Rick Perry and the two Texases
The secession controversy generated by Rick Perry has a long history in Texas politics, going all the way back to Sam Houston and Mirabeau B. Lamar, the first and second presidents of the Republic of Texas. The two presidents had totally different visions of Texas, which persist today. Houston recognized that Texas did not have the economic resources to succeed as an independent nation. Following the victory at San Jacinto, he immediately sought annexation with the United States. President Andrew Jackson, Houston’s longtime friend, favored annexation, but could not overcome opposition to the spread of slavery. The best that Houston could achieve was Jackson’s recognition of the Republic on the president’s last day in office.
Lamar had no interest in annexation. He was a reckless adventurer who sent an expedition to Santa Fe to bring that trading center under Texas’s control–it failed–and dispatched privateers to harass Mexican shipping. Like Perry, he reveled in Texas’s separateness, but Lamar brought the state to near ruin. Houston returned to the presidency to find the state saddled with a $5 million debt and on the verge of hostilities with Mexico. “[Lamar],” historian David McComb has written, “had released demons which proved hard to recapture.” Indeed.
The two Texases continue to exist today, one grounded in myth, one grounded in reality, one resisting change and suspicious of modernity, the other embracing them. They have waged intense political battles over the years. Mythic Texas fiercely resisted the change to daylight savings time, the legalization of liquor by the drink, and the end of blue laws that restricted commercial activity on Sundays, but all became law. Conflicts between the two Texases often appear to be battles between rural and urban Texas, but this is an oversimplification: The cities are filled with people whose roots and sympathies are rural.
I am writing about the two Texases because of the widely disparite reactions to Rick Perry’s “threat” of secession. Our magazine has made a good living out of celebrating the state’s myths, but secession was not, shall we say, a positive event. Most of the people I talk to about Perry’s remarks are appalled by them. But those I know who inhabit Mythic Texas think that he struck a chord with a certain segment of the state’s population. I disagree. The political races that most clearly exemplified the split between the two Texases were the 1948 U.S. Senate race between Lyndon Johnson and Coke Stevenson, and the 1990 governor’s race between Ann Richards and Clayton Williams. These were explicitly races between the new and the old, and the forces of change and modernity won both races (although Johnson’s victory was tainted). I think Perry’s remarks will do far more to hurt him than to help him.
Tagged: republic of texas, rick perry, sam houston, secession.
Pat says:
Fair assessment. But you didn’t address the real question: is the Republican primary specifically one of these elections about New v. Old? I think not. If Perry has his way, the Republican primary will be about Conservative v. More Conservative. And that’s Perry’s strong suit.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I find it repulsive that the very people who preach about being “un-American” are the ones who are enthusiastically renouncing their citizenship. What is the difference between shouting “Secede, Secede” and burning the flag?
Reply »
Joe White says:
Johnson’s victory was tainted? More like Stevenson’s victory was stolen.
Somewhere, I still have a tshirt my father bought from Texas Monthly. It has an image of the state on it with the words “Texas Secede!”
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The impetus for secession is based upon the collective memory that Texas was once a nation, and also upon the tendency of Texas’s fortunes to be countercyclical compared to the rest of the country. When the price of oil is up, the rest of the country is worse off but we are better off. There is also a recognition that Texas sends more money to Washington than we get back.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Actually, Texas is not even in the top 10 of donor states; and almost all of the top 10 donor states are Blue.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Here is my source for the numbers I am about to provide: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States. The period covers 1981 to 2005, a quarter of a century.
Texas is the seventh largest donor state with a net deficit of $133 billion. Six states are larger donors: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York.
Anonymous Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
priceless. I am sure Burka wrote TM was being reckless and irresponsible by suggesting Texas secede.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, I’m confused by this statement: “But those I know who inhabit Mythic Texas think that he struck a chord with a certain segment of the state’s population. I disagree.”
Exactly what do you disagree with? Just because the LBJ/Ann Richards races turned out the way they did doesn’t mean there isn’t still a segment of the population that identifies with “Mythic Texas.”
Both Perry, and Bush before him, exemplify at least a piece of “Mythic Texas.” Swagger despite the inability to pronounce words like secede and nuclear. Gunslinger mentality that doesn’t back down even when caught in an obvious misstep.
I don’t disagree with your conclusion that Perry has done himself more harm than good — but that’s largely because the country as a whole, and Texas (though less so) has tired of the act. Perry’s fate on the national stage was sealed by GWB. Now he’s doing a good job of shooting himself in the foot when it comes to the State of Texas.
And yet, I’m not at all sure that it matters. We are talking about someone who garnered only 39% of the vote last time. He had to do something, and this looks like a Hail Mary to me. Now we’ll find out whether it’s always true that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Anonymous — You’re right, I needed an editor when I said “I disagree.” Of course he hit a chord with a certain segment of the state’s population. I should have said, “I agree, but it’s a minority segment.”
Reply »
Dr J says:
Oh, sure. Blame Eileen.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Why not?
Reply »
Eileen Smith Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Why not indeed. I blame Evan.
Reply »
Pat says:
And that minority segment votes in the Republican primary.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Yes. The question is just how badly Republicans want to continue their commitment to political suicide.
Reply »
WJ Cash says:
A similar version of this story has been playing throughout the American South for decades. It is amazing the progress that has been made despite the redneck yahooism of so many Southern leaders over the years. Modernity eventually does win-out, despite how painful the journey.
I wonder what all the image-conscious folks in the TX Fortune 500 executive suites think of Perry and his secession talk? It can’t help with recruiting the best and brightest to come to TX after the massive PR hit Perry’s reckless comments delivered. You would have to think the nascent biomedical industry surely does not like this latest turn against modernity, either.
All of this undue damage to score cheap political points in a damn primary. Perry cares about himself, not Texas.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
But Joe, if that LBJ-Coke Stevenson election turn out differently, you would be an almost-graduate from Coke Public Affairs School rather than an almost-graduate of the LBJ School. From a PR perspective, that sounds either too corporate or too illegal.
Clearly if we were supposed to be arguing about that election, it would have been held in Minnesota in 2008.
Reply »
MR. B says:
Certainly, many of you jest. Arrogance indeed.
Reply »
Buck says:
So does the right wing stick with Perry?
Or do they remember the Craddick Lesson and jettison him early enough to back another candidate?
Maybe we see Abbott vs. Kay … or (gasp) Patrick?
Reply »
hb says:
How about, Texas multiply?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yes indeed Paul there is a divide between myth and reality– but not in the sense you try to portray it.
There is the mythical world that all politicains live in in which they make statements or promises that are nothing more than rhetorical devices or stunts suited to fire up their base or to tamp down doubt or opposition. In Perry’s case, the whole “secession” talk is just that sort of mythical announcement to fire up his base(much like Barack Obama’s promise that nobody making under $250,000 is a myth designed to tamp down opposition and doubt).
The question is not whether liberals can use labels such as “modern” and “progressive” or other empty adjectives to promote their agenda. The question is “What will work?” Are tax increases on job producers in a recessionary economy the answer? Are strict handgun controls the answer in a an increasingly crime riddled society? Is it a sensible energy policy that places more restrictions and burdens on domestic oil and gas producers while we wait for “green” solutions that probably decades away? Is direct engagement of brutal dictators in our hemisphere in the absence of demonstrated restoration of human rights a pillar of a foreign policy that will bring “new respect” to the United States? To the “modern” political mind the answer to all these questions is “Yes”. Perhaps “modernity”, in some respects, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, Paul.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
My post was not about labels. It was about perceptions. Some people perceive that Perry fired up his base. He probably did. Others would regard Perry’s comments as unworthy of a leader and an embarrassment to the state. Handgun controls and engagement of certain foreign leaders aren’t even in the same universe as what I was talking about.
Reply »
Respectful dissent says:
Most people outside of those politically affiliated one way or another didn’t care about the secession comment. What they did care about was the overall message of distaste for the direction of the federal government. They keep hearing about stimulus this and stimulus that but their lives haven’t been improving. Family members are still laid off and wages are still decreasing. So I have to disagree with your analysis Paul. Whether you like what the Governor said or not, their can be no doubt that he hit a chord with Conservatives state wide that are angry with the Federal Government. Furthermore, the statesman reported the governor’s website had something like an additional 300,000 hits after the secession comments were made most of which were supportive of his criticisms. Say what you want, but the evidence supports this being a win-win piece of face time for the Governor.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“What they did care about was the overall message of distaste for the direction of the federal government.” — These are the same “they” that elected GWB, twice. The direction of the federal government was set long before Obama took office, by the man “they” elected.
“They keep hearing about stimulus this and stimulus that but their lives haven’t been improving.” — Exactly what kind of instant gratification time-warp do you live in? Since when does government action turn things around so quickly? Have you not been listening when “they” said it was going to take awhile to remedy the problems created by the president you elected?
Reply »
Sudden Epiphany says:
So Paul, word on the street is Kay Bailey has promised you and the Texas Monthly a generous earmark contingent on her election as the future Governor of Texas? Is that true?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I thought it was a secret.
Reply »
anonymous says:
here i thought Perry just wanted Texas to succeed…
Reply »
William says:
You know, I seem to remember California being its own republic for a short bit, too . . .
Then again, never have been impressed with Texas public schools.
Reply »
Dr. Strangelove says:
Texas…We’re America’s Quebec.
Reply »
treehugger Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Must be that language barrier.
Reply »
Daddy O says:
I’m always amazed when politicians and the publc rail about the federal governement as if it’s some “Oz-like” thing that we don’t know about and have no control over. Last time I checked we elect the people who make up our federal government leaders and year after year, despite the complaints about the “feds”, we continue to relect them. The Governor’s commments about secession as an option are just silly because this isn’t the 1860s and most of us, I hope, have moved beyond the civil war. Also, when I see Gov. Perry start to reject all federal government funds-highways, medicare, medicaid, etc., not just those that are politically expendient, then I’ll buy his act. If citizens want to change the way their government runs, then start voting out the people who are running it. Otherwise stop acting like it’s this “Great and powerful Oz” and we have no control over it.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
liberals like Daddy O, the moment the federal government stops collecting personal income taxes from Texans, we will stop asking for our fair share back in federal funds. Your arguments are convenient…but crap.
Reply »
Daddy O Reply:
April 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Good response, label me a liberal then you don’t have to think. I’m anything but liberal, if you’d read what I wrote instead of trying to defend the Gov and secession, my point was change the people running the federal government if you’re unhappy with them. That’s not a liberal or conservative argument, that’s generally considered to be the basis for a democracy.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Re anonymous, above: Not only do we have to put up with secession kooks. Now we have income tax kooks.
Reply »
William says:
Texas was built on federal dollars. Look at the number of military installations, or the way the Star-Telegram and reps start screaming as soon as the F-22 program is put on the chopping block.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Hey Emmis is trading around 35 cents a share. Burka will do anything to divert shareholders attention away from calling for a house cleaning.
So let’s talk about the two Texases’ – anything -other than slaes and revenue!
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:05 am
This is truly a bizarre comment.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I don’t disagree w/ your overall theme, but the two elections you cite are outliers. LBJ won through massive fraud in certain localities, and Richards won only because her opponent performed what was probably the greatest act of political self-destruction in our state’s history. I don’t think either could be cited as a real turning point.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:07 am
I didn’t say that these elections were turning points. I said that they were perceived as being the old against the new. My late father-in-law told me that everybody in Texas who was under 40 voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1948. He didn’t mention anything about dead people.
Reply »
Joe White says:
@Prince Royal,
I love counterfactuals; I think it highly unlikely, however, that Stevenson would have had the same career path as LBJ after winning the election. In 1960, Kennedy would not have picked Coke, since the Dems had just lost two elections in a row with a Stevenson on the ticket. Besides, the Martha’s Vineyard crowd drank Pepsi (although Joe was a strict Grape Nehi man).
Finally, I prefer the term ‘dropout’.
Reply »
jdb says:
perry is a fckin idiot
Reply »
Calculatin Coke says:
Why wasn’t the real “two Texas” election Hance or Luce/Williams or Briscoe/Hill or Briscoe/Farenthold?
…that damned LBJ and his fancy helicopter….
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:11 am
I never thought of Hance as “old Texas.” He was a huge upgrade over Doc Blanchard as a senator from Lubbock. Briscoe/Hill is a good one.
Reply »
Emeyekaye says:
Perry’s comments reminded me of something that Ron Paul would say… Instead of recruiting Kinky to enter the race in order to draw out the right-wing kooks, it looks like the Governor has decided that he is bullet proof enough to buttress his own right flank.
I think he got carried away by a rowdy crowd and forgot he was plurality elected (I just happened to be driving by City Hall when Perry was departing the event surrounded by reporters… He looked like he was trying to get away!). A mistake, but not too bad – especially since his opposition is not declared… or even visible. Unless KBH is a ninja, I think she’s contemplating staying in the Senate.
Betty Brown, Perry… disasters usually come in threes… right? Who is the next Republican genius that will drive another nail in the Party tool shed… er, coffin?
Reply »
anon-p says:
Mr. Burka,
I’m a bit disappointed in your understanding of Texas history and opinion (yes, opinion) on the policies of Lamar and Houston. As usual, history is a little more nuanced and complicated than how you have presented it.
To be sure, Mirabeau Lamar was a bit of a wild card, but his allegiance was always with Texas.
Sam Houston was a protege of Andrew Jackson and an opportunist who always had ambitions bigger than Texas. Curiously, the same could conceivably be said for Lyndon Johnson, who achieved what Sam Houston had always dreamed of achieving but could not because his own state got in the way of it (again) with the civil war.
Sam Houston was never really in favor of a lasting Texan independence and had his sights set on annexation, arguably from the very beginning.
After all, what was left for him in Texas? He had been President of the Republic twice. A US Senator and possible track to the US Presidency, … well, that was a cool possibility. But not if Texas remained independent.
Your curious historical analysis aside, let me see if I can sum up your opinion on this event correctly:
Houston good, Lamar bad.
Annexation good, continued independence bad.
LBJ good, Coke bad.
Richards good, Claytie bad.
New good, old bad.
Ergo,
Kowtowing to whatever scraps the Federal government “blesses” us with, good.
Perry & tossing the “S” word out in the face of increasing Federal fiscal inequity with regard to Texas, bad.
You may not like the governor’s use of the “S” word, but surely there is more to it than the simple dichotomy you have presented.
Reply »
Jack Purdy says:
As a Marylander with a lifelong interest in Texas history, I wish that Mr. Burka had written Lamar’s full name. That middle initial B stands for “Bonaparte.” Anyone whose parents hung that name on him was bound to have an overinflated sense of his abilities. Hey, even the original Bonaparte indeed met his Waterloo.
Reply »
Buvl says:
Thought it was Buonaparte.
Reply »
Billh says:
I have to ask, does anyone seriously think that secession is a good idea? A secondary question, isn’t this a treacherous idea?
I love this state. I love its uniqueness. I love it from the South Rim of Big Bend, to the bottom of Palo Duro Canyon. Cheese Enchiladas and Shiner Bock, sitting under a Cypress on the Banks of the Frio…
but, this talk about secession from the greatest country on earth makes me sick.
Reply »
screwme says:
I’m a Texan,born and raised. Texas as can be seen is a good ole boy state. If your in the click, your in period, but if your not, hell will strike you down. Alot of the mentality of the state due to its size, is as stated. There is and has been a lot of one man start ups, that generated wealth but only their prosperity. Houston, Dallas, Austin, are biggy kissass cities. I dealt with these people for many years, and theres still quite a few depression era types around, not to mention alot of old families still control the state. As long as you have the King and Kennedy Ranches, you control the valley, and when a few families and their wealth control a state, you’ll have clowns like Perry who just love being the monkey on the string.
Reply »
Mamzic says:
You know Mr. Burka, when I see you write stuff like “There is also a recognition that Texas sends more money to Washington than we get back.”
I just have to shake my head and laugh.
Where did you get this fact from, Tom Delay’s Hardball apperance?
Ranks up there with “Bush was the best damn governor ever.”
Reply »
anon-p says:
Billh,
Of course the secession talk is not for real. It has to viewed along with the previous week’s 10th amendment talk. The verbiage was intended to convey two messages.
1. Put the Federal government on notice that Texas will not be fiscally bullied, and
2. Endear the governor to the libertarian wing of his party in view of the upcoming primary
Although, the secondary reason was sufficiently accomplished the week before with the 10th amendment resolution endorsement. He didn’t need to throw the “S” word out there for that.
If the governor’s mention of secession was enough to cause the Federal government to pause in its fiscal policy of shifting the burden of cleaning up the economy to healthy states, that’s good enough for me.
Again, I remind: Texas was not helped nor bailed out in the 80’s with our problems like New York and California have been and continue to be.
Our banks were chopped up. Our businesses went through bankruptcy. We had economic bust, ate it, did not go to the Feds for a handout, and we passed laws trying to prevent the excess from happening again. Texas had to look out for herself.
Can you say the same for California and New York this time around?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Who cares? Texas can do whatever they want. But in the end…
North American Union in 2010
United Nations becomes the World Gov’t in 2012.
You’re all fu**ed, regardless of whether the good ole boys from Texas decide to leave the US or not.
They gonna get assimilated with US, Canada and Mexico…and then the U.N. is going to preside over all nations since all nations will collapse since the dollar will collapse.
I will bet my LIFE on that, you ignorant Texans!
Reply »
Milwaukee Broad says:
Funny how the Democrats would make a big stink about Perry’s suggestion that Texas secede, after they flirted with the idea of blue state secession back in 2004, when Kerry lost to Bush. Not that I think it’s a bad thing, since Democrats would have less Republicans to contend with in Washington. But then, I’m a Libertarian, so what do I know?
Reply »
John says:
Did the discussion take a hard right turn? As a life long native Texan Democrat, I am going to vote in the Republican primary for the first time in the interest of sanity and it will not be for Perry.
Reply »
Judy says:
Mr. Burka,, what you write is correct: “Some people perceive that Perry fired up his base. He probably did. Others would regard Perry’s comments as unworthy of a leader and an embarrassment to the state.” Both of these statements are true. I was born and raised in Texas. I became an Army officer and moved away at the age of 26. I was in the Army for 22 years. I have lived all over the world. I still view Texas as a great state, but no longer see it as the center of the universe. My time in the Army has taught me something about the United States of America and patriotism. This is a great nation. We are “indivisible”. We pledge allegiance to the flag. We fought the Civil War to keep the union together. States do not have the right to secede. The Civil War answered that question. A person cannot call for a state to secede from the union, and then call himself a “patriotic American”. That’s an oxymoron. Calling for the dissolution of the United States of America is not a patriotic thing to do.
Reply »
KEN JARVIS says:
I LOVE EVERYTHING WRITTEN ABOVE IM HAPPY THAT
SO MANY PEOPLE TOOK TIME TO REPLY 1 WORKED
FOR COKE WHEN HE RAN THE LIQUER CONTROL
BOARD EVERYONE IN AUSTIN LOVED HIM AND
HATED LBJ AND KLBJ TV AND RADIO. !!!ITS
ODD THAT LBJ WASENT IN THE CAR WITH KENEDY
AND OUR GREAT GOV CONALY TOOK THE THIRD
BULLET ?????????????????????????????????
VIVA TEXAS VIVA FIESTA REMEMBER THE ALAMO
VIA CON DIOS AMIGOS>>>> TEXAS OUR TEXAS
Reply »
Texas Democrat says:
First of all, Stevenson lost the Senate race because he was BITTER of being a loser, LBJ could have been a 2-term President had Vietnam not destroyed his presidency.
As for the 2010 GOP primary for the governor’s mansion, Perry will pull a Pete Wilson and attack KBH very AGGRESSIVELY and question her fire in the belly to handle the heat in Austin, which the Far Right will back him in droves and win the primary in a CLOSE vote.
Reply »
TexAggie says:
http://www.texasrepublicnews.com/0/1783624/0/35992/
““Our magazine has made a good living out of celebrating the state’s myths, but secession was not, shall we say, a positive event,” Burka wrote.
Of course, the irony is that Burka is straight-up lying. Maybe his memory doesn’t go back that far, but mine does. Or at least my archive does, because I was only three and a half years old when this issue last came up.
The January, 1975 issue of Texas Monthly, in fact, is entirely devoted to the idea of Texas secession . Under a cover which features a woman’s shapely rear end in Daisy Duke jeans with a patchwork map of the Lone Star State on the hip pocket, Texas Monthly asks “Is Texas too Big for It’s Britches?” On the top bar over the masthead, the magazine asks the provocative question “Is it Time for Texas To Secede from the U.S. Again?”
The entire issue is devoted to a concept that Burka now says shouldn’t even be discussed at all, not even with all of Perry’s caveats and hypotheticals. But apparently, it was not something so abhorrent and repulsive for Texas Monthly to discuss in 1975 – when Texas was still a one-party Democratic state and Republicans had controlled the White House for 14 of the last 22 years . (In fact, having lost a president from the Lone Star State – and the clout that comes with it – Texas was in a position not too far different from where it is today.) “
Reply »