Before diving into the Texas Constitution of 1836, it helps to take a step back and review some of the major events leading to the Texas Revolution. In doing so, we will better understand the context surrounding the drafting and ratification of the Texas Constitution of 1836.
When Mexico was under Spanish rule, the Adams-Onís Treaty was ratified (1819). This treaty, among other things, defined the U.S.-Mexico boundary. This boundary persisted when Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821. Shortly thereafter, Mexico began to incentivize settlements in Texas by offering land grants to empresarios, like Stephen F. Austin and Haden Edwards. Some empresarios (including Austin) and Anglo settlers were loyal to the Mexican government; others were not. Edwards led a group of Anglo settlers in Texas to secede from Mexico and establish the (short-lived) Republic of Fredonia near Nacogdoches in what is known as the Fredonian Rebellion. While this “rebellion” was not successful, it illustrates the rising tensions in Texas during this time period.
In 1829, the Guerrero decree formally abolished slavery in all Mexican territories, including Texas. The following year, Mexico banned immigration from the U.S. Then, in 1833, Antonio López de Santa Anna, a centralista, was elected president of Mexico. Santa Anna repealed the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 in favor of adopting a more unitary system of government in which power would be concentrated in the national government and less local governing authority, which was not well received by many Tejanos and Texians.
The Texas Revolution began in 1835 at the Battle of Gonzales and lasted through May 14, 1836, when Santa Anna signed the Treaties of Velasco recognizing Texas’s independence in exchange for his freedom.
Republic of Texas: Texas Constitution of 1836
Texas did not have meaningful opportunities to participate in drafting or ratifying the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 (Anglo-American settlers were not represented, nor was the constitution submitted to the people for a vote) or the Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas of 1827 (Texas’s interests were largely brushed aside by Coahuila, which had a larger population than Texas). As the Republic of Texas, Texas finally had the opportunity to develop its own constitution. Because many Texans had their eyes set on joining the United States through the annexation process, the Texas Constitution of 1836 was patterned off the U.S. Constitution and certain Southern state constitutions and included many familiar characteristics, including:
governmental authority divided between legislative, executive, and judicial branches
a bicameral legislature
a Declaration of Rights
Other notable elements of the Texas Constitution of 1836 include its prohibition of Catholic priests from holding office (recall that, up until this point, there was no separation between church and state), the legalization of slavery, and the requirement that free blacks obtain permission from the Texas Congress to remain in the New Republic’s territory.
Texas, which was a territory of Spain, became a territory of Mexico in 1810 following the Mexican War of Independence. It remained a territory of Mexico until the Texas Revolution (1835-1836). During its time as a territory of Mexico, Texas was governed by two constitutions: the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 and the State Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas of 1827.
Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States, 1824
The Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 replaced Mexico’s constitutional monarchy with a constitutional federal republic (similar to the form of government created by the U.S. Constitution). The principles and institutional design of the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States were drawn from the Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy of 1812 (also known as the Constitution of Cádiz) and the U.S. Constitution of 1789. See Table 1, below.
The Federal Constitution of the United States of Mexico did not contain a bill of rights, and there “was no particular effort to define the rights of the states in the confederacy” (McKay, Constitution of 1824). States were required to incorporate separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in their respective state constitutions. There was considerable government authority at the state level under this federal constitution: states were allowed to govern local affairs independently of the national government, which included defining their own immigration policies.
“Stephen F. Austin conferred with the Mexican leaders who framed the Constitution of 1824, and Juan José María Erasmo Seguín represented Texas in the constituent assembly . . . The Anglo-Americans in Texas were not represented, and the instrument was never submitted to a vote of the people for ratification” (McKay, Constitution of 1824).
Table 1. Key elements of the principles and institutional design from the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824
Constitution of Cádiz
U.S. Constitution
Official religion: Catholicism
Federalism
Federal Congress granted the power of constitutional interpretation (in the U.S., federal courts have the power of constitutional interpretation)
Separation of powers between legislative (Congress), executive (president/vice president), and judicial (Supreme Court + other national courts) branches of the national government
President and vice president elected for four-year terms by the legislative bodies of the states; Chamber of Deputies granted power to elect the president and vice president in case of a tie or lack of a majority
Bicameral Congress (two chambers):
lower chamber: Chamber of Deputies (2-year terms)
upper chamber: Chamber of Senators (4-year terms)
Property rights for women
Protection of private property (homestead acts)
Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas, 1827
In 1824, Texas, which was a sparsely inhabited territory at the time, was combined with the state of Coahuila to create a new state: Coahuila y Tejas. The Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas:
divided the state into three departments; one of these was the District of Bexar (Texas)
established Catholicism as the official state religion
guaranteed citizens liberty, security, property, and equality
forbid slavery, and prohibited the import of slaves after six months
defined citizenship and outlined its forfeiture
established a unicameral legislature [one chamber] that was composed of twelve deputies elected by popular vote [Texas was allowed two deputies], which was granted legislative powers (i.e., passing state laws) and non-legislative powers, such as electing state officials in the absence of a majority, serving as the grand jury in political and electoral matters, and regulating the army and militia
Vested executive power in a governor and vice governor, each of which would be elected by popular vote and serve four-year terms
Vested judicial authority in state courts with jurisdiction over minor crimes and civil cases; although these courts could try cases, they were not permitted to interpret the law
Within Texas, there were widespread objections to the Constitution of Coahuila y Tejas from the onset; however, these objections were largely ignored.
The term constitution is defined as “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed” (Dictionary.com). The U.S. Constitution outlines the goals, structure, functions, and limitations of the federal government; establishes states as autonomous governmental units with their own respective powers; and provides a framework for relations between states (i.e., horizontal federalism). Each of the fifty states has its own constitution that:
explains the sources of authority of its state government
establishes and outlines the power of the institutions of its state government (i.e., executive, legislative, and judicial branches of state government; local government)
guarantees protection of civil liberties, or limitations on government power intended to protect freedoms that government may not legally intrude upon (think freedom of speech, right to a trial by jury, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.)
Together, the U.S. Constitution and the fifty states’ constitutions provide the framework for government within the United States.
The average state constitution contains ~39,000 words, has been amended nearly 100 times, and lasts around 70 years.
State constitutions and state laws are considered authoritative unless they conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal laws enacted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, federal preemption (or the invalidation of state laws that conflict with federal laws) applies. Federal preemption is rooted in the supremacy clause (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 2).
People often reflect on what makes Texas, Texas by focusing largely on our similarities (i.e., our shared political culture). It would be inappropriate, however, to assume that differences in beliefs, values, and ideas did not exist, particularly in a state with a large population, vast geography, and complex history like Texas. As such, here we will focus on where our differences lie: political ideology.
Political Ideology: What Divides Us
Political ideology is the coherent set of values and beliefs about the purpose and scope of government. Political ideologies represent differences that exist within a political culture. Political ideologies perform four key functions:
Explanation: political ideology helps explain why social and political conditions are the way they are
Evaluation: political ideology provides standards for evaluating social conditions and political institutions and events
Orientation: political ideology provides a sense of identity
Political program: political ideology helps people make political choices
Political ideologies in the United States fall at various points along an ideological spectrum that ranges from liberal (which prioritizes equality in society) to conservative (which prioritizes government control over personal freedoms). Ideologies at the ends of the spectrum are the most extreme: communism is considered extremely liberal, and fascism is considered extremely conservative. The closer to the middle of the spectrum an ideology falls, the more moderate it is. Most people in the U.S. fall into two ideologies:
conservatives, which generally favor limited government in social and/or economic life, based on the belief that a big government can only infringe on our individual, personal, and economic rights (a government is best that governs least)
liberals, which generally views government action as necessary to ensure people are as free as possible and believe government should protect individual liberties and rights and provide social services based on equality
Conservative ideology is generally status-quo-oriented. Liberal ideology, on the other hand, tends to view change as progressive and, at times, necessary for the greater good of society.
Texas’s Ideological Distribution
Texas is considered a “center-right” state. Drawing from Elazar’s political cultures, individualistic and traditionalistic cultural elements have combined to produce conservativism in our government. Random sample polls of registered voters have supported this statement by consistently showing that most Texans who are registered to vote currently identify themselves as moderates or conservatives.
This does not imply, however, that all Texans are conservative, nor does it imply that all conservative Texans share the same beliefs regarding government and politics. The Threads of Texas project identified seven different segments of Texans that differ when it comes to “their orientation and emotion towards change and their understanding of what it means to be Texan” (Ramsey, 2021):
Lone Star Progressives: liberal, highly engaged, alienated, critical, and empathetic
Civic Pragmatists: engaged, civic-minded, pragmatic, rational, and measured
Rising Mavericks: younger, diverse, proud, critical, multifaceted, and politically informed
Apolitical Providers: lower income, equality-focused, detached, apprehensive, and apolitical
Texas Faithful: patriotic, traditional, faith-oriented, skeptical, and conspiratorial
Heritage Defenders: white, conservative, partisan, libertarian, and embattled
Our Differences: Less Significant than Our Similarities
If you watch the news or pay attention to what is going on in Washington, D.C., it may seem as though our country is more divided than ever (hence PBS Frontline created a two-episode special entitled “America’s Great Divide.”) This division at the national level results in large part from the fact that the Democratic Party, which is ideologically liberal, is becoming more liberal as a whole, while the Republican Party, which is ideologically conservative, is becoming more conservative as a whole, causing the two parties to move further apart on the ideological spectrum (a phenomenon called polarization).
When it comes to Texas, however, this phenomenon is not as pervasive. The Democratic Party of Texas is not the same thing as the Democratic Party in national government, nor is the Republican Party of Texas identical to the Republican Party in national government. In Texas, the political differences between Democrats and Republicans, between immigrants or naturalized citizens and native-born citizens, and between rural and urban residents exist, “but they’re not as galvanizing in Texas as they are across the national level . . . Texas is unique, and Texans share really strong identities, even across those demographics” (Christiana Lang, as quoted by Ramsey, 2021).
Civic engagement refers to participation that connects citizens to government. “In the United States, citizens play an important role in influencing what policies are pursued, what values the government chooses to support, what initiatives are granted funding, and who gets to make the final decisions” (American Government, Ch. 1). The most obvious example of a pathway to civic engagement is voting; however, there are several other ways in which citizens can engage in politics and government. Chances are, you have participated in civic engagement at some point.
Texas is known for a lot of things . . . political participation is not one of them.
“Due in part to our size and in part to our growth, Texas continues to fall behind the bulk of the nation when it comes to measures such as voting and civic involvement.” – Susan Nold, UT News (2018)
Texas ranks near the bottom of the list when it comes to various pathways of civic engagement, including voter registration, voting, donating, volunteering, contacting elected officials, and discussing government and politics. For a graphical summary of the 2018 Texas Civic Health Index report, which includes facts regarding where Texas ranks on civic engagement compared to other states, click here.
Civic engagement is impacted by many factors, including age, wealth, education, and how strongly a person feels about an issue. Generally speaking, older, more educated citizens are those most likely to engage with the government. We see this in Texas: older individuals are those most likely to vote, and college graduates are far more likely to participate in group activities, like volunteering for nonprofit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. This has serious implications; after all, the government is most responsive to the needs and desires of those who engage.
The video below includes a brief interview with two legislative staffers working at the Texas Capitol in which they provide their perspective on the importance of civic engagement in Texas government and politics.
Increasing Civic Engagement in the Lone Star State
Several recommendations to improve civic engagement in Texas were discussed within the 2018 Texas Civic Health Index report. Some of these recommendations include:
Reimagining civics education to better prepare the next generation for the responsibility of self-governance
Explore opportunities for institutional, systems-level changes by tapping into one of the advantages of federalism and examining what laws other states have regulating political participation to see if we can identify “best practices”
Developing civic leaders by creating educational opportunities that help develop skills associated with civic leadership, service, and running for elected office
Encouraging innovation to reduce obstacles and create new opportunities for civic engagement; and
Supporting organizations that invest in Texas, such as neighborhood associations and nonprofits
Federalism has evolved as a result of various historical events, such as war and economic crisis; prevailing ideas, values, and beliefs; and government actions shaping the relative power of the federal government and state governments. Overall, this evolution can be summed up in one sentence: “There have been ebbs and flows in relative power between the federal government and state governments, with the national government eventually gaining ground.”
Struggle Between National & State Power, 1790s – 1860s
Recall that under the Articles of Confederation, states possessed almost all governing authority, and the federal government had very little power. It should come as no surprise, then, that immediately following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, states continued to exercise significant government authority. States did this through nullification; in other words, if a state deemed a federal law unconstitutional, it would nullify that law within its borders. This may seem a little odd because it counters the supremacy clause; however, when taken in a historical context, it is understandable why states acted this way. Nullification was so rampant in the years following the ratification, causing tensions to rise between states and the federal government — one such example of these tensions is the Nullification Crisis during the early 1830s, when President Andrew Jackson threatened to use military force to ensure South Carolina complied with federal tariffs laws.
The federal government was eventually supported in its efforts to exercise its constitutionally authorized powers by the Supreme Court under the leadership of chief justice Marshall through cases such as McCulloch v. Marylandand Gibbons v. Ogden. McCulloch v. Maryland is regarded as the U.S. Supreme Court case that established the doctrine of implied powers (rooted in the elastic clause of the U.S. Constitution) and the doctrine of national supremacy (rooted in the supremacy clauseof the U.S. Constitution). In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court legally defined “commerce” as “commercial intercourse among states”, thereby expanding the applicability of the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clauseto new areas previously viewed as not falling under the umbrella of federal authority. Gibbons v. Ogden also reinforced the doctrine of national supremacy established in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Over time, the relative power of the federal government and state governments began to shift as the federal government (including Congress and the judiciary) shifted from the doctrine of nullification to one of preemption, in which state laws that conflicted with federal laws were invalidated.
Civil War & Expansion of National Power
During the Civil War, the power of the federal government expanded significantly. There are three main reasons for this.
#1: An Indissoluble Union
“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it was that there is no right to secede.” – Antonin Scalia
The Union victory in the Civil War resulted in the decisive establishment of an indissoluble union. This was reinforced in Texas v. White(1869), in which the Supreme Court ruled that “individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature–even if ratified by a majority of Texans–were ‘absolutely null'” (Oyez: Texas v. White). Maintaining an indissoluble union, in turn, required that the national government take steps to maintain this indissoluble union, which leads us to our next point . . .
#2: Civil War Amendments
States that formerly seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States were required to ratify the Civil War amendments (also referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments), which were viewed as radical expansions of federal power, upon re-entering the United States:
13th Amendment: abolition of slavery
14th Amendment: due process; privileges and immunities; equal protection (which relate to civil liberties and civil rights)
15th Amendment: suffrage / voting rights not prohibited on basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
#3: Presidency & Emergency Powers
“I conceive that I may in an emergency do things on military grounds which cannot be done constitutionally by Congress.” – Abraham Lincoln
The presidency was vastly expanded as a result of the Civil War due largely to Lincoln’s interpretation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, rooted in his belief that the president could exercise emergency powers not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution during times of war.
Dual Federalism, 1870s – 1930s
Dual federalism, also referred to as “layer cake” federalism, refers to the institutional arrangement in which national and state governments are responsible for separate policy areas. Dual federalism emerged as a result of various Supreme Court decisions and the prevailing economic philosophy at the time.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Supreme Court played an integral role in the emergence of dual federalism by supporting the doctrine of preemption when state governments acted in ways that fell beyond the scope of their constitutional authority. To better illustrate the role that the Supreme Court played in promoting dual federalism, let’s look at one specific case: Lochner v. New York.
Starting in the 1870s, the U.S. entered the Gilded Age, which was characterized in part by rapid industrialization and economic development. The overarching economic philosophy at this point (and continuing until the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s) was laissez-faire capitalism or “free market” capitalism, in which the market determines production, distribution, and price decisions, and property is privately owned. As such, there was relatively little support for government policies that regulated the market sector, particularly if those regulations involved workplace conditions. This overarching economic philosophy was reflected in the Lochner v. New York decision.
Cooperative Federalism, 1930s – present
Cooperative federalism, also referred to as “marble cake” federalism, refers to the institutional arrangement in which national and state governments share responsibilities for most domestic policy areas.
Cooperative federalism initially emerged following the Great Depression as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which expanded the role of the federal government in areas that were traditionally considered to fall under the reserved powers exercised by states relating to the “Three R’s”: relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy, and reform of the financial system. Almost all of these programs represented expansions in federal authority and involvement of the federal government in areas traditionally viewed as falling under the reserved powers of the states. For this reason, many of these policies were initially struck down by the Supreme Court, prompting the discussion of expanding the size of the Supreme Court and resulting in concerns relating to “court packing.” Furthermore, many of the New Deal programs focused on relief, such as Work Pays America, required cooperation between the federal government, which established and helped fund these programs, and state governments, which were charged with implementing the programs.
At this same time, the prevailing economic philosophy shifted from laissez-faire/free-market capitalism to regulated capitalism, influenced in large part by Keynesian economics. Regulated capitalism maintains a capitalist economy with freedom from government intervention, but allows government intervention to regulate the economy, guarantee individual rights, and provide procedural guarantees.
As tends to be the case with war, WWII resulted in the expansion of the federal government’s role in various policy areas (particularly that of the executive branch). In the post-war period, the expansion of the federal government’s role in policy areas continued with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, which resulted in the creation of numerous social welfare programs including Medicaid, HUD housing programs, the Pell Grant, and HeadStart (and, similar to some of the New Deal programs, many of these programs require(d) cooperation and/or funding from both the federal government and state governments).
This general trend of expanding federal authority continued into the 1970s largely due to the advent of the regulatory revolution, during which the federal government took a more active role in regulating commerce and several social, political, and commercial activities (in fact, most of our regulations today stem from the regulatory revolution).
Shifts in Relative Power within the Era of Cooperative Federalism
As you may have gathered, the 1900s marked an era of unprecedented expansion in the size and authority of the federal government. To suggest that this is the only trend over the past century, however, is inaccurate.
As a result of the growing state share of public spending and public employees and increasing national deficits, the concept of new federalismtook root in the early 1970s and continued through the 1990s. New federalism is based on devolution, in which powers from the central government are delegated to the subnational government. New federalism had three main goals: (1) enhance administrative efficiency; (2) reduce overall spending; and (3) improve outcomes.
Several major actors in the federal government supported the concept of new federalism. Both President Nixon and President Reagan encouraged state autonomy and discretion through utilizing general revenue sharing, which gives states federal monies without telling them how to spend that money. The Supreme Court under chief justice Rehnquist issued numerous decisions that supported states in the exercise of their reserved powers. During the 1990s, President Clinton and his administration (democratic party) and the 104th Congress (during which both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate were controlled by the republican party) worked on bipartisan reforms designed to “reinvent government” by expanding bureaucratic discretion and allowing states more flexibility and power when it came to domestic policy areas, including the implementation of certain federal programs.
This trend towards new federalism was reversed, however, following 9/11 and the War on Terror. These events helped refocus public attention on the national government and resulted in the expansion of the role of the federal government as a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other executive agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration (before 9/11, states were responsible for the security of their airports – there was no federal agency charged with this function), and the passage of laws such as the PATRIOT ACT.
Struggle Between National and State Power, Revisited: Competitive Federalism
Today, the struggle between national and state power continues. For this reason, many have stated that we are currently witnessing competitive federalism, in which states and the national government seek to redefine their roles in key policy issues. Some issues where we have seen this redefinition of roles occur include immigration, marijuana, and abortion.
“[Texas] is America on steroids. Think of the characteristics that make America distinctive–its size and diversity, its optimism and self-confidence, its crass materialism and bravado, its incredible ability to make something out of nothing–and they exist in their purest form in Texas.” The Future is – Texas; Texas, 2002
Individualism
Individualism is the belief that individuals are responsible for their own welfare. Individuals are encouraged to have initiative and work hard to become successful in society. Through the lens of individualism, what is good for society is based on what is good for individuals, and “[g]overnment activity is encouraged only to the extent that it creates opportunity for individual achievement” (Roots of Texas Politics, n.d.). Individualism helps to explain the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality of many Texans. Texas’s individualism is rooted in the state’s frontier heritage.
Traditionalism
Traditionalism refers to upholding or maintaining tradition, particularly in resistance to change. Under traditionalism, the government is viewed as a mechanism through which the existing social order can be preserved; in other words, government action should reinforce the power of society’s dominant groups. Traditionalism, “emphasizing deference to elite rule within a hierarchical society and traditional moral values, represents the values of 19th century Southerners who migrated to the rich cotton land of East Texas”(Roots of Texas Politics, n.d.).
Limited Government
Closely associated with individualism is the belief that the government must be limited in its power and responsibilities. The belief in limited government is associated with concerns that a powerful government is likely to threaten individual rights. The structure of Texas’s government as outlined in the Texas Constitution of 1876 screams limited government. The belief in limited government is a key component of U.S. political culture that developed out of concerns that a powerful government is likely to threaten individual rights, and Anglo-American settlers brought this belief in limited government with them as they colonized Texas during the time of empresarios following the ratification of the Adams-Onís Treaty in 1819. During the early 1800s, there were also many Mexican citizens who also favored limited government known as the federalistas. Texas’s experience as an occupied military district under Governor Davis during Radical Reconstruction solidified limited government as a cornerstone of Texas political culture.
Private Property, Free Enterprise, and Entrepreneurialism
Private property (the ownership of property by private parties), free enterprise (an economic system in which private business competes in a market largely free of state control), and entrepreneurialism (the ability to start new businesses) are all fundamental to capitalism – and Texas is known for its ardent support of limited government regulations and free markets. As with the belief in limited government, these beliefs are rooted in Texas’s experiences as a territory of Spain and, later, Mexico and the influence of Anglo-American settlers.
Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty is the belief that the ultimate authority in society rests with the people. Each person has sovereignty over themselves. People may delegate some of their sovereign powers to the government, which in turn is required to serve according to the will of the people. In Texas, popular sovereignty stemmed in large part from dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of representation as a territory of Mexico due to 1) being combined with Coahuila, which was more densely populated and, as such, able to disregard Texans’ interests, 2) the rise of centralistas (think Antonio López de Santa Anna) who favored the concentration of government authority in the national government, and 3) the influence of the United States.
Freedom and personal liberty
Freedom and personal liberty refer to the freedom to engage in a variety of practices without governmental interference and discrimination; as such, it is closely related to belief in limited government. The values of freedom and personal liberty are reflected in the protection of various civil liberties (freedom of speech; right to bear arms; etc.), the promotion of economic freedom, and the emphasis of the rights of citizenship over its obligations. Freedom and personal liberty are closely related to limited government, popular sovereignty, and natural rights (the belief that people are born with rights that cannot be taken away by the government without their consent).
Openness
Despite its flaws, Texas “has an enthusiasm for openness . . . [and] is enthusiastically mixing all sorts of cultures — from the South, south-west and the other side of the border — into a distinctive blend” (The Future is – Texas; Texas, n.d.) that can be seen in our state’s music, art, and food [Tex-Mex!]. Texas has always had a certain level of openness due to the state’s export-based economy and a diverse population consisting of different groups of people with their own distinctive cultures (including indigenous tribes, Spaniards, French, Tejanos, Anglo-Americans, Texians, African Americans, Irish, Germans, Czech). Texas remains a diverse state in terms of race and ethnicity.
Populism
Populism refers to the hostility of common people toward concentrated political and economic power and the powerful. It is often portrayed as “the people” versus “the elite.” Texas’s populist tendencies are rooted in the belief that “government power should be used to protect individuals from exploitation by powerful corporations, excessive wealth, or government itself” (Roots of Texas Politics, n.d.).
State Pride
The United States is a patriotic country. Patriotism refers to the love of one’s country and respect for its symbols and principles. Patriotism helps unify people in their recognition of the authority of governance. In the U.S., however, there are a handful of states with extremely strong state pride – and Texas is one of them, alongside states such as Ohio, New Mexico, Alaska, Maine, Montana, and Colorado. State pride in Texas is so strong that there’s even a Wikipedia page about it! Our strong state pride is the byproduct of our state’s history – not every state can say it was once an independent country, after all.
Our Differences: Less Significant than Our Similarities
If you watch the news or pay attention to what is going on in Washington, D.C., it may seem as though our country is more divided than ever. This division at the national level results in large part from the fact that the Democratic Party, which is ideologically liberal, is becoming more liberal as a whole, while the Republican Party, which is ideologically conservative, is becoming more conservative as a whole, causing the two parties to move further apart on the ideological spectrum (a phenomenon called polarization).
When it comes to Texas, however, this phenomenon is not as pervasive. The Democratic Party of Texas is not the same thing as the Democratic Party in national government, nor is the Republican Party of Texas identical to the Republican Party in national government. In Texas, the political differences between Democrats and Republicans, between immigrants or naturalized citizens and native-born citizens, and between rural and urban residents exist, “but they’re not as galvanizing in Texas as they are across the national level . . . Texas is unique, and Texans share really strong identities, even across those demographics” (Christiana Lang, as quoted by Ramsey, 2021).
Rice and Sundberg examined the political culture of states through the framework of civic culture. Civic culture is a political culture that is conducive to the development of an efficient, effective government that meets the needs of its citizens in a timely and professional manner.
Civic culture consists of the following elements:
Civic engagement – citizens participate in the policymaking process in order to promote the public good
Political equality – citizens view each other as political equals, with the same rights and obligations
Solidarity, trust, and tolerance – citizens feel a strong sense of fellowship with one another, tolerating a wide range of ideas and lifestyles
Social structure of cooperation – citizens are joiners, belonging to a rich array of groups
States with high civic culture have innovative and effective government. States with low civic culture are less responsive to citizen demands.
Texas is considered to have a very low civic culture, ranked 43rd out of 50.
Daniel Elazar argued that the political culture within states of the United States could be divided into three general types:
individualistic political culture, which emphasizes private initiative with a minimum of government interference. The role of government should be limited to protecting individual rights and ensuring that social and political relationships are based on merit rather than tradition, family ties, or personal connections
traditionalistic political culture, which sees the role of government as the preservation of tradition and the existing social order. Government leadership is in the hands of an established social elite, and the level of participation by ordinary citizens in the policy-making process is relatively low
moralistic political culture, in which people expect the government to intervene in the social and economic affairs of the state, promoting the public welfare and advancing the public good. Participation in political affairs is regarded as one’s civic duty
Elazar attributed the geographic distribution of individualistic, traditionalistic, and moralistic political cultures across states (see Figure 1) to migratory patterns of populations.
Texas = Hybrid
According to Elazar, Texas has a hybrid political culture that includes both traditionalistic and individualistic elements.
Traditionalistic Characteristics
Long history as a one-party state
Low levels of voter turnout
Social and economic conservativism
Individualistic Characteristics
Strong support for private business
Opposition to big government
Faith in individual initiative
The structure, powers, and functions of our state government, both as outlined in the Texas Constitution of 1876 and in practice, reflect our state political culture. Political culture also shapes the context within which politics occurs, which influences things like what political parties and organized interests look like and what roles political parties, organized interests, and citizens take on when it comes to campaigns, elections, and policy-making.
“Taken together, individualism and traditionalism make Texas a politically conservative state, hostile to government activity, especially government interference in the economy . . . However, while individualism and traditionalism generally reinforce a conservative political environment, they can also exist in uncomfortable tension with one another. For whereas the individualistic thread in Texas culture stresses individual freedom from government intrusion, the traditionalistic thread can foster the government’s promotion of particular moral values upon those very same individuals.” (Roots of Texas Politics, n.d.)
Over the past few decades, Texas has experienced rapid and continued population growth, with an increase of 4.3 million from 2000 to 2010, and an increase of 4 million from 2010 to 2020. This rate of population growth outpaces many other states; for that reason, Texas gained four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives following the 2010 Census and an additional two seats following the 2020 Census.
Today, Texas is the second most populated state in the United States, with a population of over 29.1 million people, of which:
6.9% are under 5 years of age, 25.5% are under 18 years of age, and 12.9% are 65 years of age or older;
50.3% are female
41.2% are white, 39.7% are Hispanic or Latino, 12.9% are Black or African American, 5.2% are Asian, 1.0% are American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.1% are Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 2.1% are two or more races (Texas is a majority-minority state because less than 50% of the population are non-Hispanic white persons)
17% were foreign-born persons
While there are still many rural areas in Texas, its population is increasingly residing in urban areas. Today, three of the largest 10 cities in the United States are in Texas: Houston (#4, with a population of nearly 2.4 million); San Antonio (#7, with a population of nearly 1.6 million); and Dallas (#9, with a population of about 1.4 million).
Most Texans graduate high school (83.7% of persons 25 years of age or older); however, significantly fewer graduate college with a four-year degree (29.9% of persons 25 years of age or older).
The median household income in Texas in 2019 was $61,874, and the per capita income (average individual income) was $31,277; 13.6% were in poverty. That same year, 64.2% of persons 16 years of age or older were employed; among females, 57.8% of persons 16 years of age or older were employed.
Conservatives, which generally favor limited government in social and/or economic life, based on the belief that a big government can only infringe on our individual, personal, and economic rights (a government is best that governs least); conservative ideology is generally status-quo-oriented
liberals, which generally views government action as necessary to ensure people are as free as possible and believe government should protect individual liberties and rights and provide social services based on equality; liberal ideology tends to view change as progressive and, at times, necessary for the greater good of society
Texas is considered a “center-right” state. Individualistic and traditionalistic cultural elements have combined to produce conservatism in our government. Random sample polls of registered voters have supported this statement by consistently showing that most Texans who are registered to vote currently identify themselves as moderates or conservatives.
This does not imply, however, that all Texans are conservative, nor does it imply that all conservative Texans share the same beliefs regarding government and politics. Indeed, the Threads of Texas project identified seven different segments of Texans that differ when it comes to “their orientation and emotion towards change and their understanding of what it means to be Texan” (Ramsey, 2021):
Lone Star Progressives: liberal, highly engaged, alienated, critical, and empathetic
Civic Pragmatists: engaged, civic-minded, pragmatic, rational, and measured
Rising Mavericks: younger, diverse, proud, critical, multifaceted, and politically informed
Apolitical Providers: lower income, equality-focused, detached, apprehensive, and apolitical
Texas Faithful: patriotic, traditional, faith-oriented, skeptical, and conspiratorial
Heritage Defenders: white, conservative, partisan, libertarian, and embattled
Economy
Texas has transitioned over time from an economy based largely on agricultural products, to one dominated by the oil industry, to the highly diversified economy that exists in the state today.
During Rick Perry’s time as governor, many businesses, including many companies in the automotive manufacturing and information technology industries, have opened new locations and/or relocated their corporate headquarters to Texas due to low taxes, generous subsidies, low regulations, and a large workforce. This trend has continued during Greg Abbott’s governorship — Tesla’s decision to construct the Gigafactory automotive manufacturing facility in Austin (and their more plans to construct the “Bobcat Project” facility next to the Gigafactory) is one of many, many examples of businesses choosing to expand their operations within our state.
Today, Texas’s GDP (gross domestic product) is larger than that of some countries. Texas creates one out of every four jobs in the U.S. (with greater job creation than California, the most populated state). Texas also leads in exports; indeed, the state “has always been an export-based economy, with first cotton, then energy and now high-tech linking it to global markets” (The future is – Texas; Texas, 2002)
Almost all of these programs represented expansions in federal authority and involvement of the federal government in areas traditionally viewed as falling under the reserved powers of the states. For this reason, many of these policies were initially struck down by the Supreme Court, prompting the discussion of expanding the size of the Supreme Court and resulting in concerns relating to “court packing.” Furthermore, many of the New Deal programs focused on relief, such as Work Pays America, required cooperation between the federal government, which established and helped fund these programs, and state governments, which were charged with implementing the programs.
