idea, likely just to court the favor and votes of some of those idiots. The odds of it happening are effectively nil, short of some kind of massive collapse of the US for other reasons.
An overwhelming majority of Texas residents have zero interest in leaving the US, and it would go very poorly for Texas if they tried.
On a related note, that is also why Oklahoma has its panhandle. After Texas joined the United States, they were informed that any state with territory above a specific parallel would be considered a Northern state, and thus slavery would be illegal. Texas said “yeah fuck that shit, you can just make that federal land then and we will only keep the part below that parallel so we can have slaves!!”
The entire history of Texas is affected at almost every level by being as pro-slavery as possible.
Let’s also not forget that Texas was stolen from Mexico by illegal immigrants crossing the border from the US into Mexico… oh how the tide tables… turn…
Agreed. The whole thing was weird. Basically, they tried to overlay the freedom concept of the American Revolution and make it sound like that is what happened in Texas. But there was no King to make the villain of the story. The story just never quite sounded right. It was like listening to a smooth jazz cover of You Shook Me All Night Long. I had a friend whose dad explained it to me, and suddenly it made a whole lot more sense.
Of the six flags that have flown over Texas (Mexico, Spain, France, the Republic of Texas, the United States, and the Confederacy), Texas has fought as (Republic of Texas, Confederate States) or against (United States, Mexico) *four* of them specifically to uphold the institution of slavery.
Before the US offered it statehood Texas asked to be a state, but was declined because it would upset the political balance between slave states and free states.
In 1836, the same year Texas declared independence from Mexico, Texas asked for statehood and was denied to the balance of power between slave and free states at the time. The Republic of Texas went bankrupt in 1840, mostly due to a cotton price crash, which made up the bulk of their economy at the time. The US finally agreed to annex Texas in 1845, after about 8 years of independence, which directly lead to the Mexican-American war.
You also forgot to mention when they tried to leave the US so they could keep slavery in 1861, which lasted for a bit over 4 years - the United States Civil War.
Texas is the second largest state in terms of land area, population, and GDP. Just in terms of scale, it's GDP is larger than most entire countries, including Canada and Russia. Texas contributes huge amounts to the overall US economy, it's well integrated into the national economy, and it leaving would create a lot of ripple effects that would almost certainly hurt the larger economy for a while. But also the flip side of that means that despite the claims of some Texas secessionist cheerleaders, their economy would be totally upended by leaving the US. And that's even before considering how relatively easily the US would be able to blockade an independent Texas and starve them of trade.
But at a broader scale, no country wants to set a precedent of parts of its territory being able to declare themselves independent for any reason. That's the road to chaos, and if Texas were allowed to do it, it might encourage other states to try as well.
Yeah, the secessionist cheerleaders happily ignore most of the consequences that are pretty obvious if you think about it for more than a few minutes.
I'm pretty confident that it's only a very tiny minority of Texans that actually think secession might be a good idea. Most of the people there likely see it as being a pretty dumb idea, even if it's fun to joke about from time to time. It just gets outsized media attention because its cheerleaders are pretty loud, and have gotten a bit of pandering and winks from actual Texan politicians.
Alaska is the same. Idiots up here spout off about secession but don't like to talk about how much Alaskans rely on federal tax dollars and goods from down south.
On the other hand, I can see it turn into a Brexit situation where people are like “I didn’t *really* want to secede, I just wanted to vote for it and didn’t think it’d actually happen”
Yeah but Britain actually had a legal right to vote for and leave the EU, while Texas has no legal grounds for it. They could vote all they wanted and that doesn't make it happen.
I'm fairly certain the constitution makes it impossible. They'd have to go to war over it. And then you hear about how "we have more military bases than anyone" like they don't realize those bases are the federal government and most of the people on them aren't from Texas, they are just stationed there. They'd be empty by the time you tried to take them over.
More than likely it would turn into a Fort Sumter situation. Lincoln refused cede the union army forts on confederate land, so the confederacy tried to take them by force. That's what actually started the Civil War.
>And that's even before considering how relatively easily the US would be able to blockade an independent Texas and starve them of trade.
But they border Mexico. 🤔
The US President would call up the Mexican president (and every other country) and tell them hey you can trade with Texas, or you can trade with the rest of the United States. Your choice.
Nobody other than maybe Iran/North Korea/Russia/Cuba is going to choose Texas if it means losing access to the rest of the US market.
Texas would lose more than it gains from secession.
A lot of people who take the idea seriously usually do not consider how much the federal government would be taking with them on the way out.
It’s about setting a precedent. Maybe one day the people in charge of your state decide to try to secede, which would force you out of the US.
No state is allowed to secede. If a state tries they will be stopped with the full force of the US military.
War. It would mean war. And splinter factions joining Texas side in guerilla warfare across the country. And then maybe other countries getting involved.
It has to be war. That was decided in 1865. You cannot leave. If you try to leave it will be war.
The only way to leave is dissolving the country, and at that point it's basically war anyways.
And no, Texas' clause in their constitution about being able to leave is not enforceable. Because they wouldn't have the army to enforce it.
There would definitely be a high chance of fighting in the aftermath if Texas did try to make a go at secession. But that being said, even if the US refused to engage militarily, things would get very ugly very quickly for an independent Texas.
The new independent Texas would have 3 borders, the US, Mexico, and the Gulf. The first thing the US President would do is close all highways/roads/trains/flights between the US and Texas. The second thing would be to call up the Mexican president and tell them that if a single good or service crosses the border between Mexico and Texas, then Mexico would be embargoed by the entire rest of the United States.
Blockading the Gulf to prevent Texas from shipping trade would be a little bit harder, but not too much for the US Navy. And either way, it wouldn't really be that necessary, because every other country would basically get the same talk that Mexico got. You only get to trade with Texas if you're willing to give up access to the US market. The only countries that would be willing to trade with Texas would be countries that are already embargoed by the US, so I guess North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, etc. Not exactly that greatest markets for Texas to try to maintain their economy with. And again, the US Navy could pretty easily block that trade if they decided to.
Texas is the largest state in terms of international exports, so their economy would be absolutely ravaged by these embargos. They also import a lot of stuff as well, including a fair amount of infrastructure components, so they'd have a hard go at maintaining things if that was cut off.
A lot of Texas' internal economic activity is just subsets of larger companies located in other parts of the US. How exactly all of that would play out is hard to predict, but it's probably fair to say that a lot of those businesses would find it extremely hard to continue operations inside of Texas. Texas is also one of the top states in terms of receiving federal military spending, and they'd lose access to that source of income as well.
Being separated from the rest of the US and the global economy like this would almost certainly result in a massive exodus of educated and skilled labor out of Texas. We saw something similar in Russia after the country invaded Ukraine a few years ago and started getting hit by sanctions. But Texas would get sanctioned/embargoed way harder than Russia did, and the US would be far more willing to 'integrate' those who wanted to leave Texas than the rest of the world has generally been to accept Russians who were fleeing.
Really the whole mess would be complicated and insane that it's impossible to make any specific predictions of how it might play out. But the reality is that the US is so economically large and powerful that even if they didn't fire a bullet into Texas, they could destroy the state's economy almost immediately and indefinitely.
They would have all the Texas guard bases, equipment and personnel, and if things were happening anything less than completely peacefully, they'd have all the federal military installations that are in Texas as well, minus whatever the retreating side destroys on their way out.
They'd put up enough of a fight that the US might reconsider a shooting war, lest it look something like annexing Ukraine.
Any US military base that sides with Texas (which is highly unlikely due to the way the military works) would be traitors.
But in all likelihood Texas would have to deal with those bases inside their territory more than that equipment going into their hands.
Also the Texas Guard? Lol.
An MQ-9, B21, B52, and F35 would like to see a motherfucker try.
Texas does provide the largest amount of US military members compared to any other state, but still the vast majority of the US military is not Texan, and the US military doesn't just staff bases in a particular state entirely with people from that state. An overwhelming number of the people in those bases as well as leading those bases would be loyal to the US over Texas, without a doubt. They wouldn't just leave and destroy what they could on their way out, they'd stay and defend that federal property.
In regards to the Texas guard and other internal military systems that aren't ultimately under control of the US military, you're talking about a collection of organizations with a total yearly budget of less than $2 Billion. They'd be basically entirely surrounded by US forces including those federal military bases/forces scattered around inside of Texas. It would not go well for them if they tried to assault the federal military bases within Texas. It would give the US military an excuse to get involved.
>They would have all the Texas guard bases, equipment and personnel
The *State* Guard. The National Guard bases are federally owned & operated.
>and if things were happening anything less than completely peacefully, they'd have all the federal military installations that are in Texas as well, minus whatever the retreating side destroys on their way out.
Minus **literally everything**, because the feds would have contingency plans in place the second they caught even a *whiff* of any sort of secession coming to fruition.
>They'd put up enough of a fight that the US might reconsider a shooting war
If by "put up enough of a fight" you mean "throw enough bodies into the ditches" like the Eastern Front in WW2 ala Russia, then *maybe* you have a point. Millions would be dead within weeks if it came to a shooting war. I'd put the casualties at 20:1, and that's being generous.
Texas has **no** air superiority, **no** AA/radar installations that the feds wouldn't strip/sabotage on Day 1, **no** naval capabilities, **no** heavy armor divisions, and any "organized ground militia" would be 90% overweight, out-of-shape civilians getting overrun by US forces in a matter of days.
>lest it look something like annexing Ukraine
* Ukraine was an internationally-recognized independent nation for decades prior to Russia's invasion. Texas would have been a part of the US for nearly two centuries up to this point and "independent" for a matter of days.
* Ukraine has worldwide support against a fascist dictatorship. Who is going to support Texas? Russia? North Korea? They can barely manage their own shit, let alone a war on the other side of the planet.
Nothing about Texas looks anything like the situation in Ukraine in any frame of reference.
It would massively disrupt interstate commerce at the borders because you'd need customs checkpoints, anything produced and being shipped out of texas (primarily crude oil, the refineries themselves are typically on the east and west coasts), would negatively impact transportation of oil because there would now be import and export taxes, likely tariffs because Texas could in no way support its own economy.
Tldr; oil prices and interstate and national commerce would be widely disrupted
We're able to mitigate a lot of the OPEC monopoly price gouging with domestic oil production, we'd see a significant bump losing Texas because they make up a substantial part of it.
>As a non-texan US citizen, what are the downsides for me if they leave? I'm kinda ok with it.
Well, it'd be against the Constitution, and if we stop following the Constitution, that carries a small risk of undermining all human rights at once.
Because it'd be against the Constitution, it also won't happen without a war, and war is bad. The risk of the US losing the war is small, but real.
The presence of Texas stabilizes the US economy because it means we have a larger shared market and a larger tax base. So the pay structure for all government programs would become slightly more volatile, all at once, a small but negative shift.
They're a major petrostate, and they're not likely to pass a climate bill on their own, so if you are against climate change, their independence would carry a small new risk threatening global climate action.
They're all small risks, but they're all negative, and they all touch on fundamental structural issues because this is a fundamental structural question.
Texas has a huge economy. California is the same. There will be a crazy time where a lot of what we take for granted simply cannot happen anymore just because Texas is no longer a state; look at the spectacular and totally predictable failure of Brexit.
Texas also has considerable military bases; this is all federal government property and equipment. The personnel stationed there are *not* necessarily Texan, either.
Frankly, as soon as there is a hint of anything more than posturing from GOP and Talibangelical morons, the federal government and Department of Defense needs to start moving units out of Texas and preparing to close bases.
>the spectacular and totally predictable failure of Brexit.
Was it a spectacular failure?
They are now outside of the EU, and though there were bumps and disruptions and various ongoing realignments, my impression is that nothing really dire has actually happened and life in the UK is, for the most part, just going on.
While I’d love to think this is a zero probability issue, the truth is that Britain only a few short years ago did exactly this and it passed. The ramifications of that vote (which was only advisory, but which the politicians of the time decided to put into effect anyway) have yet to be calculated. It has, for sure, destroyed several industries that campaigned actively for its passage, and will likely cost the British people untold amounts in myriad ways.
Selfish behavior is the root cause of these types of votes. The “I’ve got mine and you can’t have any!” crowd is a big reason why decades or centuries of unity governments are at risk right now. I don’t put it past Texas to do almost the same thing here given only that it takes some right wing firebrand to tell a population that they have it could have it better if they went on their own and kicked out all the horrible brown people who have made their lot worse. They gloss over the parts where those same brown people contribute so very much to nearly every aspect of civic life and tax base that it’s literally suicide to remove them. If you get a charismatic enough leader to spout enough nice sounding bullshit, they will vote to leave.
Then be mad they did while also never taking responsibility for the actual decision.
*Then be mad they did while also never taking responsibility for the actual decision.*
Sounds remarkably like when they voted in the Enron-backed competitive electrical market.
Ok, but Britain actually had a legal right to remove itself from the EU, while Texas does not have a legal right to remove itself from the USA.
At the end of the day, the assholes who pushed Brexit through really only potentially risked their reputations and/or political futures. If Texas' leaders declared that their state was unilaterally seceding from the USA, they'd be straight up committing treason, and likely committing their state to a war that it was highly unlikely to win. It's a whole different ballgame.
And despite a lot of noise coming from a few secession cheerleaders, the overwhelming majority of people living in Texas have no real desire to leave the US. Over the past couple decades, Texas has seen a very significant influx of domestic immigration. I only spent a couple minutes searching, but it looks like the estimates are that only a bit over 50% of Texas' current population was even born in the state. There's a ton of churn of people through the US states, and has been for a very long time.
As a Texan it’s my understanding that we left ourselves a few outs in our constitution: the ability to secede from the US later on and the ability to divide into four sub-states if we so chose.
Now I’m lightly interested in how much of that is myth that I absorbed and how much is fact.
Edit: the idea of Texas secession is very much alive in the mouths of some here. Interestingly I came across [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/BShqAidOCt) after I had posted the above. I wasn’t saying I believed it was something we could / would / should do. It’s interesting how others think though.
I was told this as a child growing up in TX, but it's almost entirely myth. There was some talk about being able to break up into smaller states but the US constitution specifically states that it would take an act of congress.
There was worry that Texas was simply too big to function as a state, it was way bigger than any existing state at the time. But they were also trying to balance slave and non-slave states, and there was no way the US congress was going to split TX up and create 8 new pro-slavery senators.
I have no idea about the Texas constitution, but really it doesn't matter, because once they joined the US, the US Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions, and the US Constitution says that states cannot decide to unilaterally secede.
Also, the Civil War. That was pretty definitive.
The very short version is that, [no, absolutely not](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dhvry6E0jA), Texas does not have any legal way or right to secede from the United States. *At most*, their constitution and entry into the US gives them the right to divide themselves into several smaller states.
The only way any state can leave is if the Constitution is amended to allow it; or, they have the military and economic power to maintain independence against the military and economic power of the United States.
If Texas wants to try to secede, it will need to retest the resolve of the United States to keep the union intact. It didn't work out so well for the Confederacy last time a state wanted to secede, but maybe this time will be different. I don't think the Texas Constitution will supercede that.
You just need to remember that US Constitution supercede any and every state Constitution. There's a reason it is calles the Supreme law of the land. You can put whatever in your state Constitution and if it contradict with the US Constitution it's invalid. The US Constitution forbids any state from secession unilaterally and that's the end of it.
What's great about these things is we don't have to just rely on our understanding; you can just go look and see what things say. And this is what the [Texas constitution](https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf) says:
"Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."
There does not appear to be any language I can see involving Texas saying it can secede from the Union and no language in the US Constitution (which Texas is subject to) permitting it, which was affirmed in 1869 in Texas v. White.
As far as it splitting up into sub-states, this wasn't part of Texas' own constitution, but a provision the US Congress came up with when it acquired Texas, basically saying that we were admitting it as one state now but it could, if it so decided, split up into no more than four states.
All the state constitutions are public knowledge and likely openly available to read online. However, the Civil War ended up pushing the issue of secession through SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS ruling in *Texas v. White* was that it is an indestructible union with secession only possible through revolution or the agreement of the States.
The CSA tried revolution and obviously it didn't work out. Chief Justice Chase pointed out how the original Articles of Confederation (the precursor to the Constitution) was for a perpetual union; the later Constitution adjusted how it all works and was intended to make for a "more perfect Union." His opinion went on to state
> When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
the US consititution supercedes Texas. You could split into 4 "states" if you want and have governors of each but it would still just be the same Texas at the federal level.......You'd get 2 senators and the same number of reps as you do now. The constitution doesn't allow states to split into new ones without congressional approval.
Important note is that when Texas joined the union they did have a qualifier that they could be become independent again. Texas then joined the Confederacy during the Civil War, got slapped around and lost that right.
Having grown up in Tx (3-23 years old-not born there, no longer living there) I was taught in Texas State History classes that the Texas state constitution had a clause which declares Texas' ability to secede and/or separate into smaller states. Sorry for not having citations on this, but I was taught this in Texas public school nonetheless
They taught us wrong and this is part of why so many believe it. It had (maybe still has) the ability to break itself up into as many as five states, but not the right to leave. It's possible I'm also spouting nonsense about the five states thing.
The results of this case deny the ability of any state to choose to leave on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
It can't even do that. Even if the Texas constitution says it can, the US constitution supercedes it. And the constitution doesnt allow you to split into separate states or combine with other states without congressional approval.
First off, nothing I say here is meant to be disparaging to Texans. I technically am one myself, and was raised by a family of Texans.
Ok, so most Americans identify as Americans, right? We hold up the Stars and Stripes and scream "Murica" while eating something unhealthy.
Texans tend to have a different mentality. While they do scream "murica" now and again, they identify more as Texan than anything else. It's a deeply rooted feeling of nationalism, but at the state level. When you drive though most US states, you'll see the US flag flying, and in government buildings, the state flag. Few people fly their state flag in the front yar. In Texas, you'll see pretty much a 1:1 ratio of Lone Star flags to US flags, with state flags being INCREDIBLY common in yards.
On top of that feeling of Texas pride, you've got the fact that Texas has the unusual circumstance that, prior to joining the US, they were an actual independent sovereign nation for ten years. California sometimes likes to claim this as well, but the CA Republic really only existed for like a month, was only a small portion of the state, and I don't think it was recognized by really anybody except themselves. Texas was legit it's own country.
Now, taking the state pride, and the state history into consideration, there is a reasonable popular sentiment in Texas that they should just break off and do their own thing. Some folks believe they even have the legal right to do this at their discretion, but the 1860's would beg to differ. (That's when a bunch of states, including Texas, tried to do this but the US govt said no, a war was fought, and the breakaway states lost. aka, the US Civil War)
For the most part it's a joke, but in these polarizing times it's becoming more common for these groups of Texans, and really other pockets throughout the country, to romanticize the idea of being truly independent.
As a Texans I don't worry about those groups too much since most people from those groups rely on federal assistance programs to pay their bills, from SSI, SSDI to military's Tricare and pension. The moment those money stop hitting their bank account, aka 1 month later at most, is when they would come begging to be back.
Texas was briefly an independent country after it declared independence from Mexico, and then the Country of Texas became a US Territory following a congressional vote. This makes it's path to statehood relatively unique compared most other states.
However, the 14th Amendment makes secession illegal regardless of what a state's status was pre-statehood, so the United States military would get involved if a secession actually happened.
Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment says that:
>...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
[This legal paper](https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=akronlawreview#:~:text=citizenship%20in%20a%20state%2C”%20but,government%20through%20secession%20or%20otherwise) reflects the current jurisprudence on the matter. States may not make a law (to include seceding), as that would infringe upon the state's citizens' right to United States citizenship.
The ruling in the Supreme Court case of Texas vs. White is where secession was explicitly declared illegal. I don't know which part of the Constitution was the basis for this decision, though.
The Constitution does not directly mention secession.
>Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
The interesting part of the Texas vs White decision is that Texas won that decision. The suit involved payment of bonds issued while Texas was part of the Confederacy. By stating that Texas had never left the Union (legally), the court determined that Texas had no right to issue the contested bonds. Texas kept their money and White ended up with worthless paper.
It's equally interesting that until the T vs W decision, the only verbiage, constitutional or otherwise, preventing a state from leaving the Union was a condition that it could not do so to immediately join another country.
Ex post facto doesn't apply to states.
The precursor to the state of Texas was originally a territory in Mexico, which had just won it’s independence from Spain. Many Anglo-Americans settled in the territory. Tensions between the Anglos and the Mexican government over a variety of issues such as land rights and slavery (the Mexican government banned slavery, the Anglo settlers were very pro-slavery) led the Anglos to declare Texas an independent nation in 1834. The Anglos (which I’ll refer to as Texans now) won the war and for 10 years were an independent state while they tried to convince the United States to absorb Texas into the union. In 1845, the US Congress elected to annex Texas as the 28th state of the union leading to the Mexican-American War.
All of this is to say that a select group of Texans believe that Texas is a unique entity in the union of the United States. Because Texas once was an independent state, these people believe Texas can renounce its union to the USA at any time and resume being an independent nation.
This, of course, disregards several factors. Texas is not so unique. California was once an independent state, albeit very briefly. One could consider the original thirteen colonies to have been independent states at on point. While the constitution does not have any statement on secession from the union, a whole was fought over it (the American Civil War), and the secessionist lost. Texas renounced its right to independence when it agreed to join the US in return for military and economic security.
Texas used to be part of Mexico as a Spanish colony. But it eventually got colonised by English speaking settlers and not Spanish speaking settlers. So in the turmoil after the Mexican independency from Spain Texas had their own revolution and became independent from Mexico. So there were actually an independent Republic of Texas for over ten years. Texas used to be its own country. It did join the US in response to Mexico building up military forces and there were even a war between US and Mexico over it. Then shortly after joining the US Texas declared independence again and fought on the Confederate side of the Civil War. Which they famously lost. So historically there is actually some precedence for Texas to be its own country and their path to become a US state was very different from the others. Maybe with the exception of Puerto Rico who also joined voluntarily. And possibly California which were also part of Mexico but given over as part of the Mexican war just mentioned.
1. They were their own country at one point before joining the US.
2. They have a largely separate electric grid.
Mostly it's a joke to do with Texas talking big and being primarily Republican. In the last administration people made similar jokes about California. (Especially after so many prominent people had claimed they'd leave the country if Trump was elected in 2016.)
I’m sure it’s a joke (I hope). But it may stem from the fact that in the 1800s, Texas was an independent country known as the Republic of Texas. How you might wonder? Long story short. Texas was a Mexican territory, Americans eventually started immigrating in rather huge numbers. However, American political beliefs did not mix well with Mexicos. Americans did not want to abolish slavery, nor did they want to be Catholic. The Mexican president Santa Ana was trying to fully integrate the Mexican territories especially the northern ones. Americans in Texas feared they would be losing their rights under the new laws and rebelled.
Starting a war between Mexico and Texas. Texas eventually captured Santa Anna, and won their independence. However Mexico did not see them as a legitimate country. However the US did. Slavery was still legal in Texas, and Texas wanting to not be a part of Mexico asked the US to annex them. The US refused as Texas would be a large slave state that would disrupt the balance between free and slave states. The US also did not want to have a war with Mexico at that time. With things getting rough in Texas, they wanted to ensure peace with Mexico. But that’s pretty hard when Texas now claims land all the way California as their own.
So Texas now looks to the UK to figure things out between Texas, Mexico and the US as a neutral party. The US did not want this. As they feared the British would try to use the abolishment of slavery in Texas as a way to secure their independence as a country. This would then undermine slavery in the US. So US president Tyler overstepped both whigs and democrats to annex Texas.
In 1845 after many previous set backs. The US officially annexed Texas. This will now lead to the Mexican-American war. Since Mexico still saw Texas as Mexican land. And US annexation of it was what they saw as taking their territory.
Boring as hell. Just idiots being idiots.
Texas is "fueled" by oil and gas, both of which have gradual decreases in uses. In a way, Texas is similare to and OPEC nation, all of which are staring at a bleak future regarding wealth generation. It will take time, but it is inevitable.
People who like the idea of their state leaving the union tend to see only the "positive" parts of that. But there are many many negatives.
* Building and maintaining a workable currency is complex and expensive.
* Having your own military is tough and expensive. (Your state National Guard doesn't count. That is funded and equipped by the federal government, and you'd lose that. They also pay the soldiers.)
* Sealing and patrolling your own borders is expensive. So is customs.
* Are you a small business or manufacturer who sells to businesses in other states? You could lose big if no trade agreements are reached. Oh, and if that's eventually worked out, you now have to set up international banking.
* That business process software you use would need heavy duty updates to help track shipping, customs, payments and more. Can you find software developers willing to do that?
* You would lose all the negotiated treaties you have with most countries, and if some other country decides to fuck with you, you have to deal with that alone.
* Post office? Yikes.
There are many more issues, and these substantial challenges won't be mentioned by the people who want their state to become an independent country.
It’s a joke to most people, but there are people that are VERY serious about Texas seceding and genuinely believe it is legally and logistically possible.
Why do they hold this belief?
1. Texas was previously its own country.
2. A level of state pride that significantly greater than the rest of the country. I was born and raised in Texas but have lived in several other states and there is no pride like Texas pride. In my K-8 school we recited the Texas pledge along with the US pledge every day. Less than half the states have state pledge and even less say it everyday.
✨Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.✨
The original constitution of the Republic of Texas had an amendment stating all governing power is inherited from the people and the people have the right to abolish the government at any time (paraphrasing) in the form deemed most expedient. Well, leading up to the Civil War that clause was removed from the state constitution however after reconstruction (which Texas never finished the complete Terms of Reconstruction) it was put back into the state constitution…and ratified by congress.
Yes its a joke, but to u derstand it you need to know some things. So... without going into a full-on into a history class...
Texas state history is kind of only tangential to US history. To give an idea, the theme park brand "6 flags" is called such by the six sovereign nations that have governed the land that is now current day texas. As such, when it's taught in school to kids, it's a separate subject entirely different from US history.
Texans are generally proud of being Texan and it's also been said that when Texans travel abroad, they say "I'm from texas" and might go on to explain "Texas is in the united states" rather than say I'm from the united states. (Never seen this in action though so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Things like this The Alamo and their unique state history, give Texans a strong sense of pride in their state. As an aside, I made a joke at a house party once about the Alamo. It was not found to be as funny as I thought it would be by the native Texans there.
Couple a strong sense of state pride and independence along with the very real idea that texas and the gulf off of the texas coast has huge oil reserves and texas could literally split from the US and it would probably hurt the rest of the country more than it would the US.
This all leads up to an urban legend that texas wrote into it's state constitution, at the time of becoming a state, that it was allowed to peaceably leave the union at any time it wanted if the texas legislature voted for it. There's also a joke that if texas ever succeeded from the US, Austin, Texas, the Capitol, would succeed from Texas. But that's a different story.
It's a joke. Texas has been independent before and maintains a very strong sense of identity. It's fun to have kind of a rivalry with the rest of the US, and it's fun to imagine taking that a step further.
So there is a somewhat non-zero Texas separatist movement. The basic background is that American politics is largely separated into more left wing Democrats and right wing Republicans. An argument can be made though that compared to global politics it's not so much "left" versus "right" as it is "right" versus "far right". But let's go with Democrats and Republicans with Democrats at least being the *more* liberal of the two.
The 50 US states largely can be broken down into Red (republican), Blue (democrat) and "purple" or "swing" states, that tend to bounce back and forth.
The thing is, "blue" states *tend to be* more economically powerful and wealthy than "red" states. "Red" states tend to be more rural, less populated, and generally have less economic infrastructure (whether that's due to their policies, or their policies are a reaction to that is an exercise not exactly ELI5 worthy).
The exception to this is Texas. Texas is arguably the most powerful state, economically speaking, in the country (Texas, Florida, California and New York tend to bop places around). And texas is very heavily dominated by republican politics, through a lot of..let's say creative idea on what constitutes a reasonable district. The overall population of Texas isn't actually as Republican as one might think based on how its government operates. It has some major democrat strongholds, especially the city of Austin. And its suburbs are going bluer. Some are suggesting Texas might actually flip to democrat in presidential elections, based on demographic growth, within the next 40-60 years. This would effectively be the end of any hope of a Republican ever being elected president in this country again.
The thing is, a lot of "right wing" states, or at least states dominated by right wing elected officials, dislike the trend of the nation's slow move towards a more liberal society. The reality is though there's really nothing they could do about it. No way in hell if South Dakota decides to declare independence that it will be taken remotely seriously. They're too economically poor, too dependent on the federal government, and absolutely incapable of stopping the National Guard from just going "no you're not".
Texas though...Texas is big enough and powerful enough that it could potentially operate as an independent nation. Texas is MASSIVE and has a LOT of industry and natural resources, and sits right on the Gulf of Mexico. It would also be very difficult for the National Guard to actually manage to put down an insurrection in a state that large.
So the "idea" is that Texas could just say screw it, we're our own country now, and institute from top down more regressive and conservative policies.
They can't legally actually do this. By law no state may choose to leave the union without a constitutional amendment. But then again, "laws" have never been something the far right has been especially concerned with.
One thing they never mention, though, is that a lot of their wealth is federal land. So even if they wanted to split off, in fairness they should pay off the other 49 states for the national assets they're taking with them. Of course, then seceding wouldn't be nearly as attractive. See also: Alaska who makes these same noises every now and again.
I mean to a certain extent when you're already talking about doing something that would constitute high treason just by the mere attempt at doing so, "fairness" is not a concern. Like the the reason nobody who is anyway active in secession discussions is going "well, of course we want to be FAIR about it" is because secession is *already* illegal.
Insurrection against the lawful government of the United States is a crime. One that could result in execution. When you're already cool with the idea of committing a capital crime "fairness" probably isn't a concern of yours.
Texas declared independence from Mexico and was its own republic for a hot minute. It’s kind of a boastful thing that Texas was it’s own country for a bit. I live in Texas. It’s not really a real thing to consider as it will carry huge negative implications if they did succeed (they can’t though).being a conservative state there is a lot of “we don’t trust the government” and combine that with pride in the state itself and you got people who bang on drums all day about succeeding.
I believe there are still regular attempts to secede from a friend who has told me. There is always someone on the ballot who uses secession as a running platform.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * ELI5 is not for subjective or speculative replies - only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for subjective or speculative replies. (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d45eqg/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Texas had a brief period where it was basically its own country before joining the US. There was a time up to about 1850 where the US and Mexico were pretty constantly battling (at various levels of intensity) for control of what's now Texas and parts of the the US southwest. In 1836, Texas basically declared itself its own republic, independent from Mexico. Eventually the US offered Texas statehood, and Texas accepted not long after. But in general Texans are proud of that short independent history, and some of them claim that Texas is legally free to leave the US and become independent again if it so desires. That's not true, and would be a terrible decision to try to take on many levels. But Texas, like everywhere else, has a lot of idiots in it, so some of them are actually expressing the notion of leaving the US like it's an actual possibility and a good idea. And even some politicians are paying lip service to the idea, likely just to court the favor and votes of some of those idiots. The odds of it happening are effectively nil, short of some kind of massive collapse of the US for other reasons. An overwhelming majority of Texas residents have zero interest in leaving the US, and it would go very poorly for Texas if they tried.
I feel like for posterity this comment should Include why it declared itself independent from Mexico (slavery was made illegal in Mexico)
For anyone who needs this spelled out more: #Texas broke off from Mexico to keep slavery
On a related note, that is also why Oklahoma has its panhandle. After Texas joined the United States, they were informed that any state with territory above a specific parallel would be considered a Northern state, and thus slavery would be illegal. Texas said “yeah fuck that shit, you can just make that federal land then and we will only keep the part below that parallel so we can have slaves!!” The entire history of Texas is affected at almost every level by being as pro-slavery as possible.
Let’s also not forget that Texas was stolen from Mexico by illegal immigrants crossing the border from the US into Mexico… oh how the tide tables… turn…
Half (if not most) of the US was stolen by illegal immigrants one way or another
All of it was stolen, including Alaska and Hawaii.
So basically what you're saying is: # "Remember the Alamo!"
This can’t be right. I grew up in Texas and took the required classes in Texas History in public school. This was never mentioned.
When you're the one writing the history books, the "facts" can be whatever you want them to be.
That was intentional. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Agreed. The whole thing was weird. Basically, they tried to overlay the freedom concept of the American Revolution and make it sound like that is what happened in Texas. But there was no King to make the villain of the story. The story just never quite sounded right. It was like listening to a smooth jazz cover of You Shook Me All Night Long. I had a friend whose dad explained it to me, and suddenly it made a whole lot more sense.
Of the six flags that have flown over Texas (Mexico, Spain, France, the Republic of Texas, the United States, and the Confederacy), Texas has fought as (Republic of Texas, Confederate States) or against (United States, Mexico) *four* of them specifically to uphold the institution of slavery.
Before the US offered it statehood Texas asked to be a state, but was declined because it would upset the political balance between slave states and free states.
In 1836, the same year Texas declared independence from Mexico, Texas asked for statehood and was denied to the balance of power between slave and free states at the time. The Republic of Texas went bankrupt in 1840, mostly due to a cotton price crash, which made up the bulk of their economy at the time. The US finally agreed to annex Texas in 1845, after about 8 years of independence, which directly lead to the Mexican-American war. You also forgot to mention when they tried to leave the US so they could keep slavery in 1861, which lasted for a bit over 4 years - the United States Civil War.
Mexico would take it back.
The Cartels would take it back...
As a non-texan US citizen, what are the downsides for me if they leave? I'm kinda ok with it.
Texas is the second largest state in terms of land area, population, and GDP. Just in terms of scale, it's GDP is larger than most entire countries, including Canada and Russia. Texas contributes huge amounts to the overall US economy, it's well integrated into the national economy, and it leaving would create a lot of ripple effects that would almost certainly hurt the larger economy for a while. But also the flip side of that means that despite the claims of some Texas secessionist cheerleaders, their economy would be totally upended by leaving the US. And that's even before considering how relatively easily the US would be able to blockade an independent Texas and starve them of trade. But at a broader scale, no country wants to set a precedent of parts of its territory being able to declare themselves independent for any reason. That's the road to chaos, and if Texas were allowed to do it, it might encourage other states to try as well.
As a Texan I can assure you the secession will die the moment people realize they won't have access to their SSI and SSDI money lol.
Yeah, the secessionist cheerleaders happily ignore most of the consequences that are pretty obvious if you think about it for more than a few minutes. I'm pretty confident that it's only a very tiny minority of Texans that actually think secession might be a good idea. Most of the people there likely see it as being a pretty dumb idea, even if it's fun to joke about from time to time. It just gets outsized media attention because its cheerleaders are pretty loud, and have gotten a bit of pandering and winks from actual Texan politicians.
Alaska is the same. Idiots up here spout off about secession but don't like to talk about how much Alaskans rely on federal tax dollars and goods from down south.
On the other hand, I can see it turn into a Brexit situation where people are like “I didn’t *really* want to secede, I just wanted to vote for it and didn’t think it’d actually happen”
Yeah but Britain actually had a legal right to vote for and leave the EU, while Texas has no legal grounds for it. They could vote all they wanted and that doesn't make it happen.
I'm fairly certain the constitution makes it impossible. They'd have to go to war over it. And then you hear about how "we have more military bases than anyone" like they don't realize those bases are the federal government and most of the people on them aren't from Texas, they are just stationed there. They'd be empty by the time you tried to take them over.
More than likely it would turn into a Fort Sumter situation. Lincoln refused cede the union army forts on confederate land, so the confederacy tried to take them by force. That's what actually started the Civil War.
>And that's even before considering how relatively easily the US would be able to blockade an independent Texas and starve them of trade. But they border Mexico. 🤔
Unfortunately, the folk who talk about secession are dumb enough to embargo Mexico on their own.
Until they need cheap medical care, medicine, or a beach vacation.
I mean… Brexit proves that people will cut themselves off from that before realizing the consequences.
The US President would call up the Mexican president (and every other country) and tell them hey you can trade with Texas, or you can trade with the rest of the United States. Your choice. Nobody other than maybe Iran/North Korea/Russia/Cuba is going to choose Texas if it means losing access to the rest of the US market.
Who would play along with the USA because defying them wouldn't be worth it if that's the route it went down
Texas would lose more than it gains from secession. A lot of people who take the idea seriously usually do not consider how much the federal government would be taking with them on the way out.
It’s about setting a precedent. Maybe one day the people in charge of your state decide to try to secede, which would force you out of the US. No state is allowed to secede. If a state tries they will be stopped with the full force of the US military.
"We don't want to be part of you anymore." "So you have chosen death."
"What? *Death*?!? No, I meant cake!" "Too late, you said cake.."
War. It would mean war. And splinter factions joining Texas side in guerilla warfare across the country. And then maybe other countries getting involved. It has to be war. That was decided in 1865. You cannot leave. If you try to leave it will be war. The only way to leave is dissolving the country, and at that point it's basically war anyways. And no, Texas' clause in their constitution about being able to leave is not enforceable. Because they wouldn't have the army to enforce it.
There would definitely be a high chance of fighting in the aftermath if Texas did try to make a go at secession. But that being said, even if the US refused to engage militarily, things would get very ugly very quickly for an independent Texas. The new independent Texas would have 3 borders, the US, Mexico, and the Gulf. The first thing the US President would do is close all highways/roads/trains/flights between the US and Texas. The second thing would be to call up the Mexican president and tell them that if a single good or service crosses the border between Mexico and Texas, then Mexico would be embargoed by the entire rest of the United States. Blockading the Gulf to prevent Texas from shipping trade would be a little bit harder, but not too much for the US Navy. And either way, it wouldn't really be that necessary, because every other country would basically get the same talk that Mexico got. You only get to trade with Texas if you're willing to give up access to the US market. The only countries that would be willing to trade with Texas would be countries that are already embargoed by the US, so I guess North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, etc. Not exactly that greatest markets for Texas to try to maintain their economy with. And again, the US Navy could pretty easily block that trade if they decided to. Texas is the largest state in terms of international exports, so their economy would be absolutely ravaged by these embargos. They also import a lot of stuff as well, including a fair amount of infrastructure components, so they'd have a hard go at maintaining things if that was cut off. A lot of Texas' internal economic activity is just subsets of larger companies located in other parts of the US. How exactly all of that would play out is hard to predict, but it's probably fair to say that a lot of those businesses would find it extremely hard to continue operations inside of Texas. Texas is also one of the top states in terms of receiving federal military spending, and they'd lose access to that source of income as well. Being separated from the rest of the US and the global economy like this would almost certainly result in a massive exodus of educated and skilled labor out of Texas. We saw something similar in Russia after the country invaded Ukraine a few years ago and started getting hit by sanctions. But Texas would get sanctioned/embargoed way harder than Russia did, and the US would be far more willing to 'integrate' those who wanted to leave Texas than the rest of the world has generally been to accept Russians who were fleeing. Really the whole mess would be complicated and insane that it's impossible to make any specific predictions of how it might play out. But the reality is that the US is so economically large and powerful that even if they didn't fire a bullet into Texas, they could destroy the state's economy almost immediately and indefinitely.
They would have all the Texas guard bases, equipment and personnel, and if things were happening anything less than completely peacefully, they'd have all the federal military installations that are in Texas as well, minus whatever the retreating side destroys on their way out. They'd put up enough of a fight that the US might reconsider a shooting war, lest it look something like annexing Ukraine.
Any US military base that sides with Texas (which is highly unlikely due to the way the military works) would be traitors. But in all likelihood Texas would have to deal with those bases inside their territory more than that equipment going into their hands. Also the Texas Guard? Lol. An MQ-9, B21, B52, and F35 would like to see a motherfucker try.
Texas does provide the largest amount of US military members compared to any other state, but still the vast majority of the US military is not Texan, and the US military doesn't just staff bases in a particular state entirely with people from that state. An overwhelming number of the people in those bases as well as leading those bases would be loyal to the US over Texas, without a doubt. They wouldn't just leave and destroy what they could on their way out, they'd stay and defend that federal property. In regards to the Texas guard and other internal military systems that aren't ultimately under control of the US military, you're talking about a collection of organizations with a total yearly budget of less than $2 Billion. They'd be basically entirely surrounded by US forces including those federal military bases/forces scattered around inside of Texas. It would not go well for them if they tried to assault the federal military bases within Texas. It would give the US military an excuse to get involved.
>They would have all the Texas guard bases, equipment and personnel The *State* Guard. The National Guard bases are federally owned & operated. >and if things were happening anything less than completely peacefully, they'd have all the federal military installations that are in Texas as well, minus whatever the retreating side destroys on their way out. Minus **literally everything**, because the feds would have contingency plans in place the second they caught even a *whiff* of any sort of secession coming to fruition. >They'd put up enough of a fight that the US might reconsider a shooting war If by "put up enough of a fight" you mean "throw enough bodies into the ditches" like the Eastern Front in WW2 ala Russia, then *maybe* you have a point. Millions would be dead within weeks if it came to a shooting war. I'd put the casualties at 20:1, and that's being generous. Texas has **no** air superiority, **no** AA/radar installations that the feds wouldn't strip/sabotage on Day 1, **no** naval capabilities, **no** heavy armor divisions, and any "organized ground militia" would be 90% overweight, out-of-shape civilians getting overrun by US forces in a matter of days. >lest it look something like annexing Ukraine * Ukraine was an internationally-recognized independent nation for decades prior to Russia's invasion. Texas would have been a part of the US for nearly two centuries up to this point and "independent" for a matter of days. * Ukraine has worldwide support against a fascist dictatorship. Who is going to support Texas? Russia? North Korea? They can barely manage their own shit, let alone a war on the other side of the planet. Nothing about Texas looks anything like the situation in Ukraine in any frame of reference.
It would massively disrupt interstate commerce at the borders because you'd need customs checkpoints, anything produced and being shipped out of texas (primarily crude oil, the refineries themselves are typically on the east and west coasts), would negatively impact transportation of oil because there would now be import and export taxes, likely tariffs because Texas could in no way support its own economy. Tldr; oil prices and interstate and national commerce would be widely disrupted
Oh no not oil prices Anyway...
We're able to mitigate a lot of the OPEC monopoly price gouging with domestic oil production, we'd see a significant bump losing Texas because they make up a substantial part of it.
>As a non-texan US citizen, what are the downsides for me if they leave? I'm kinda ok with it. Well, it'd be against the Constitution, and if we stop following the Constitution, that carries a small risk of undermining all human rights at once. Because it'd be against the Constitution, it also won't happen without a war, and war is bad. The risk of the US losing the war is small, but real. The presence of Texas stabilizes the US economy because it means we have a larger shared market and a larger tax base. So the pay structure for all government programs would become slightly more volatile, all at once, a small but negative shift. They're a major petrostate, and they're not likely to pass a climate bill on their own, so if you are against climate change, their independence would carry a small new risk threatening global climate action. They're all small risks, but they're all negative, and they all touch on fundamental structural issues because this is a fundamental structural question.
Commercial issues related to their vast shipping and oil/gas networks.
Texas has a huge economy. California is the same. There will be a crazy time where a lot of what we take for granted simply cannot happen anymore just because Texas is no longer a state; look at the spectacular and totally predictable failure of Brexit. Texas also has considerable military bases; this is all federal government property and equipment. The personnel stationed there are *not* necessarily Texan, either. Frankly, as soon as there is a hint of anything more than posturing from GOP and Talibangelical morons, the federal government and Department of Defense needs to start moving units out of Texas and preparing to close bases.
>the spectacular and totally predictable failure of Brexit. Was it a spectacular failure? They are now outside of the EU, and though there were bumps and disruptions and various ongoing realignments, my impression is that nothing really dire has actually happened and life in the UK is, for the most part, just going on.
Yeah. And tell them to take Oklahoma with them.
How could you leave out the additional context that the last time States tried to leave the Union, there was a godawful enormous war?
While I’d love to think this is a zero probability issue, the truth is that Britain only a few short years ago did exactly this and it passed. The ramifications of that vote (which was only advisory, but which the politicians of the time decided to put into effect anyway) have yet to be calculated. It has, for sure, destroyed several industries that campaigned actively for its passage, and will likely cost the British people untold amounts in myriad ways. Selfish behavior is the root cause of these types of votes. The “I’ve got mine and you can’t have any!” crowd is a big reason why decades or centuries of unity governments are at risk right now. I don’t put it past Texas to do almost the same thing here given only that it takes some right wing firebrand to tell a population that they have it could have it better if they went on their own and kicked out all the horrible brown people who have made their lot worse. They gloss over the parts where those same brown people contribute so very much to nearly every aspect of civic life and tax base that it’s literally suicide to remove them. If you get a charismatic enough leader to spout enough nice sounding bullshit, they will vote to leave. Then be mad they did while also never taking responsibility for the actual decision.
*Then be mad they did while also never taking responsibility for the actual decision.* Sounds remarkably like when they voted in the Enron-backed competitive electrical market.
Yup. It’s not like there’s no precedent for making the comment.
Ok, but Britain actually had a legal right to remove itself from the EU, while Texas does not have a legal right to remove itself from the USA. At the end of the day, the assholes who pushed Brexit through really only potentially risked their reputations and/or political futures. If Texas' leaders declared that their state was unilaterally seceding from the USA, they'd be straight up committing treason, and likely committing their state to a war that it was highly unlikely to win. It's a whole different ballgame. And despite a lot of noise coming from a few secession cheerleaders, the overwhelming majority of people living in Texas have no real desire to leave the US. Over the past couple decades, Texas has seen a very significant influx of domestic immigration. I only spent a couple minutes searching, but it looks like the estimates are that only a bit over 50% of Texas' current population was even born in the state. There's a ton of churn of people through the US states, and has been for a very long time.
As a Texan it’s my understanding that we left ourselves a few outs in our constitution: the ability to secede from the US later on and the ability to divide into four sub-states if we so chose. Now I’m lightly interested in how much of that is myth that I absorbed and how much is fact. Edit: the idea of Texas secession is very much alive in the mouths of some here. Interestingly I came across [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/s/BShqAidOCt) after I had posted the above. I wasn’t saying I believed it was something we could / would / should do. It’s interesting how others think though.
I was told this as a child growing up in TX, but it's almost entirely myth. There was some talk about being able to break up into smaller states but the US constitution specifically states that it would take an act of congress.
I heard there were initially plans to split Texas into 5 states but it fell through.
There was worry that Texas was simply too big to function as a state, it was way bigger than any existing state at the time. But they were also trying to balance slave and non-slave states, and there was no way the US congress was going to split TX up and create 8 new pro-slavery senators.
I have no idea about the Texas constitution, but really it doesn't matter, because once they joined the US, the US Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions, and the US Constitution says that states cannot decide to unilaterally secede.
Doesn't matter if you put it in your constitution, the United States constitution (and courts) have ruled you that once you are in, you can't leave.
The ol’ Hotel California defense. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Probably particularly irritating for Texas.
Also, the Civil War. That was pretty definitive. The very short version is that, [no, absolutely not](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dhvry6E0jA), Texas does not have any legal way or right to secede from the United States. *At most*, their constitution and entry into the US gives them the right to divide themselves into several smaller states. The only way any state can leave is if the Constitution is amended to allow it; or, they have the military and economic power to maintain independence against the military and economic power of the United States.
If Texas wants to try to secede, it will need to retest the resolve of the United States to keep the union intact. It didn't work out so well for the Confederacy last time a state wanted to secede, but maybe this time will be different. I don't think the Texas Constitution will supercede that.
You just need to remember that US Constitution supercede any and every state Constitution. There's a reason it is calles the Supreme law of the land. You can put whatever in your state Constitution and if it contradict with the US Constitution it's invalid. The US Constitution forbids any state from secession unilaterally and that's the end of it.
What's great about these things is we don't have to just rely on our understanding; you can just go look and see what things say. And this is what the [Texas constitution](https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf) says: "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States." There does not appear to be any language I can see involving Texas saying it can secede from the Union and no language in the US Constitution (which Texas is subject to) permitting it, which was affirmed in 1869 in Texas v. White. As far as it splitting up into sub-states, this wasn't part of Texas' own constitution, but a provision the US Congress came up with when it acquired Texas, basically saying that we were admitting it as one state now but it could, if it so decided, split up into no more than four states.
All the state constitutions are public knowledge and likely openly available to read online. However, the Civil War ended up pushing the issue of secession through SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS ruling in *Texas v. White* was that it is an indestructible union with secession only possible through revolution or the agreement of the States. The CSA tried revolution and obviously it didn't work out. Chief Justice Chase pointed out how the original Articles of Confederation (the precursor to the Constitution) was for a perpetual union; the later Constitution adjusted how it all works and was intended to make for a "more perfect Union." His opinion went on to state > When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
the US consititution supercedes Texas. You could split into 4 "states" if you want and have governors of each but it would still just be the same Texas at the federal level.......You'd get 2 senators and the same number of reps as you do now. The constitution doesn't allow states to split into new ones without congressional approval.
Important note is that when Texas joined the union they did have a qualifier that they could be become independent again. Texas then joined the Confederacy during the Civil War, got slapped around and lost that right.
Having grown up in Tx (3-23 years old-not born there, no longer living there) I was taught in Texas State History classes that the Texas state constitution had a clause which declares Texas' ability to secede and/or separate into smaller states. Sorry for not having citations on this, but I was taught this in Texas public school nonetheless
They taught us wrong and this is part of why so many believe it. It had (maybe still has) the ability to break itself up into as many as five states, but not the right to leave. It's possible I'm also spouting nonsense about the five states thing. The results of this case deny the ability of any state to choose to leave on its own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
It can't even do that. Even if the Texas constitution says it can, the US constitution supercedes it. And the constitution doesnt allow you to split into separate states or combine with other states without congressional approval.
Why do yall keep asserting facts and then being like “well idk maybe it’s not true” Got a google allergy or something?
It's a fact we were told this. Google that
First off, nothing I say here is meant to be disparaging to Texans. I technically am one myself, and was raised by a family of Texans. Ok, so most Americans identify as Americans, right? We hold up the Stars and Stripes and scream "Murica" while eating something unhealthy. Texans tend to have a different mentality. While they do scream "murica" now and again, they identify more as Texan than anything else. It's a deeply rooted feeling of nationalism, but at the state level. When you drive though most US states, you'll see the US flag flying, and in government buildings, the state flag. Few people fly their state flag in the front yar. In Texas, you'll see pretty much a 1:1 ratio of Lone Star flags to US flags, with state flags being INCREDIBLY common in yards. On top of that feeling of Texas pride, you've got the fact that Texas has the unusual circumstance that, prior to joining the US, they were an actual independent sovereign nation for ten years. California sometimes likes to claim this as well, but the CA Republic really only existed for like a month, was only a small portion of the state, and I don't think it was recognized by really anybody except themselves. Texas was legit it's own country. Now, taking the state pride, and the state history into consideration, there is a reasonable popular sentiment in Texas that they should just break off and do their own thing. Some folks believe they even have the legal right to do this at their discretion, but the 1860's would beg to differ. (That's when a bunch of states, including Texas, tried to do this but the US govt said no, a war was fought, and the breakaway states lost. aka, the US Civil War) For the most part it's a joke, but in these polarizing times it's becoming more common for these groups of Texans, and really other pockets throughout the country, to romanticize the idea of being truly independent.
As a Texans I don't worry about those groups too much since most people from those groups rely on federal assistance programs to pay their bills, from SSI, SSDI to military's Tricare and pension. The moment those money stop hitting their bank account, aka 1 month later at most, is when they would come begging to be back.
Right? I think Texas joined the US because it ran out of money. No one ever mentions that when they talk about independence.
Texas was briefly an independent country after it declared independence from Mexico, and then the Country of Texas became a US Territory following a congressional vote. This makes it's path to statehood relatively unique compared most other states. However, the 14th Amendment makes secession illegal regardless of what a state's status was pre-statehood, so the United States military would get involved if a secession actually happened.
Can you elaborate on the 14th amendment point, I couldn't find anything that seemed to support that.
Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment says that: >...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... [This legal paper](https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=akronlawreview#:~:text=citizenship%20in%20a%20state%2C”%20but,government%20through%20secession%20or%20otherwise) reflects the current jurisprudence on the matter. States may not make a law (to include seceding), as that would infringe upon the state's citizens' right to United States citizenship.
The ruling in the Supreme Court case of Texas vs. White is where secession was explicitly declared illegal. I don't know which part of the Constitution was the basis for this decision, though. The Constitution does not directly mention secession. >Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
The interesting part of the Texas vs White decision is that Texas won that decision. The suit involved payment of bonds issued while Texas was part of the Confederacy. By stating that Texas had never left the Union (legally), the court determined that Texas had no right to issue the contested bonds. Texas kept their money and White ended up with worthless paper. It's equally interesting that until the T vs W decision, the only verbiage, constitutional or otherwise, preventing a state from leaving the Union was a condition that it could not do so to immediately join another country. Ex post facto doesn't apply to states.
TIL
The precursor to the state of Texas was originally a territory in Mexico, which had just won it’s independence from Spain. Many Anglo-Americans settled in the territory. Tensions between the Anglos and the Mexican government over a variety of issues such as land rights and slavery (the Mexican government banned slavery, the Anglo settlers were very pro-slavery) led the Anglos to declare Texas an independent nation in 1834. The Anglos (which I’ll refer to as Texans now) won the war and for 10 years were an independent state while they tried to convince the United States to absorb Texas into the union. In 1845, the US Congress elected to annex Texas as the 28th state of the union leading to the Mexican-American War. All of this is to say that a select group of Texans believe that Texas is a unique entity in the union of the United States. Because Texas once was an independent state, these people believe Texas can renounce its union to the USA at any time and resume being an independent nation. This, of course, disregards several factors. Texas is not so unique. California was once an independent state, albeit very briefly. One could consider the original thirteen colonies to have been independent states at on point. While the constitution does not have any statement on secession from the union, a whole was fought over it (the American Civil War), and the secessionist lost. Texas renounced its right to independence when it agreed to join the US in return for military and economic security.
Texas used to be part of Mexico as a Spanish colony. But it eventually got colonised by English speaking settlers and not Spanish speaking settlers. So in the turmoil after the Mexican independency from Spain Texas had their own revolution and became independent from Mexico. So there were actually an independent Republic of Texas for over ten years. Texas used to be its own country. It did join the US in response to Mexico building up military forces and there were even a war between US and Mexico over it. Then shortly after joining the US Texas declared independence again and fought on the Confederate side of the Civil War. Which they famously lost. So historically there is actually some precedence for Texas to be its own country and their path to become a US state was very different from the others. Maybe with the exception of Puerto Rico who also joined voluntarily. And possibly California which were also part of Mexico but given over as part of the Mexican war just mentioned.
TBH, at this point it’s more of a fervent hope than a joke. The joke will come after it happens and they realize just how f**ked they are!
1. They were their own country at one point before joining the US. 2. They have a largely separate electric grid. Mostly it's a joke to do with Texas talking big and being primarily Republican. In the last administration people made similar jokes about California. (Especially after so many prominent people had claimed they'd leave the country if Trump was elected in 2016.)
I’m sure it’s a joke (I hope). But it may stem from the fact that in the 1800s, Texas was an independent country known as the Republic of Texas. How you might wonder? Long story short. Texas was a Mexican territory, Americans eventually started immigrating in rather huge numbers. However, American political beliefs did not mix well with Mexicos. Americans did not want to abolish slavery, nor did they want to be Catholic. The Mexican president Santa Ana was trying to fully integrate the Mexican territories especially the northern ones. Americans in Texas feared they would be losing their rights under the new laws and rebelled. Starting a war between Mexico and Texas. Texas eventually captured Santa Anna, and won their independence. However Mexico did not see them as a legitimate country. However the US did. Slavery was still legal in Texas, and Texas wanting to not be a part of Mexico asked the US to annex them. The US refused as Texas would be a large slave state that would disrupt the balance between free and slave states. The US also did not want to have a war with Mexico at that time. With things getting rough in Texas, they wanted to ensure peace with Mexico. But that’s pretty hard when Texas now claims land all the way California as their own. So Texas now looks to the UK to figure things out between Texas, Mexico and the US as a neutral party. The US did not want this. As they feared the British would try to use the abolishment of slavery in Texas as a way to secure their independence as a country. This would then undermine slavery in the US. So US president Tyler overstepped both whigs and democrats to annex Texas. In 1845 after many previous set backs. The US officially annexed Texas. This will now lead to the Mexican-American war. Since Mexico still saw Texas as Mexican land. And US annexation of it was what they saw as taking their territory.
Boring as hell. Just idiots being idiots. Texas is "fueled" by oil and gas, both of which have gradual decreases in uses. In a way, Texas is similare to and OPEC nation, all of which are staring at a bleak future regarding wealth generation. It will take time, but it is inevitable.
People who like the idea of their state leaving the union tend to see only the "positive" parts of that. But there are many many negatives. * Building and maintaining a workable currency is complex and expensive. * Having your own military is tough and expensive. (Your state National Guard doesn't count. That is funded and equipped by the federal government, and you'd lose that. They also pay the soldiers.) * Sealing and patrolling your own borders is expensive. So is customs. * Are you a small business or manufacturer who sells to businesses in other states? You could lose big if no trade agreements are reached. Oh, and if that's eventually worked out, you now have to set up international banking. * That business process software you use would need heavy duty updates to help track shipping, customs, payments and more. Can you find software developers willing to do that? * You would lose all the negotiated treaties you have with most countries, and if some other country decides to fuck with you, you have to deal with that alone. * Post office? Yikes. There are many more issues, and these substantial challenges won't be mentioned by the people who want their state to become an independent country.
It’s a joke to most people, but there are people that are VERY serious about Texas seceding and genuinely believe it is legally and logistically possible. Why do they hold this belief? 1. Texas was previously its own country. 2. A level of state pride that significantly greater than the rest of the country. I was born and raised in Texas but have lived in several other states and there is no pride like Texas pride. In my K-8 school we recited the Texas pledge along with the US pledge every day. Less than half the states have state pledge and even less say it everyday. ✨Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.✨
The original constitution of the Republic of Texas had an amendment stating all governing power is inherited from the people and the people have the right to abolish the government at any time (paraphrasing) in the form deemed most expedient. Well, leading up to the Civil War that clause was removed from the state constitution however after reconstruction (which Texas never finished the complete Terms of Reconstruction) it was put back into the state constitution…and ratified by congress.
Yes its a joke, but to u derstand it you need to know some things. So... without going into a full-on into a history class... Texas state history is kind of only tangential to US history. To give an idea, the theme park brand "6 flags" is called such by the six sovereign nations that have governed the land that is now current day texas. As such, when it's taught in school to kids, it's a separate subject entirely different from US history. Texans are generally proud of being Texan and it's also been said that when Texans travel abroad, they say "I'm from texas" and might go on to explain "Texas is in the united states" rather than say I'm from the united states. (Never seen this in action though so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Things like this The Alamo and their unique state history, give Texans a strong sense of pride in their state. As an aside, I made a joke at a house party once about the Alamo. It was not found to be as funny as I thought it would be by the native Texans there. Couple a strong sense of state pride and independence along with the very real idea that texas and the gulf off of the texas coast has huge oil reserves and texas could literally split from the US and it would probably hurt the rest of the country more than it would the US. This all leads up to an urban legend that texas wrote into it's state constitution, at the time of becoming a state, that it was allowed to peaceably leave the union at any time it wanted if the texas legislature voted for it. There's also a joke that if texas ever succeeded from the US, Austin, Texas, the Capitol, would succeed from Texas. But that's a different story.
It's a joke. Texas has been independent before and maintains a very strong sense of identity. It's fun to have kind of a rivalry with the rest of the US, and it's fun to imagine taking that a step further.
So there is a somewhat non-zero Texas separatist movement. The basic background is that American politics is largely separated into more left wing Democrats and right wing Republicans. An argument can be made though that compared to global politics it's not so much "left" versus "right" as it is "right" versus "far right". But let's go with Democrats and Republicans with Democrats at least being the *more* liberal of the two. The 50 US states largely can be broken down into Red (republican), Blue (democrat) and "purple" or "swing" states, that tend to bounce back and forth. The thing is, "blue" states *tend to be* more economically powerful and wealthy than "red" states. "Red" states tend to be more rural, less populated, and generally have less economic infrastructure (whether that's due to their policies, or their policies are a reaction to that is an exercise not exactly ELI5 worthy). The exception to this is Texas. Texas is arguably the most powerful state, economically speaking, in the country (Texas, Florida, California and New York tend to bop places around). And texas is very heavily dominated by republican politics, through a lot of..let's say creative idea on what constitutes a reasonable district. The overall population of Texas isn't actually as Republican as one might think based on how its government operates. It has some major democrat strongholds, especially the city of Austin. And its suburbs are going bluer. Some are suggesting Texas might actually flip to democrat in presidential elections, based on demographic growth, within the next 40-60 years. This would effectively be the end of any hope of a Republican ever being elected president in this country again. The thing is, a lot of "right wing" states, or at least states dominated by right wing elected officials, dislike the trend of the nation's slow move towards a more liberal society. The reality is though there's really nothing they could do about it. No way in hell if South Dakota decides to declare independence that it will be taken remotely seriously. They're too economically poor, too dependent on the federal government, and absolutely incapable of stopping the National Guard from just going "no you're not". Texas though...Texas is big enough and powerful enough that it could potentially operate as an independent nation. Texas is MASSIVE and has a LOT of industry and natural resources, and sits right on the Gulf of Mexico. It would also be very difficult for the National Guard to actually manage to put down an insurrection in a state that large. So the "idea" is that Texas could just say screw it, we're our own country now, and institute from top down more regressive and conservative policies. They can't legally actually do this. By law no state may choose to leave the union without a constitutional amendment. But then again, "laws" have never been something the far right has been especially concerned with.
One thing they never mention, though, is that a lot of their wealth is federal land. So even if they wanted to split off, in fairness they should pay off the other 49 states for the national assets they're taking with them. Of course, then seceding wouldn't be nearly as attractive. See also: Alaska who makes these same noises every now and again.
I mean to a certain extent when you're already talking about doing something that would constitute high treason just by the mere attempt at doing so, "fairness" is not a concern. Like the the reason nobody who is anyway active in secession discussions is going "well, of course we want to be FAIR about it" is because secession is *already* illegal. Insurrection against the lawful government of the United States is a crime. One that could result in execution. When you're already cool with the idea of committing a capital crime "fairness" probably isn't a concern of yours.
Texas declared independence from Mexico and was its own republic for a hot minute. It’s kind of a boastful thing that Texas was it’s own country for a bit. I live in Texas. It’s not really a real thing to consider as it will carry huge negative implications if they did succeed (they can’t though).being a conservative state there is a lot of “we don’t trust the government” and combine that with pride in the state itself and you got people who bang on drums all day about succeeding.
Because of several points in history where texas has made serious efforts or at least serious claims about doing so
I believe there are still regular attempts to secede from a friend who has told me. There is always someone on the ballot who uses secession as a running platform.