Should Texans Have Sovereignty?

First, the strengths need to be acknowledged; Texas has always been about their own freedom and their own individuality and the constitution reflects that. The constitution establishes rights such as “freedom of speech, press, and assembly” (Collier et al 62). This is great because it provides a sense of security for the

Although Lincoln was very tolerant of the institution of slavery in the Southern States even though he did not fully support it, he did not stand for a nation divided. As the southern states continued to remove themselves from the Union, Lincoln feared they were attempting to disrupt the order of things in the nation. The Union of States is considered to be perpetual. It is the fundamental law of all national governments; no government would allow provisions in its constitution that would allow for it to be terminated. He states that since the beginning of the Union there has been progression only towards strengthening the Union and the establishment of the Constitution was to “form a more perfect Union” (671). As States continue to secede the nation is becoming less perfect because the vital element of perpetuity is lost. States are legally bound to remain a part of the

Texas has had a history of suing the government. Since 2008 Texas has sued the government 40 times, winning 7 times, losing 10 and 16 still being decided.

“...no one state can force another state to either remain in it or withdraw from it.” (Doc C) People in the South believed that they had their own rights, but the president said otherwise. Southerners (including Texans) had a strong desire for the power to give their state specific laws.

The recent study of these Northern counties, John R. Lundberg’s article, disputes the prominent narrative for why the North Texas counties voted against secession during the secession referendum. Most historians, for example, Buenger, cite the reasons for voting for or against secession stems from the growing Indian raids on the exposed frontier. Also, Houston’s failure to protect the settlers from those

government's inability to prevent Indian attacks, slave-stealing raids, and other border-crossing acts of banditry. It accuses northern politicians and abolitionist of committing a variety of outrages upon Texans. The bulk of the document offers justifications for slavery and white supremacy, saying that remaining a part of the United States would jeopardize the security of the two. The declaration includes this extract praising slavery, in which the Union itself is referred to as the "confederacy".Following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, public opinion in the cotton states of the Lower South (South Carolina through Texas) swung in favor of secession. By February 1861, the other six states of the sub-region had separately passed ordinances of secession. However, events in Texas were delayed, largely due to the resistance of Southern Unionist governor, Sam Houston. Unlike the other "cotton states" chief executives, who took the initiative in secessionist efforts, Houston refused to call the Texas Legislature into special session to consider the question, relenting only when it became apparent citizens were prepared to act without

This shows that South Carolina had the right to secede because it was a sovereign state. It also shows how the South should have had the right to decide whether they would want to secede from the country or not. Another example is that when the Southern states joined the Union, it was voluntarily (Appleby et.al 556). “Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent.” (http:/civilwar.bluegrass.net). This shows that they should have the right to leave the Union if they choose to. They had this right because the South had no bind with the Union stating that they had to stay except for the United States constitution in which the North had already violated. Even though the United States constitution was what they looked at as a contract, the Union already desecrated its’ terms before this dispute. It also shows how the right was their own and the government could not control their choices in staying or not. These reasons and examples show how the South had to right to secede because of various reasons regarding the political state the government was in.

Texas has a reputation throughout history of differing views from the federal government in laws and politics pertaining to social, fiscal, and educational issues. On the whole, Texas operates as a largely conservative state. Because of this, policy-making is often right wing. With the institution of a Democratic, liberal president, the State’s dissent from the Federal government has only increased over certain issues. One hot topic of the 2012 Presidential election was immigration. With the major increase in immigration, it is no surprise that the issue was so emphasized. Between 2000 and 2011 there was a 30 percent

There exists one book that every scholar references during their studies on Texas secessionism, that is E. W. Winkler’s, edited book, Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, 1861. Scholar’s mentioned within this paper references portions of this Journal when the information pertains to their subject matter of discussion. On the fiftieth anniversary of the secession of Texas the thirty-second legislature made an appropriation for the Library and Historical Commission to produce a book, containing the “Journal” that “appeared in the newspapers at the time the Convention was in secession.” Winkler’s historical book provides the day-to-day motions and resolutions conducted by convention members of the First Secession Convention that occurred between January 28 and February 4. He continues by adding the follow-on or Adjourned Session that occurred after the returns received by the committee following the February 23, 1861 secession referendum, where the citizens of Texas voted for or against secession – March 2 – 25. Winkler adds Appendixes that includes copies of address or communications made by committee members, legislatures, and the governor to the people of Texas. Also, it includes the reports of the Committee on Public Safety, the list of the delegates, and the certificates of election. Due to the extensive utilization by scholars as reference material, Winkler’s book becomes the foundation for this paper in its discussion on the secession movement in

On the floor of the Senate on January19-27, 1830, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts argued that the states should be considered as one nation (Webster, 178). In response, Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina argued that the states should be able to interpose and or nullify the federal government and its laws when they thought necessary to protect their citizens’ rights. (Hayne, 166). Overall, Senator Webster’s argument was better because he pointed out that although join the federal government may seem risky, it overall goal is to ensure a stronger nation for the people.

The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

In 1787, the creation of the U.S. Constitution would grant the national government dominance over the states. However, the southerners still felt that they should be able determine whether or not they accepted certain acts, and the idea of nullification was proposed. John C. Calhoun was first to present the states right to nullify, or ignore federal laws in which they disagreed, in his doctrine.[6] Things seemed to have remained calm until the commencement of Lincoln’s presidency when nullification was no longer allowed.

What is secession? The definition is the act of withdrawal. This can mean a country such as Germany withdrawing from the European Union, or a state or states withdrawing from the United States. This can also be broken down into a withdrawal of counties from a state or even a town from a county. This can even be broken down into an individual act of secession, an individual withdrawing from the government. Within this essay I intended to show that not only is secession legal but also that it is a natural law that is imbued to all people. I will also touch on secession within the United States as well as in the rest of the world. I will also show that the Constitution allows for the secession of the states as well.

From the ashes of old ruined nations rises the new ones. The course of events in the U. S. A. Was absolutely leading to a national crisis where the two poles confront face to face. The same as any war, the destructive results of the Civil War are undeniable that by the end of it, many states became literally destroyed. The war was bitter that it seemed not against a regime within the mother country but as if fighting the devil itself. Actually, saying this rings a bell in our minds, since preserving the union is a task covenanted to God, as the Americans claim, it is logical binary distinction for those who supported secession will be putting them as sufferers of a devil that tries to deviate them from their divine destiny.

Secession is the withdrawal of territory from a state in order to transform it into an independent state or join it to another state (McGarry, 2016). It is commonly associated with negativity because of its unpeaceable characteristics and often bloody aftermaths. The movement is believed and known to lead to war (The Economist, 2000), as it has previously done so during the seventeen hundreds when American colonies rebelled against Great Britain (HistoryNet, 2016). Particularly the civil war which happened from eighteen sixty one to eighteen sixty five when the United Sates was overthrown when the Union armies defeated the confederate armies. That war today is still deemed “the most serious secession movement” that happened in the United States.