The 5 states of Texas (Houston, Dallas: lawyer, buy, wage)

[Jrsgun]

Like I said if you can not find it the Texas Constitution,U.S. Constitution or the Articles of Confederation then more than likely it is not true. Go for the facts,if it is there you will be able to find it.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by Jrsgun

Like I said if you can not find it the Texas Constitution,U.S. Constitution or the Articles of Confederation then more than likely it is not true. Go for the facts,if it is there you will be able to find it.

The Articles of Confederation is no longer valid. The US Constitution was written almost 60 years before Texas was annexed. Neither is a great place to look for information about Texas. The vast majority of American laws are not in the Constitution. Our treaties, including the Treaty of Annexation of 1845, are not written in the Constitution.

The Texas Constitution does not include the relationship between the federal government and Texas. It includes how Texas must govern itself. You can absolutely find information that isn't in those three documents that is still relevant in Texas.

The Texas Constitution is unreadable and unworkable anyways--it's far too long and has been amended so many times as to be contradictory to itself.

You need to do more reading before you correct other people. The Texas Code isn't in the constitution, for instance, but it's valid law in the state.

[theloneranger]

Specifically:
PBS - THE WEST - The Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress March 1, 1845

"New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution."

[Jrsgun]

Ordinance of Annexation Approved by the Texas Convention
on July 4, 1845


Related Links
Narrative history of AnnexationNarrative history of Secession and Readmission

An Ordinance

Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas to that Union, which resolutions were offered by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845; and

Whereas, the President of the United States has submitted to Texas the first and second sections of said resolutions, as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of the said Union; and

Whereas, the existing Government of the Republic of Texas, has assented to the proposals thus made, --the terms and conditions of which are as follows:
"Joint Resolutions for annexing Texas to the United States

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.
2nd. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."
Now in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic, as required in the above recited portions of said resolutions, we the deputies of the people of Texas, in convention assembled, in their name and by their authority, do ordain and declare, that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions and guarantees, contained in the first and second sections of the Resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.
In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names
Thomas J. Rusk
President

followed by 61 signatures
Attest
James H. Raymond
Secretary of the Convention.
SOURCE:
Journals of the Constitution Convention of Texas, 1845, pub. in Austin by Miner and Cruger, Printers to the Constitution, 1845, pp. 367-370.

I beg to differ,no one was corrected,just check for facts before stating them as facts. In other words back it up with proof.

The annexation does state that Texas could form into 4 other states if the so desired,not mandatory, but it was not anything to do with the possibilty of secession.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[Jrsgun]

Just keep your head in the sand,Miss leslie b,it'll be alright.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[airboat5]

wheres this going?

[Canine*Castle]

Yep, this country is not going to be the country it used to be. I was floored when I read this article.

US Flag 'Offensive' at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas | NowPublic News Coverage

It is my understanding she was finally allowed to hang the Flag again but my gracious, this shouldn't have happened in the first place.

[topcat1377]

Texas vs White 1869 ........no sucession.

I am a 6th generation Texan decended from Austin colonists and decended from a veteran of the Battle of San Jacinto. I am a proud Texan and a proud citizen of the United States. I am not a bigot or racist so do not misunderstand my opinion.
Based on current demographics, sucession could easily result in a country called Texanna, Texia, or North Mexico.....for someone of Mexican decent - maybe not a bad deal ! I wouldn't fault them....

[Jrsgun]

topcat1377,

Read this Quote:

For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.
"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.
What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.
To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.
This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.
Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...
The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.
It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.
An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).
Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES & LET THE BATTLE BEGIN
GOD BLESS TEXAS & THE U.S. MILTARY

[catman]

Combing through 140-year-old material won't change the fact that Texas would not be allowed to leave the United States. All President Grant was saying was that he didn't recognize the secession of Texas in 1861, as he considered it illegal due to the indissolubility of the contract previously entered into.

I wish this thread hadn't turned into a duplication of the silly "Secede?" thread. Jrsgun's statements are nothing more than a bitter attack on the Federal Government, which Governor Goodhair professes to abhor, but from which he is more than willing to accept about $10 million to rebuild the Governor's Mansion (but not a stinking cent for unemployment compensation..."let them eat cake", as Marie Antoinette famously stated). Curses.