Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley clarified her stance on states’ secession during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, backtracking from remarks made earlier in the week.
In response to a question about Texans considering secession, she had initially said, “If Texas decides they want to do that, they can do that.
If that whole state says we don’t want to be part of America anymore, I mean, that’s their decision to make.” However, on Sunday, she emphasized that, according to the Constitution, states cannot secede.
Haley, a former U.N. ambassador and governor of South Carolina, the first state to secede after Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860, clarified that her previous comments were not an endorsement of secession.
She stated, “What I said is when government stops listening, let’s remember states’ rights matter. You have to be as close to the people as possible. No one is talking about seceding. That’s not an issue at all.”
The concept of secession in American states has historical roots, often credited to John Calhoun, a South Carolinian who served as U.S. vice president.
Secession discussions periodically arise in Texas, with recent debates linked to Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to use razor-wire fencing to block those attempting to cross into Texas from Mexico, defying a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted Border Patrol agents the right to remove the wire. Abbott justified his actions citing the “imminent danger” clause in the Constitution.
Haley expressed sympathy for Abbott’s position, acknowledging the frustration among Texans. She highlighted the need for federal support, criticizing the absence of presidential support for a governor trying to secure the safety of their constituents.
The discussion underscored the ongoing tensions around immigration policies and border security, with constitutional interpretations playing a crucial role in shaping state actions.
The episode reflected the delicate balance candidates like Haley navigate in addressing complex issues like secession, combining historical context, constitutional interpretation, and current political dynamics.
As the 2024 presidential campaign progresses, these nuanced discussions are likely to influence public perceptions and contribute to the broader discourse on states’ rights and federalism.