“E Pluribus Unum”?
State Secession in the Twenty-first Century, a Case Study of Texas
Jet Schoonderbeek Faculteit Geschiedenis, Archeologie en Regiostudies Universiteit van Amsterdam MA Thesis MA History: American Studies Thesis advisor: Dhr. Prof. Dr. R.V.A. Janssens Second reader: Dhr. Dr. E.F. van de Bilt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3 CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL ARGUMENT 9
§1.1 HISTORY OF TEXAS 9
§1.1.1 SECESSION FROM MEXICO: BIRTH OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS 10
§1.1.2 FROM ANNEXATION TO SECESSION: 1845-1861 11
§1.1.3 POST CIVIL WAR: THE LOST CAUSE MYTHOLOGY 13
§1.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION 16
§1.3 CONCLUSION 18
CHAPTER TWO: ECONOMIC ARGUMENT 20
§2.1 ECONOMY OF TEXAS 20
§2.1.1. PROSPERITY: INDUSTRIES, EXPORT AND THE OIL BOOM 21
§2.1.2. THE MIRACLE OF TEXAS? 22
§2.1.3. TAXES VS. FEDERAL SPENDING 24
§2.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION 27
§2.3 CONCLUSION 29
CHAPTER THREE: LEGAL ARGUMENT 31
§3.1 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION 31
§3.1.1. THE DEBATE ON STATES’ SOVEREIGNTY 32
§3.1.2 THE NATURE OF THE UNION AND THE CONSTITUTION 33
§3.1.3. THE CASE OF TEXAS 37
§3.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION 39
§3.2.1. THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS ORGANIZATION 39
§3.2.2. TEXAS NATIONALIST MOVEMENT 41
§3.3 CONCLUSION 42
CHAPTER FOUR: CULTURAL ARGUMENT 44
§4.1 TEXAS’ EXCEPTIONALISM 44
§4.1.1. THE ORIGINS OF TEXAS EXCEPTIONALISM 45
§4.1.2 EXCEPTIONALISM IN PRESENT DAY TEXAS 50
§4.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION 52
§4.3 CONCLUSION 53
CONCLUSION 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY 57
INTRODUCTION
In the wake of President Barack Obama’s re-election in November 2012, the government created a petition poll on the White House’s website We The People. These petitions have no legal status, and can be initiated by any United States’ citizen, yet after they reach 25,000 signatures within thirty days, the government has an obligation to respond to them. A petition that request “[the State] to secede from the United States and create its own new government” was signed by hundred thousands of citizens from various states.1 Even though these petitions largely carry a symbolic meaning, residents of all fifty states have signed a petition that request secession from the United States. Six states – Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Texas- rapidly reached the 25,000-signature threshold, the latter far exceeding this number with over 100,000 signatures during the first week. With a final signature count of 125,746, the secessionist sentiment was at its absolute high point in Texas, followed by Louisiana with a mere 38,991 signatures. Most secessionists feel that the main problem with America is its magnitude and that 300 million people cannot be governed from one central place. Some states feel that they should not be under control of Washington because they are too far away (Alaska) others feel that the American government has lost its authority and is run by Wall Street (Vermont). In Texas, the separatist movement sees legal and economic reasons to secede.
A person identified as Micah Hurd from Arlington, Texas, started the petition that requested Texas to leave the Union on November 9, 2012. It stated that
The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the Federal government’s neglects to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the State of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy of the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the Union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our Founding Fathers which are no longer being reflected by the Federal government.2
1https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0, accessed on Jan. 28, 2013.
2 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-texasamerica-and-create-its-own-new-government/BmdWCP8B, accessed on Jan. 28, 2013.
The NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, is a federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the US Department of Defense. US Congress oversees the defense budget and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
The TSA, or Transportation Security Administration, is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security that exercises authority over the security of the travelling public in the US. The TSA has been criticized of fostering a false sense of safety.
The petition triggered widely different responses; from counter petitions seeking the deportation of everyone who signed a secession petition (within a week, it received 24,000 signatures), to a petition that requested Austin to secede from Texas, in case Texas seceded from the United States.3 The official White House response, ‘Our States Remain United’ states that a healthy public debate is valued, but “we don’t let that tear us apart.” It furthermore emphasizes the legal arguments against secession and the need to work together to “strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way and protect our country.”4
The spur in neo-secessionist sentiment can be interpreted as a critique on the current Obama Administration. America, with a national debt of over $16 trillion, is seen as an economic oppressor to Texas, which holds the second highest Gross Domestic Product in the United States and is a net contributor to the Union. Another factor that is mentioned as prime motivator to the movement is race. “Do you think we’d have a secession movement in Texas and other places … if the President wasn’t African American?” poses Ken Burns, a Democrat and documentary maker, in a discussion about secession that followed Steven Spielberg’s new movie Lincoln. Burns is not the first who suggested that racism is an important stimulus for the movement. Earlier in November, a CNN news flash also suggested that racism spurred the movement. “Sympathizers of the secessionist movement have been using President Obama to antagonize and instigate fears of mainly poor and oppressed whites in which they appeal to their historical emotions of their ancestors losing the Civil War,” according to one critic of the movement.5
Modern day efforts to promote state secessionism in Texas have been active since the 1990s. Around this time, Richard Lance McLaren founded the Republic of Texas Organization (ROT), which was based on a belief that Texas was never legally annexed by the United States and therefore was an independent republic. The ROT created its own government, with its own embassy, laws and currency. In 1996, the group split into three factions of which two were marked as ‘terrorist groups.’6 The tactics of these two groups turned violent and several members of the group were imprisoned for taking hostages, committing fraud, and even planning an assassination attempt on President Bill Clinton. The movement fell into oblivion at the end of the decade after numerous scandals and fraudulent 3https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0, accessed on Jan. 28, 2013.
4https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/our-states-remain-united, accessed on April 27, 2013.
5 Joe Newby, Secession Petitions spurred by Racism, (Nov. 26, 2012),
http://www.examiner.com/article/documentary-maker-ken-burns-secession-petitions-spurred-by-racism
6http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=95, accessed on Aug. 15, 2013.
activities. The third faction, headed by Daniel Miller, steered clear of the violent and militant tactics and emphasized the need for a political approach. The Texas Nationalist Movement, headed by Miller, evolved from this last faction. From its foundation in the mid 1990s, the movement remained very small and insignificant, but started gaining more attention in 2009 after renewed Tea Party interest in the subject of secession. Prior to the gubernatorial nomination in 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry multiple times expressed a positive opinion about Texan secession. “Secede! Secede!” supposedly chanted the audience, while Perry wondered aloud if secession could be the outcome if Washington does not stop its ‘oppressive high spending’ and ‘dictatorial ways.’ “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression,” stated Perry at an anti-tax Tea Party gathering in Austin, quoting Texas’ first President Sam Houston.7
At the moment, the Texas Nationalist Movement claims to be the biggest secession party in Texas. Even though no specific numbers are available, the movement states they have 250,000 members, which is far less than one per cent of the total Texas population.8 According to the TNM president, Daniel Miller, the movement has quadrupled in the last months of 2012 and web traffic has gone up with 9000 per cent. Miller, on this increased interest: “We're slammed over here … it started mid-summer, we started noticing an uptick [in interest] … and then two weeks before the election, it just started going straight for the sky.” 9 Since membership numbers are not available and therefore hard to measure, Facebook provides us with an unexpected insight in the popularity of the movement. Where the Texas Democratic and Republican Party combined can hardly attract 70,000 ‘likes,’ the TNM far exceeds this number with over 170,000 ‘likes.’10 Even though Facebook quotas are no solid measure for membership numbers, it illustrates how popular the topic of secession is in the Lone Star state. The TNM’s main objective is to hold a referendum where Texans can decide on independence. They seek to fulfill this mission by working in three areas: political, 7 Nancy Gibbs, Governor Perry’s Tantrum: So What if Texas Secedes?, (Time Magazine, Apr. 22, 2009),
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1893497,00.html
It seems like Perry only used this ‘red rhetoric’ on the subject of secession to out rival his more moderate competitor Kay Bailey Hutchinson. After winning the elections in 2010, he distanced himself from this radical idea of secession and took a more moderate stance.
Daniel Miller acknowledged later that Perry’s comments led to a TNM membership surge, but that he personally is not a fan of the Governor. Perry wouldn’t even have mentioned secession at all, Miller said, if he and a few dozen others hadn’t been in the tea party crowd chanting the word at the time.
Nate Blakeslee, Revolutionary Kind, (Texas Monthly, Sep 2009). 8http://texnat.org/index.php/the-tnm/about-tnm, accessed on Nov 20, 2013.
9 Elizabeth Flock, Texas Nationalist Movement Claims Membership has skyrocketed 400 Percent, (US News, Dec. 4, 2012), http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/12/04/texas-nationalist-movement-claims-membership-has-skyrocketed-400-percent
10 This includes one ‘like’ from me, the undersigned, to stay up-to-date of TNM’s activities. It should therefore be noted that the amount of ‘likes’ says nothing about actual TNM-membership.
cultural and economic. Politically they seek to influence politicians and ultimately hold a referendum. Furthermore, they seek new support and aid other secessionist politicians, such as Larry Kilgore, who will join the gubernatorial elections of 2014. Culturally, they seek to preserve, celebrate and defend Texas’ history and culture. Economically, they will focus on promoting Texas goods and supporting a sound economic system and policies.
Since secession was ruled illegal in the Supreme Court decision Texas v. White (1869), and a majority of the Texans does not even want to secede, the aim of this thesis is not to examine if secession is possible or whether secession can be the outcome of the current debate. The interesting question and therefore the aim of my research is to examine why a small group of people still pursues secession. Given that secession is a) illegal, b) already failed once during the Civil War and c) there is no widespread popular support, why is there still a very persistent group trying to claim independence from the United States? This study aims to explain how we can understand a movement whose goals seem unattainable. To answer this question I have chosen to closely examine the arguments that are used by the secession movement since the 1990s. I have divided the arguments in four categories: historical, economical, legal and cultural. For each of these categories, this research is aimed at examining how the arguments reflect the underlying discontent. I will solely focus on the arguments put forward by the two most recent secession movements in Texas since the 1990s: The Republic of Texas Organization (ROT) and the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM). Since the ROT is no longer active and exclusively bases secession on legal reasoning, I will only examine their arguments in chapter three.
While some people have characterized the modern day secession movement as a red neck-gun owning-Republican voting fringe group that is openly racist and therefore anti-Obama, the aim of this thesis is to find a more articulate answer. It might be all too easy to say that the secession movement grew because the presidential election did not favor one of the reddest states in the country. There are various interpretations of how we have to understand the secession movement and their determination to secede. One important explanation can be that the movement wishes to be a protest voice against the current government. As expressed earlier in the Introduction, the issue of race is mentioned as one of the reasons for the spur in neo-secessionist sentiment and therefore the movement can be seen as a protest against the first African-American President. In 2008 we also witnessed the start of a major economic crisis and therefore ‘economic oppression’ and general dissatisfaction with the current government also seem to be motivating forces that can explain this increase. This anti-government feeling can be explained in two ways: it can either be seen as a
criticism to the current government, or as a criticism to the idea of an overreaching Federal government. The latter predicts a libertarian view on government in which the state does not interfere with certain public and private affairs.
The rise in both fictional and non-fictional books that discuss the decline of the ‘American Empire’ and the fragility of the US government shows the increased interest in the matter. Be it that some books have a more solid scientific base than others, the contemporary secession movement triggered widely different conclusions. For instance, Chuck Thompson jokingly says in reaction to his book Better off Without ‘em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession that Texas is a country with a small federal government, extremely weak trade unions, negligible income tax, a dominant Christian population, no mandatory health insurance, a strong social taboo on homosexuality and a shockingly open gun culture. “Sounds like a secessionist dream? Well, it’s no dream, this country already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”11 Paul Burka supports the statement that Texas should be one of the last states that should be willing to secede:
… It would be wise to view Texas exceptionalism with a skeptical eye. … You have to educate your citizens, but Texas runs forty-seventh in SAT scores and fiftieth in the percentage of its population over 25 with a high school diploma. The public needs health care, but we have more uninsured children than any other state and the highest percentage of the population without health insurance. Not very exceptional.12
The rise in fictional books about secession has developed into a new fantasy genre, with telling titles as Yellow Rose of Texas, Texas Secession and Lone Star Daybreak. In these novels, secession is advocated and in the majority of them, Obamacare is the culprit.13 Even though these books are either issued by small local presses or self-published, they carry the same message: Texas should break with the United States. It is interesting to note that these books were published a few months after the petitions on the We The People website unleashed the secession discussion. Since then, talk of secession has shortly entered the more mainstream debate. TNM president Daniel Miller simply sees it as an idea whose time had come:
This political and cultural disconnect between Texas and the federal system has been talked about for generations … Now, it has entered into mainstream political discourse. A lot of people in the opposition want to downplay this as extreme and fringe, but at our 11 Thompson, Chuck, Go Ahead and Secede Texas, I Dare you, (New Republic, Nov. 14, 2012)
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/110112/go-ahead-and-secede-texas-we-dare-you#
12 Paul Burka, The Secret of my Secession: Rick Perry is not the first Lone Star Politician to embrace the myth
of Texan Autonomy. Let’s hope he’s last’, Texas Monthly (2009). http://www.texasmonthly.com/2009-06-01/btl.php
13 Kriston Capps, Texas Forever, The Slate Book Review, Sep. 6, 2013,
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2013/09/texas_secession_novels_reviewed.html, accessed on Sep 21, 2013.
meetings in different counties, we’re sometimes drawing more people than the Democratic and Republican parties.14
In the next chapters, I will analyze the four arguments that characterize the modern day secession movement. By examining each of these arguments, this study aims to discover what the underlying discontent is that drives the wish to secede.
CHAPTER 1
HISTORICAL ARGUMENT - THE HISTORICAL CLAIM TO THE LONE STAR STATE The topic of secession is deeply rooted in the history of Texas, which has a long tradition of seceding. It is one of the few states in the United States that used to be an independent nation before it was annexed. “Six flags over Texas is not just the name of an amusement park,” states Juan Enriquez in his book The Untied States of America, in which he questions the Union’s indivisibility.15 France, Spain and Mexico all ruled over the territory that we now know as Texas. The Revolutionary War of 1836 created the independent Republic of Texas, which was annexed by the United States less than a decade later. The sixth flag is the Confederate flag, which flew over Texas after secession in 1861 until the Civil War ended the conflict in 1865 and Texas entered the United States again. This history of secession affects the state’s politics and identity from the nineteenth century to the present. It affected Texas’ decision to join the Confederate states in the Civil War and still echoes in the current day education system. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the historical claims of the secessionist movement by, first, looking at the history of Texas and, second, to have a closer look at the arguments that are used. In this way, we can examine how the historical argument is ‘misused’ to support the movement’s argument.
§1.1 HISTORY OF TEXAS
The first Europeans to explore the territory of Texas (Tejas) at the beginning of the sixteenth century were the Spanish. For over 160 years Spain paid little attention to the newly discovered region, until the French by accident established a colony there in 1684. For five years they ruled the area, defying Spain’s hope of one day linking the colony to Mexico. In 1691, Spain reclaimed the province of Texas, but it did not assert any strong control over the area. It was not until 1716 that Spain started to establish permanent settlements.16 After Mexico gained its independence in the war with Spain in 1821, the province of Texas was united with Coahuila to form the Coahuila y Tejas state. American (‘Anglo’) settlers were brought in the new state to protect against raiding Indians. This American expansion caused a dramatic demographic shift in the province: the Anglos outnumbered the Tejanos four to
15 Juan Enriquez, The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and our Future, (Crown: New York 2005) p. 46.
one.17 At first, most Americans and Tejanos lived happily alongside each other, but this good relationship deteriorated quickly. The main problem was slavery. Most American settlers were Southern farmers and often slaveholders, whereas slavery was forbidden in Mexico since 1829. American immigration rose and the relationship between Anglos and Tejanos grew increasingly hostile. This contrast between the Mexicans and the settlers planted the first seeds of Texas nationalism.18 In 1835, Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna issued a new series of laws that replaced the federal system with a new Constitution of Mexico. The centralized government that was installed by these laws, combined with the continuous political and cultural differences between the Mexicans and the settlers led to the Texas Revolution and Texas’ independence.19
§1.1.1 SECESSION FROM MEXICO: BIRTH OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
The Texas Revolution started in the fall of 1835. Santa Anna’s army was initially very successful in suppressing the rebellion. During the siege of the city San Antonio, the battle for the Alamo became an important moment in the revolution. The Alamo, a fortress in the city, was the site of the massive slaughtering of two hundred ‘Texans’ by four thousand of Santa Anna’s troops. The Texan army retreated but fought back a couple of months later, with a stronger army headed by Sam Houston. The reinforced troops surprised the Mexicans in the city of San Jacinto (near current day Houston) and cut Santa Anna’s army in half, supposedly shouting: “remember the Alamo!”20 Santa Anna was taken prisoner and held captive until he signed a treaty recognizing the independence of Texas.
With the signing of the Treaty of Valesco, Texas gained independence from Mexico. The first elections of 1836 appointed Sam Houston as President, who won a landslide victory due to his tremendous wartime popularity.21 The constitution stipulated that the first president would serve a two-year term and after that, presidents would serve for three years. Another outcome of the election was the ascertainment of public opinion that Texas should seek annexation by the United States.22 During Houston’s first term, this was one of the main objectives of his presidency. Fierce abolitionist opposition in the United States halted an annexation treaty and the focus of Houston’s presidency shifted to advocating peaceful 17 Boyer, Clark et al, The Enduring Vision. A History of the American People, (Cengage Learning, Boston 2011) p. 377-378.
18 Mark E. Neckman, A Nation within a Nation. The Rise of Texas Nationalism, (Port Washington, New York 1975), p. 13.
19 Boyer, Clark et al, The Enduring Vision, p. 378. 20 Connor, Texas. A History, 118.
21 Ibidem, 128. 22 Ibidem, 126.
coexistence with the Indians. This was one of the many problems that the new Republic of Texas was facing. There was a continuous threat that either the Mexicans or the Indians would invade the Texas territory, and there was an ongoing struggle over borders and the establishment of local government. This constant state of warfare left the army demoralized and the country bare and bankrupt.
Even though life and property remained in jeopardy with the continuous threat of raiding Mexicans and Indians at the borders, nationalism flourished during the early days of statehood. Propaganda about the greatness of Texas thrived in the north, were it was called the ‘Eldorado of the South.’23 The image of a land with endless possibilities, fair weather and fertile soil was very attractive for young men seeking adventure. From 1835 onwards, immigration from the northern American states to Texas grew steadily. Most of the immigrants were American fortune seekers who were awarded land grants if they fought in the Texas army; others were driven by stagnating economic conditions in the States.
Houston’s presidency ended after two years, and Mirabeau B. Lamar was elected president of Texas in 1838. He represented a more nationalistic view, advocating the deportation of all Native Americans and expansion to the Pacific Ocean instead of annexation by the United States. From the onset of the republic, internal politics were therefore divided in two factions: the nationalist faction headed by Lamar, and the unionist faction headed by Houston. According to Paul Burka, this is when two different visions on the future of Texas were developed. He calls Houston ‘the father of Texas independence’ and Lamar ‘the father of Texas nationalism.’24 Until the end of his presidency in 1841, Lamar fought several wars against the Indians, further exhausting Texas’ resources and army. When Houston was elected again in 1841, he negotiated a new peace with the Indians and struggled to avoid war with Mexico. Annexation with the United States remained Houston’s major goal. Texas’ offer to annex in 1838 was halted over slavery issues, but in 1843 new negotiations started.25
§1.1.2 FROM ANNEXATION TO SECESSION: 1845-1861
By the time the Treaty of Annexation was ratified by the Texas government in 1844, Anson Jones replaced Houston as President of the Texas Republic. Most provisions of the treaty were not in the best interest of Texas and it was extremely favorable to the Texans that the Treaty became the focus point of the American presidential elections of 1844. James K. Polk, who favored expansionism, won the election and changed the Treaty in favor of Texas. The 23 Neckman, A Nation within a Nation, 41.
24 Burka, The Secret of my Secession. 25 Connor, Texas. A History, 153-154.
Treaty stipulated that Texas should be admitted directly as a state, would keep its public lands, and would transfer public defense installations over to the United States. The resolution included one special provision: it could divide itself in as many as five states if it wanted, if the states created north of the Missouri Compromise (36°-30’) would be free states.26 On December 29, 1845 President Polk signed the Texas Admission Act, with which Texas officially became the 28th US State. The Lone Star flag was lowered on February 19, 1846, when the State government replaced the government of the Republic. For at least fifteen years, Texas would carry the Stars and Stripes of America.
After Texas was incorporated into the United States, the old boundary disputes between Texas and Mexico led to the Mexican-American war from 1846-1848. Mexico was defeated and gave up all its claims to the region of Texas and the southwestern areas of current day America. The expansion of US territory spurred tensions between the slave and free states. Almost all southern states threatened to secede in 1850 because Congress was set on making the acquired territories of the Mexican-American war enter the Union as free states, as did California and New Mexico. Secession would probably have been the outcome had not Henry Clay and Daniel Webster worked out a compromise.27 The stipulations of the Compromise of 1850 were heavily influenced by two major Texas problems: the boundary claims and the debt problem. The outcome of negotiations stipulated that Texas had to give up much of the territories west and north of its own borders, in exchange for transferring their state debt of $10,000,000 to the United States. This was a favorable settlement for Texas because the state, now removed from debt, could open itself up for a new era of prosperity.
Texas not only attracted settlers from America. The failed revolutions in Europe of 1848 drove German and Czech settlers to Texas. A large part of the economy relied on slave labor and the number of slaves increased from 5,000 in 1836 to 182,566 in 1860, nearly a third of the total population.28 The rising tide of secession sentiment in the south did not reach Texas until late in 1860. When it became known that Abraham Lincoln was elected, radical secessionists assembled meetings throughout the state. The secession convention that was called on January 28, 1861, passed a resolution that Texas should secede from the United States. This resolution was passed by the convention with an overwhelming vote of 166 to 8.29 Texas issued a declaration that explained the reasons for secession. The document mostly 26 Joint resolution of the annexation of Texas available on: https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/-abouttx/annexation/march1845.html.
27 Connor, Texas, A History, 161-162. 28 Ibidem, 183.
focused on white supremacy and pro-slavery arguments, but also declared its disappointment in the Federal government for failing to protect the Republic against Indian attacks and other border problems.30 The elections that were held on February 23 had very clear results: secession was approved by 46,129 to 14,697, an overwhelming seventy-six percent.31 When the secession convention assembled on March 5, it repealed the ordinance that approved annexation by the United States of 1845, as well as the US constitution. Texas officially joined The Confederate States of America (CSA).
Along with six other states -starting with South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana- Texas formed the CSA. When the northern states of the USA refused to recognize the CSA as a nation, the Confederate states hastily claimed all the land that was within their borders. Hostilities began when the United States did not surrender Fort Sumter in Charlestown, South Carolina. At this moment four other states –Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina- followed and joined the CSA.32 During this conflict that is known as the Civil War, the CSA fought the United States over territory, states rights versus federal rights, but most of all the issue of slavery. For four years both armies fought forcefully but due to various economic, social, military and diplomatic factors, the north eventually triumphed. The war ended at Appomattox, Virginia, where the Confederate’s most successful army, headed by General Robert E. Lee, was defeated.33 The most important outcome of the war was that slavery was abolished with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. By 1877, all former Confederate states were officially part of the Union again, and were in charge of their own domestic affairs. The abolishment of slavery had made place for a continuing feeling of white supremacy in the south.34
§1.1.3 POST CIVIL WAR: THE LOST CAUSE MYTHOLOGY
The war had left the CSA completely defeated because most of the fighting had taken place in the south. Morale was low and the war had done much damage to the South’s railway system and economy. The north celebrated its victory and returned to life as it was before. In the Reconstruction Era that followed the end of the war, northern Republican policymakers focused on the transformation of the former Confederate states and on the reconstruction of 30 The full Declaration can be found on: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp.
31 Connor, Texas, A History, 194.
32 Two other states, Missouri and Kentucky were later added to the Confederacy, even though they never officially declared secession or were ever controlled by Confederate forces.
33 Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan (eds.), The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, (Indiana University Press, 2000), 11-12.
society and state. Most southerners felt that these policies were very rigorous and bitterly accepted that the newly freed slaves destroyed their slave-based economic system. It was during this period of Reconstruction, that a ‘Lost Cause of the Confederacy’ mythology dominated Texas and other states of the South. The Lost Cause mythology created a new culture in the South, distinct from the North. The doctrine concentrated on the constitutionality of secession, the reasons for defeat and the institution of slavery and tried to put these in the best possible light. It embraced various beliefs, such as Southern military supremacy during the War, Robert E. Lee’s greatness, and how not slavery but states’ rights were the central factor for going to war.35 With the creation of this ‘myth’ and the need for an alternate story of the war, former Confederates tried to justify their war effort and see something positive in the defeat. This ultimately led to two independent ‘versions’ of the war. The justification of secession at first only dominated in the southern states, but later on also reached the north. Edward A. Pollard coined the term ‘Lost Cause’ in 1867, when he published The Lost Cause: The Standard Southern History of the War of the Confederates. After that, several studies were published to promote a heroic image of the war and secession to reclaim the South’s honor. One could say that the objective was to hide the Confederate’s defeat and mistakes.
The influence of the myth is a fiercely debated topic among historians, of which some claim that it only played a marginal role at the turn of the century, while others have found much evidence of its use in the mid- and late twentieth century.36 However, according to Gary Gallagher, Professor of Civil War History, it is evident that in the 1870’s and 1880’s many ex-Confederate’s embraced the Lost Cause myth and it became part of their cultural faith. It stayed present in the South for a long time, while the overt discussion about secession had ended. The legacy of the Lost Cause mythology is still visible today in numerous organizations that link themselves to Confederate soldiers, such as ‘Sons of Confederate Veterans.’ This group was established in the late nineteenth century, and according to their website have seen a membership increase since the 1990s.37 Furthermore, they state:
The Sons of Confederate Veterans is a voluntary association of male descendants of those who served the Confederate States of America in the Confederate Army or Navy. We invite all of those who are eligible for membership to apply and multiply their individual abilities through the power of association. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is neither political nor sectional; (…) The SCV strives to honour and keep alive 35 Kevin M. Levin, William Mahone, The Lost Cause, and Civil War History, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 113, No. 4 (2005), p. 379-380.
36 Gary W. Gallagher, The Myth of the Lost Cause, 2-3.
37 Website of Sons of Confederate Veterans, Texas Division, http://www.scvtexas.org/What_Is_The-_SCV.html, accessed on November 3, 2013.
the memory of the Confederacy and the principles for which Confederates fought, thus giving the world an understanding and appreciation of the Southern people and their brave history.38
Without having a clear political goal, or a wish to secede, they clearly emphasize the cultural inheritance of the old Confederacy. Other visible symbols of the myth are the statues of Confederate heroes on the campus of the University of Texas.39 Even though there is much controversy on whether these statues of General Robert E. Lee and former CSA president Jefferson Davis romanticize the War, the statues have been there for almost a century.
Since Texas had not been the main site of battlefield during the war and was therefore largely intact, it was a welcoming place for old Confederates to settle. During and shortly after the war, Texas carried on its rebel identity and Texans took pride in their history of independence by embracing nationalistic symbols and collective commemorations of their glorious past.40 After the Supreme Court ruling Texas v. White in 1869, it became clear that secession was illegal and the ‘rebel identity’ made place for the ‘myth of indivisibility of territory,’ which stipulated that secession was treasonous, illegal and prohibited. However, the idea that Texas was ‘different’ because of its history as an independent nation still is visible today, for instance in Texas’ schooling system where children in elementary school are taught multiple courses in the state’s history.41
This ‘different identity’ that I will describe later on in this thesis, was the reason that Texas in 2011 did not celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War because it would “reopen wounds that have not yet healed.”42 Paul Burka describes this as the two different ‘Texases’ that are still visible in modern day Texas:
… Two very different Texases [sic] that Houston and Lamar imagined still contend in the public imagination. Houston's Texas is grounded in interdependence, Lamar's in self-sufficiency. Houston's embraces change and modernity; Lamar's resists them. Houston's looks to the future; Lamar's celebrates our mythic past. These two Texases have waged intense political battles over the years.43
In the next paragraph, we will have a closer look at the historical arguments that the modern day movement uses to support their claim of secession. As I have stated in the Introduction, I will solely base my research on the arguments put forward by the ROT and the TNM.
38 Website of Sons of Confederate Veterans, Texas Division, http://www.scvtexas.org/What_Is_The_-SCV.html, accessed on November 3, 2013.
39 Don Graham, Dunces of Confederacy, http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/dunces-confederacy, accessed on November 20, 2013.
40 Andrew F. Lang, “Upon the Altar of Our Country”: Confederate Identity, Nationalism and Morale in
Harrison County, Texas, 1860-1865, Civil War History, Vol. 55, No. 2 (June 2009) p. 306.
41 Ibidem, 283.
42 Linda Wheeler, Texas Passes on Secession Anniversary, Civil War Times, Vol. 50, Issue 3 (June 2011), p.15.
§1.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION
Since the ROT mostly focuses on legal arguments, I will have a closer look on the arguments that are expressed by that organization in the third chapter. The TNM uses various platforms to assert their claims for secession, such as their website, an official Facebook page, and Daniel Miller’s publication Line in the Sand (2011).44 In this book, Miller tries to convey the message that secession is the only possible way to save Texas: “As we groan under the weight of a Federal Government on a collision course with reality, we have to look to the past, present and future to find our path. We have to rekindle the fire that was lit by past Texans and use it to light the way to the future.”45 A large part of the discussion about secession is rooted in Texas’ tumultuous past. If secession has happened before, why can’t it happen again? Simplistic as this argument may be, one can understand how this rhetoric appeals to people’s emotions. The TNM sees Texas’ distinct history of independence as one of the main reasons why secession today is possible. Miller states:
Our history is the story of us. From the settling of Austin’s colony, to the walls of the Alamo, to the plains of San Jacinto, to the King Ranch, to the Menger Hotel and Spindletop, our history is unique, special and distinct to Texas. Filled with struggle, hardship, prosperity, war, corruption and triumph, it is a history that we share as Texans. It is filled with inspirational and cautionary tales. It is a distinct history that can be claimed by no one but Texas.46
To prove his point, in his book Miller focuses on three historical ‘events’: first, the Texas Revolution, second, the Texas constitution and the right to self-determination and third, the so-called ‘irregularities’ that occurred in the annexation process. First, Miller widely expands on the struggle for independence from Mexico that started in 1835. He invokes heroic images of war heroes and famous battles to once more promote the struggle for independence. He starts his book by quoting Texas first President Sam Houston: “Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations.”47 While Houston wrote these famous words in a letter to fellow Unionists in 1841, Miller uses them to make an argument for secession: “Those words, offered by Sam Houston, were strange when first uttered and are now strangely prophetic. He believed that even though Texas had become a State in the Union, that it was one day
44 The title Line in the Sand refers to the battle for the Alamo, where Colonel William Travis supposedly drew a line in the sand with his sword and asked the defenders of the Alamo who joined him in battle. Travis and his men notoriously lost the battle and the Alamo remained an important commemorative point in the war for Independence.
45 Daniel Miller, Line in the Sand, (Texas National Press, 2011) 23. 46 Ibidem, 71, 72.
destined to stand on its own.”48 Interestingly enough, this was more or less the opposite of what Houston, who at that time sought annexation by the United States, meant with these words. Miller distorts Houston’s ‘prophetic’ words in a way that make secession seem feasible.
Second, Miller refers to a ‘distinct political philosophy’ that is characteristic for Texas, which implies that the political power has always been inherent in the people. Miller touches upon one of the fundamental issues of secession: the right to self-determination. To prove his point, Miller quotes article 1, section 2 of the Texas Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform and abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.49
According to Miller, Texas is ‘robbed’ from this fundamental right:
… this is the equivalent of saying that armed robbery is legal if the robber is successful in his crime. Just as robbery is morally and legally wrong and the violence initiated to achieve this goal is also morally and legally wrong, so is the use of violence to deny the fundamental right of self-government. Just like a victim of a robbery will work to reclaim their property, we will work to reclaim our right of determination and self-government. Only then will the issue be settled.50
Miller furthermore explains that the main reason why Texans fought the Mexicans during the Texas Revolution was the defending of their basic rights. This feeling has, according to Miller, never left Texas and makes that its inhabitants do not want to be run by others. The root of this philosophy is the reason why settlers came to Texas in the first place: they wanted to be left alone. The inherent distrust of government is rooted in the deep hate against the Mexican government in the 1830’s and has led to the belief that Texas is best off alone.51
The third and last historical argument that the TNM uses is that there were some ‘irregularities’ in the annexation process of Texas in 1845.
… Texas was a recognized foreign nation at the time of annexation. The proper constitutional procedure for dealing with foreign nations is by treaty. The treaty of annexation, ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Texas, was not ratified by the United States Senate. The United States Congress passed a Joint Resolution of Annexation which was offered to the Republic of Texas. It was accepted by the convention and put to a vote of the people of Texas. While assent to the agreement is consistent with the laws and Constitution of the Republic of Texas, there are those who assert that the annexation of Texas was an unconstitutional act by the Federal 48 Miller, Line in the Sand, 21.
49 Ibidem, 78.
50http://texnat.org/index.php/intro-to-texas-independence/answers-about-independence?faqid=6, accessed on Jan. 14, 2014.
Government. In addition, the Supreme Court’s dicta in Texas v. White regarding “indestructible states” and the lack of a severability clause in the agreement lead others to say that any enforcement of Texas v. White invalidates the annexation agreement altogether.52
By saying that “there are those who assert the annexation of Texas was an unconstitutional act,” -and leaving it up to the reader who ‘those’ are, the TNM is not making a strong argument to prove their point. Furthermore, they state that, again, ‘others’ say that enforcement of Texas v. White is invalidated by the annexation agreement. Without relating to the content of the agreement or making any valid argument that supports this claim, the TNM presents a populist version of the facts that has no ground whatsoever.
§1.3 CONCLUSION
According to the TNM, the distinct political philosophy that sets Texas apart from other states is deeply rooted in Texas’ past. This historical claim to secession stems from the Lone Star state’s earlier quest for independence. TNM’s political department uses this rationale even today in its campaigns:
Campaigns for liberty and independence always involve sacrifice. Our struggle for independence is best and often compared with the first campaign for Texas Independence of 1836, the only difference is theirs was a military campaign and ours is a political one. Having a strong PAC [Political Action Committee] is how political campaigns are won and we must begin to build our PAC now to be effective in the campaigns of 2014.53
To support this line of reasoning, the TNM focuses on three historical events. First, it emphasizes Texas’ earlier struggle for independence. The argument that ‘Texas was independent once, so it can be independent again,’ is overtly simplistic yet lies at the basis of the entire movement. Interestingly enough, the image of President Sam Houston is repeatedly invoked to support the idea of Texas independence. This stands in sharp contrast to the image of Houston in the historiography as a supporter of American annexation.
The second argument is that the right of self-determination that was spelled out in the Texas constitution allows Texans to secede whenever they want. The Bill of Rights states that all political power is inherent in the people who at all times have the inalienable right to alter their government. While this thesis is not aimed at addressing the complex discussion about states’ rights versus federal rights, the TNM claims that secession would have been the outcome if they relied on article 1 of the Texas constitution. The TNM seems to forget that only a very small minority of the Texans is in favor of secession. To create more awareness 52http://texnat.org/index.php/intro-to-texas-independence/answers-about-independence?faqid=4, accessed on Jan. 14, 2014.
for their cause, TNM knows that a political approach is the only suitable one. For this reason, the TNM and the PAC try to find a political solution and get more secessionists into office, such as the candidate Larry ‘SECEDE’ Kilgore, who has joined the gubernatorial elections of 2014.54
The third argument that there were some ‘irregularities’ with the annexation of Texas lacks any rationalization or evidence. In my opinion, these three arguments are upheld to provoke and aggravate feelings of discontent about the current state of Texas. Since all three arguments are false and inaccurate, they tend to appeal to people’s emotions rather than their rationale. In the next chapter I will examine which economic arguments the secession movement uses and why Texas should break with the Union.
54http://texnat.org/index.php/tnm-pac, accessed on Jan. 15, 2014. Kilgore legally changed his middle name to ‘SECEDE’ in 2012.
CHAPTER 2
ECONOMIC ARGUMENT – CAN TEXAS SURVIVE ON ITS OWN?
In the previous chapter, the argument for secession was somewhat ‘hidden’ in the state’s history. To some extent, Texas’ earlier independence ‘proved’ that the state could be independent again. The economic arguments for secession try to prove the same point by emphasizing the greatness of the Texas’ economy, and its ability to –hypothetically- stand on its own. When talk about secession started, pro-secessionists immediately were faced with the question of economic independence and if Texas could ‘survive on its own.’ Texas has a strong economy, carrying the second highest Gross Domestic Product of the United States, after California. Furthermore, based on its GDP, Texas has the fourteenth largest economy in the world.55 “Our economy is about 30 percent larger than that of Australia. If Australia can survive on its own, I don’t think we’ll have any problem at all surviving on our own in Texas,”56 stated Larry Kilgore in 2009, prior to his entrance in the Texas gubernatorial elections of 2010. Kilgore, who is also running in the 2014 election, emphasizes economic oppression as the main reason why Texas should withdraw from the Union. The strong economic position of Texas in combination with the wealth of its resources hypothetically makes the state an excellent candidate to ‘survive on its own’. This chapter is aimed at examining the Texas’ economy and explores the economic arguments that are put forward by the secession movement.
§2.1 ECONOMY OF TEXAS
Texas has one of the largest and fastest growing economies of the United States. The natural resources such as cotton and timber have given Texas an enormous amount of wealth prior to the Second World War, and have contributed to the image that Texas’ economy is ‘different’ and ‘untouchable’. This image is in some way still visible today when people speak of the ‘Texas miracle,’ or the fact that Texas for long was unaffected by the current financial crisis. The next paragraphs will expand on the economic situation in Texas and discuss its exceptional strong economic position.
55 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
http://www.bea.gov-/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm accessed on Jan. 24, 2014.
56Manny Fernandez, With Stickers, a Petition and even a Middle Name, Secession Fever hits Texas, (The New York Times, Nov. 22, 2012), accessed on: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html?_r=0
§2.1.1. PROSPERITY: INDUSTRIES, EXPORT AND THE OIL-BOOM
To examine this supposed ‘economic superiority’ I will have a closer look at various economic characteristics that we take into account when we assess the economic conditions of a country or state such as GDP, export numbers and unemployment rates. As mentioned before, prior to the Second World War Texas had a predominantly agricultural economy that relied on its natural sources of timber, cotton, oil and cattle. The war created an enormous demand for the oil and defense industries and gave Texas the unique advantage to supply these goods. Texas transitioned from an agricultural state to a more industrialized one, while creating a very diversified economy.57 Nowadays, the economy of the Lone Star state relies on aeronautics, defense (both military facilities and defense contracting), computer- and information technology and biotechnical research, but first and foremost on the production of oil and gas.58
Texas has been the top exporting state in the nation for twelve consecutive years. In 2013 Texas’ export totaled $279.7 billion, which was almost eighteen percent of the United States’ total.59 Its strategic location on the sea makes the state an excellent export partner. Furthermore, Texas has the most United States’ entry ports and prides itself in having the largest rail- and road infrastructure. The lion’s share of the export is in the petroleum and coal sector, followed by computer and electronic products, chemicals and heavy machinery. More than a third -36%- of the total exports are directed to its southern neighbor: Mexico. Other valuable trading partners are Canada, China, Brazil and the Netherlands.60 In 2013, based on its GDP of $1.2 trillion, Texas was the second largest economy in America after California and the fourteenth economy in the world. It is home to three of the top ten companies of the 2013 Fortune 500 list, namely Exxon Mobil, Philips 66 and Valero Energy, and houses fifty-two Fortune 500 companies over all.61 Approximately a third of these companies operate in the energy sector.
Since 2008, the natural gas and oil production of the United States has increased with forty percent, due to the discovery of new drilling procedures, known as fracking. Controversial as this method may be, it decreases America’s independence on foreign energy markets such as Russia or OPEC- members. In 2013, only 37% of the total oil consumption 57 Connor, Texas, A History, 353-355.
58 Ibidem, 382-383.
59 US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/state/data/tx.html accessed on Feb. 13, 2014.
60 Ibidem.
61Fortune 500, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/index.html?iid=F500-sp_full, accessed on Jan. 26, 2014.
was imported, down from 50% in 2012 and nearly 70% in 2009.62 The surge in production was mostly visible in Texas, where natural gas and oil production went up with 86% from 2008 to 2012. According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2013 Texas was the leading oil-producing state in the country and accounted for almost thirty percent of the total US refining capacity.63 In addition to the economic advantages and the importance of securing energy markets, the oil boom created an enormous amount of jobs in Texas. The new drilling techniques caused a rise of 50% of employment in the energy sector; rising from 163,000 jobs in 2007 to 244,000 in 2012.64 In 2013, Texas added more jobs than any other state and for the fourth consecutive year, it led the nation in job growth.
§2.1.2. THE MIRACLE OF TEXAS?
The combination of export possibilities, new drilling techniques, job growth, and low unemployment rates gave Texas the image of the state the recession supposedly passed by. With its high GDP, export numbers and booming energy industry, Texas’ economy clearly stands out from the rest of the nation. According to some, Rick Perry’s conservative economic policies of low taxes and small government can be attributed to Texas’ wellbeing. For instance, Texas has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country because citizens and businesses pay no individual income tax and corporate income tax.65 Skeptics of Governor Perry’s policies say that Texas’ favorable economic position is mainly owed to the high prices on the energy market and the rise in immigration. In this paragraph, I will examine how recession-proof the Texas economy really is.
While the rest of the country’s economy was in recession as a result of the financial meltdown in 2008, Texas business was growing and adding more jobs. During his Presidential campaign in 2012, Rick Perry started to refer to this job growth as the ‘Texas miracle’ and it has since then become an expression to indicate how the recession supposedly passed by Texas. Perry says that the loose regulations and low tax policies that were implemented during his fourteen-year long tenure caused this ‘miracle’. Even though the numbers don’t look quite as sensational when closely inspected –in 2011 unemployment in Texas was 8,2%, just below the United ’s 9,1%- they are still better than the national 62 David Blackmon, The Texas Shale Oil & Gas Revolution – Leading the way to enhanced Energy Security,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/03/19/the-texas-shale-oil-gas-revolution-leading-the-way-to-enhanced-energy-security/, accessed March 21, 2014.
63 US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-3, accessed on April 14, 2014.
64 Ibidem.
average.66 Moreover, the boom in jobs has not necessarily resulted in the highest paying jobs in America, since Texas houses one of the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the country and the income per capita is much lower than the nation’s average.67 So, why do we speak of the Texas miracle?
Generally, the job surge is seen as a result of the enormous population growth in Texas.68 Since 1990, the Texas’ population has increased twice as fast as the nation’s average.69 This increase is generally attributed to the rapid economic growth after the 1986 oil boom and the very diversified economy that was expanding since the 1970s. Conservatives argue that Americans are ‘voting with their feet’ and are fleeing from states with high taxes and excessive regulation. For them, job creation is more cause than consequence of the population growth. Furthermore, they argue that loose tax regulations and relatively cheap housing made the state a welcoming environment for both people and businesses. The most obvious explanation for the job surge can therefore be found in population growth. The surge in population automatically means an increase in government employment, since the growth required the state to invest more in public schooling, healthcare and infrastructure. Another explanation for the job surge can be found in the oil boom that started in 2008. Similar to the 1986 oil boom, new drilling techniques created many jobs in the oil sector. Defenders of the economy’s exceptional position will argue that the population growth and the oil boom are the main reasons for the ‘Texas miracle’. But can we state that Texas’ economy is recession proof?
Opponents of Governor Perry question the impact of the oil boom on the job market. They state that only 8% of the newly created jobs is involved in oil and gas production and argue that Texas’ high GDP is solely owed to the high prices on the energy market.70 Government employment almost doubled that same period, so critics argue that Texas’ wellbeing is solely the work of government spending. Moreover, they state that the net domestic migration numbers are not that impressive, and cannot be held accountable for the job growth. From the Democratic side comes a lot of critique on another part of the conservative narrative: the tax system. Indeed, Texas is one of the few states that do not have an income tax, but critics say that the burden on low-income families is much higher than the national’s average and that small-businesses do not profit from the ‘business friendly’ taxes. 66 Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost, accessed on April 14, 2014.
67 Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_tx.htm, accessed on April 24, 2014. 68 Michael A. Fletcher, Going to the Heart of Texas’ Miracle, The Washington Post August 21, 2011.
69 United States Census Bureau, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html, accessed on May 3, 2014. 70 Philip Longman, The Texas Miracle that wasn’t, Washington Monthly, (April 2014).
A much-heard critique is that this business friendly tax system only benefits big corporations and neglects small business and low-income families. This puts Texas in the top five of most regressive tax structures in the nation.71
For the fiscal year (FY) 2010, Texas was looking at a budget deficit of $6.6 billion. The budget crisis is seemingly caused by taxes that were lowered in 2006, in combination with lower sales tax revenue due to the current recession. In 2009, Governor Perry managed to fill the budget gap with $6.4 billion in government funding, more than all but two other states.72 With no further government aid in sight and with a budget shortfall of $9 billion for the next fiscal year, Perry resorted to extensive cuts in health care and education, where it already ranks last or at the bottom of the United States’ scale.73 Moreover, since part of the job growth was due to government spending, this could have severe consequences for Texas’ economy. According to state comptroller Susan Combs, Texas in 2014 faces an $8.8 billion surplus due to revenue from the oil industry and sales taxes. With its vast natural resources, growing population and export market, Texas is of vital importance to the United States’ economy. On the other hand, during the recession, the Lone Star state had to depend on federal support -much to Governor Perry’s dislike. In the next paragraph, I would like to elaborate on how federal money is spent, and if we can conclude that the relationship between Texas and America is mutually beneficial.
§2.1.3. TAXES VS. FEDERAL SPENDING
The population growth that Texas has witnessed since the 1990s has required the state to invest more in public schooling, healthcare and infrastructure. On the one hand, this has caused a major job surge; on the other it creates a tension between the conservative principles of small government and low taxes. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Governor Perry managed to close the budget shortfall with a government stimulus of $6.6 billion. However, this did not help closing the budget for FY 2010-2011, and severe cuts had to be made.74 For instance, a $5.4 billion cut in public education was issued for 2011, to much dismay of Democratic lawmakers. Texas is infamous for its low ranking in comparison to other states on various social issues such as education, healthcare and social 71 The Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy, www.itep.org, accessed June 3, 2014.
72 Brad Plumer, Breaking Down Rick Perry’s Texas Miracle, Washington Post (October 15, 2011), accessed via http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/breaking-down-rick-perrys-texas-miracle/2011/08/15/gIQAzRHFHJ_blog.html on June 14, 2014.
73 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711, accessed on June 14, 2014.
74 Texas is one of the few states who works with a two-year budget system. For FY 2011-2012 the prognosis van adjusted.
security. The severe cuts that were issued seemed a doom scenario for the state where one in four inhabitants does not have health insurance. The surplus that was created for FY 2013 did nothing to reverse the spending cuts and Governor Perry seemed hesitant towards funding some of these social issues. After the state comptroller released the 2013 budget he stated:
There are interests all across the state that view [the] revenue estimates as the equivalent of ringing the dinner bell. However … we have to remember that [the] revenue estimate represents not a chance to spend freely, but an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the very policies that have made Texas economically strong.75
Much to Democrats’ dislike, Perry stays true to his conservative ideals and asked lawmakers to support his ‘Texas Budget Compact’, in which he promises to “oppose any new taxes or tax increases, preserve a strong Rainy Day Fund and cut the unnecessary and duplicative government programs and agencies.”76
The fact that Texas has been a net contributor to the Union from 1981-2005 –it received an average of 80 cents for every dollar it paid the Union77- can explain Perry’s hostility towards the federal government. These numbers are calculated by the Tax Foundation, whose latest 2005 report on taxes versus federal spending per state is seen as one of the few unbiased studies on this topic. There are no up-to-date studies. In his 2009 book Fed Up! Perry describes his fight against Washington’s overreach. “Join our fight and add your voice to a growing list of several thousand Americans who are fed up with this irresponsible spending that threatens our future,”78 states Perry on his website. The Governor, whom later that year would express a positive opinion about secession (see quote on p. 5 in the Introduction) firmly isolates himself from the overreaching and oppressive ways of Washington.
Interestingly, Perry distances himself from the government around the time that Texas has taken full advantage of federal spending. This significant role of government is in sharp contrast to the image that has been cultivated by Perry. On his website, there is not even a mention of the budget crisis or the federal stimulus. Responding to the assertion that Texas was dependent on federal money, a governor’s spokesperson stated: “Texas would have balanced its budget regardless of the presence of stimulus dollars. This money came from the
75 Rick Perry, quoted in: Manny Fernandez, Texas Budget surplus proves as Contentious as previous Shortfall, (New York Times, January 8, 2013).
76https://rickperry.org/texas-budget-compact, accessed on June 20, 2014.
77 The Tax Foundation, http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-.pdf, accessed June 14, 2014.
pockets of Texas’ taxpayers, and we are committed to getting our fair share of these dollars, which would have otherwise been disbursed to other states”.79
The discussion if Texas can supposedly stand on its own, is immediately superseded by the question how Texas will survive without federal spending. Texas likes to maintain the image that it has a strong economy that can stand on its own, and it does not need aid from the government to retain this position. This image is not entirely true. Even though Texas can seemingly ‘stand on its own’ with its high GDP, thriving export and growing job market, it is very much dependent on government funding. Besides on various apparent social issues such as welfare, education and Medicaid, Texas receives a lot of government funding on government employment and military spending.
Government employment has witnessed an enormous growth over the past decade and is part of the reason why we still talk about the ‘Texas miracle’. Whether Americans ‘voted with their feet’ –i.e. moved to Texas for new job opportunities- or jobs were created following the population growth; federal employment rose with more than 7 percent.80 Moreover, a steady stream of government funding has always aided military spending. Texas houses four major –and several smaller- military bases in America and is home to various large defense and technology companies, such as Lockheed Martin –who is currently fabricating the Joint Strike Fighter. According to a Bloomberg-led study in 2011, Texas ranks third in the state on the subject of defense funding and no less than 8% of the entire defense budget is reserved for the Lone Star state. Lockheed Martin, one of the prime suppliers of the American army, received $13.3 billion in funding that same year.81
Texas wants to maintain the image of an independent, self-reliant state that is ‘fed up’ –in the words of its Governor- with Washington’s oppressive rules and spending. The firm Republican rhetoric that is used makes the distribution of the tax burden and tax spending a frequent issue of debate. At first sight, Texas may appear as an exemplary state that seemingly did not suffer from the 2008 recession. On closer inspection however, Texas needed federal aid, much like many other states. The severe spending cuts in welfare, health care and education seemed like a doom scenario for the state that already ranks low on all of these issues. In the next paragraph, I will examine what the modern day secession movement says about economic independence.
79 Lucy Nashed, quoted in: Tami Luhby, Texas’s love/hate relationship with Washington’s money, CNN
(January 24, 2011) accessed via
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus.
80 Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/ces_tx_us_nsa.pdf, accessed on June 25, 2014. 81 Impact of Defense Spending, a State-by-state Analysis, http://forbes.house.gov/uploadedfiles/-bloomberg.pdf, accessed June 25, 2014.
§2.2 ARGUMENTS FOR SECESSION
When the Texas Nationalist Movement in 2012 witnessed a surge in general interest for the movement as well as a surge in membership, the economic meltdown that had started in 2008 was at its highpoint. United States’ debt totaled $16 trillion, national unemployment was extremely high and the economically stable state faced a major budget deficit. Feelings of discontent towards the government seem relatively normal, especially in a state like Texas, where the far fringes of politics have been enthusiastic about independence for decades. In this paragraph, this thesis is aimed at examining if and how the wish to secede stems from economic discontent and what other economic arguments are used to support the claim of independence.
In Line in the Sand, the movement’s core text, Daniel Miller explains the reader why Texas holds such an exceptionally strong economic position:
Our culture and history have led to a very distinct economic philosophy. Nowhere else in the civilized world will you find the free-market more in play than Texas. Today, the spirit that settled in Texas has produced an economic philosophy of equal opportunity.82
Furthermore, Miller states that all the governments in the world create an economic safety net, but that Texas has adopted an opposite philosophy: “We believe in providing equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.”83 The social security structure that most governments have adopted is, according to Miller, the reasons why these countries are on the verge of economic collapse. The only reason Texas is still “standing tall” is because it has such a strong economy and it is therefore logic that “citizens by the thousands” are voting with their feet and moving to Texas. Miller emphasizes that independence is historically and culturally rooted in every Texan, which ultimately “will make Texas the most economically prosperous nation in the western hemisphere in the 21st century.”84
Stemming from this line of argumentation, Miller sees the American government as over protective of its citizens. The government is economically oppressive, too bureaucratic and meddling in the private lives of Texans, says Miller in an introductory clip on TNM’s website. “We cannot allow Washington’s tax and spend, and drive us towards the dangerous path of greater dependence on the government.”85 He continues that “the country needs strong leadership to make tough decisions: live within their means, keep taxes low and provide
82 Miller, Line in the Sand, 75. 83 Ibidem, 76.
84 Ibidem, 77.
85 TNM website, http://texnat.org/index.php/intro-to-texas-independence/audio-presentation, accessed June 24, 2014.
