Texan group wants independance

C

Cryomaniac

Chrono Cadet
News link
"Republic of Texas" Again Pushes for Independence
LAST UPDATE: 2/24/2005 10:49:26 AM
Posted By: Jim Forsyth

The separatist Republic of Texas group, which largely dissolved after an abortive uprising in the Davis Mountains left several of its leaders dead or in prison in 1997, has reformed, and is again pushing it's message that Texas should be a free and independent nation, 1200 WOAI news reported today.

From a newly established 'capitol' in the east Texas town of Overton, Daniel Miller, President of the Republic of Texas Interim Government, says a desire to be free, combined with ballooning concerns over rising taxes and property rights, will convince more Texans to support a 'referendum' on whether Texas should become an independent nation.

"We're seeking a referendum to allow the people of Texas to vote on independence," Miller said. "We're looking forward to the benefits of Texas independence, where Texas stands as a nation among other nations."

Texas was a republic from 1836 until joining the United States in December of 1845, in a move that helped spark the Mexican War. Texas joined the Confederate States of America in 1861, and talk of independence has surfaced off and on since the end of the Civil War, although no reputable historian or political scientists expects the event will ever occur.

"There are many reasons why Texas would be better off as a republic," Miller said. "One of our biggest problems right now is school finance, and we don't have enough money to keep our schools solvent. Yet we send $129 billion to Washington D.C. annually for them to spend on projects that don't really affect Texas. We feel that if we could keep that money here at home we could solve all of our problems."

He says Texas is currently the eighth largest economy in the world, and second largest on a per capita basis..

"An independent Texas would be an economic powerhouse worldwide."

Led by self proclaimed "Ambassador" Richard McLaren, several people claiming to represent the Republic of Texas Organization took two hostages in remote Fort Davis. The resulting standoff left two Republic of Texas sympathizers dead and McLaren and several followers are serving lengthy prison terms for their roles in the incident.

In the weeks leading up to the standoff, McLaren had been attaching frivolous write and liens to the property of opponents, sympathizing with the 'militia' and 'freemen' movements which sprung up following the Branch Davidian siege in Waco in 1993, and even issuing $1.8 billion in phony financial documents. The new Republic of Texas movement condemns these actions and says it's movement is purely peaceful and political.

"Texas independence is not some fringe movement, nor is it reactionary," Miller says. "We are simply living out trends that are happening around the world. If you look at the past twenty years there have been in excess of thirty nations which have been formed. There is a trend worldwide toward independence and decontrol, and we think it's high time that the trend came to Texas."
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on this and whether or not it relates to Titor's prediction of a civil war?
 
At the moment it is just talk, they are all being very diplomatic, it's when they stop talking that you need to worry.
 
Re: Malcolm

It probably does speak to Titor's message - but probably not in the manner that you might think.

It is a message of a loss of rights when a group of about 50 people grab your attention by claiming that the other 22,000,000 people in their state aren't really U.S. citizens.

Those silly 22,000,000 people - what could they possibly be thinking by assuming that they are U.S. citizens? The insurance salesman has already told them that they aren't. And we all know that insurance salesman never fib or stretch the truth to make the sale.

Of course, if he gets his way then it opens the door for Mexico, who also claim that Texas was criminally and feloniously taken from them and is actually still one of their states.
 
Re: Malcolm

Canada also, has a few provinces with pockets of people who want to separate. It's cheaper than paying a lobbiest 10 million to get your voice heard. I don't think it works as well though /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Malcolm

over 90% or the US aren't really 'true' US citizens. Most or your origins are as foreign as a man/women whos recently emigrated from india.


A texan nation? a place for rich.....

kind regards,
Olly
 
Re: Malcolm

Olly,

You're not suggesting that I'm still a Royal Subject, are you?

By the standard that you set zero percent of "us" are "true" U.S. citizens - not even Native Americans. They would be citizens of Kamchatka, Irkutsk, Yakutsk, Siberia and China. Native Central and South Americans would be citizens of Australia via Tahiti and West Africa.

And of course the Irish, Welsh and Scots would win it all. They are the true citizens of the British Isles, not the Franco-Saxons.
 
Re: Malcolm

Canada also, has a few provinces with pockets of people who want to separate. It's cheaper than paying a lobbiest 10 million to get your voice heard. I don't think it works as well though
Click to expand...

Good point, and in this case I would say that this group has no chance of getting independance. By the way, the only reason I mentioned Titor in this thread was because of the (albeit vague) link the group in question have to waco.
 
Re: Malcolm

You mean, when George W. Bush tells them to get screwed.
Click to expand...

Yup. Ol Dubya eh? How clever of him to recreate the cold war with Russia. 'cept this time it'll be with the rest of Europe as well! Ho hum. Anyone got a spare nuclear bunker I can have?
 
Re: Malcolm

By the standard that you set zero percent of "us" are "true" U.S. citizens - not even Native Americans. They would be citizens of Kamchatka, Irkutsk, Yakutsk, Siberia and China. Native Central and South Americans would be citizens of Australia via Tahiti and West Africa.

And of course the Irish, Welsh and Scots would win it all. They are the true citizens of the British Isles, not the Franco-Saxons.
Click to expand...

So wait, where do you draw the line, I mean every country appears to have been colonized and sometimes many many times, does it matter who the first was or who's there now? And more importantly, since we all came from Africa, why argue over who the "true" US citizens are. I believe being a citizen is about more than just Where you live.
 
Re: Malcolm

Ren,

With these guys here's where you draw the line: Texas v. White, 7 WALL 700 (1869).

In 1869 the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue of Texas' (specifically) and any state's ability to withdraw from the Union. Bottom line: they have no such right.

When Texas entered the Union the U.S. government not only let them in - we paid Texas in 1850 dollars by issuing them 5% U.S. bonds with a par value of $10,000,000. They were compensated.

In the opinion Chief Justice Chase cuts to the chase (pun!). Here's his analysis:

The "Articles of Confederation " was not the complete name of the original U.S. Constitution. The full and complete name is "The Articles of Confideration and Perpetual Union Between The States." When the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia and the new Constitution was written they stated that this new Constitution was intended to form an even "more perfect union." Chief Justice Chase concluded that the more perfect union fully supported and amplified the idea of a perpetual union found in the Articles of Confederation.

What ws this case really about? It was a civil law suit over the possession by White of a portion of the $10,000,000 in U.S. bonds issued to texas in 1850. Texas sued White. Texas actually won the law suit. The Supreme Court declared that the contracts entered into between White and the rebel government of Texas was made with an illegally installed government and was thus null and void. (the rebels had kicked Sam Houston and his government out of office because they did not sign the Articles of Secession rather than removing them from office under the Texas Constitution, i.e. - they were not impeached. This violated the guarantee of a republican form of government clause of the U.S. Constitution.)

But it did settle, once and forever, not only the Texan lack of authority to leave the Union but for any state's lack of authority to leave the Union.

Here are Chief Justice's actual words:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual" And when these articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is, difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
*
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that "the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," and that "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Lane Co. v. Oregon [infra, 101]. Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,
*
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
*
Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
*
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National Government, but entirely In accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
Click to expand...

This is actually a fun case to absorb. It is complex, is important beyond the word "important" and it is otherwise (without the Civil War) a common, ordinary civil suit.
 
Back
Top