"God Bless Texas"

[Pure Purple]

Texas Independence Day.....March 2, 1836

"Texas is a State of Mind, Texas is an Obsession, Above all, Texas is a Nation in every

sense of the Word".....John Steinbeck


"I have said that Texas is a state of mind, but I think it is more than that. It is a mystique

closely approximating a religion".....Steinbeck

 

[An-Cap Frog]

Missed opportunity by joining the United States, IMHO...

 

[An-Cap Frog]

 

[The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog]

Missed opportunity by joining the United States, IMHO...

Should have held out for the Pac 4 invite

 

[Limey Frog]

I mean, Abel Upshaw's annexation treaty failed in the Senate in part because John C. Calhoun subsequently argued for it on the grounds that it protected plantation slavery from the encroaching geopolitical influence of the abolition-minded British in the Gulf South. The constitutionally dubious joint resolution of statehood was pushed through because Texas played the 1845 equivalent of the "look, Big Ten, you need to know that I have been talking to the SEC and, no, I can't wait forever" card.

The real missed opportunity was to enter a defensive alliance with the British and gain permanent independence in exchange for the short-term pain and long-term gain of abolishing slavery without having to go to the trouble of letting a bunch of Missouri Unionist types march over the Red River and trash everything.

Just sayin'...

 

[An-Cap Frog]

I mean, Abel Upshaw's annexation treaty failed in the Senate in part because John C. Calhoun subsequently argued for it on the grounds that it protected plantation slavery from the encroaching geopolitical influence of the abolition-minded British in the Gulf South. The constitutionally dubious joint resolution of statehood was pushed through because Texas played the 1845 equivalent of the "look, Big Ten, you need to know that I have been talking to the SEC and, no, I can't wait forever" card.

The real missed opportunity was to enter a defensive alliance with the British and gain permanent independence in exchange for the short-term pain and long-term gain of abolishing slavery without having to go to the trouble of letting a bunch of Missouri Unionist types march over the Red River and trash everything.

Just sayin'...

John C. Calhoun is one of the most important and unique men in American history, primarily because of his contributions to American political thought. His views on banking and finance, federalism, and executive power are still current.

 

[Limey Frog]

John C. Calhoun is one of the most important and unique men in American history, primarily because of his contributions to American political thought. His views on banking and finance, federalism, and executive power are still current.

Yes, I think there's a lot of merit in his take on federalism. His ideas are just considered untouchable because his motivation was to protect slavery. It is possible for a correct and good argument to be made for a wrong and bad reason. It is possible to take such an argument and transpose it to another context that isn't noxious. It is, alas, less possible to convince some people that such things are possible. What kind of meaningful discussion is possible in a world where the term "field-work" is potentially offensive? (Because, apparently, no one but a slave ever worked in a field...)

 

[Deep Purple]

The constitutionally dubious joint resolution of statehood was pushed through because Texas played the 1845 equivalent of the "look, Big Ten, you need to know that I have been talking to the SEC and, no, I can't wait forever" card.

If the joint resolution was approved by both houses of the US Congress and mutually approved by the Texas Congress, how was it "constitutionally dubious"?

Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution clearly says: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...."

 

[Deep Purple]

I mean, Abel Upshaw's annexation treaty failed in the Senate in part because John C. Calhoun subsequently argued for it on the grounds that it protected plantation slavery from the encroaching geopolitical influence of the abolition-minded British in the Gulf South.

It was actually good for Texas that the Tyler-Texas annexation treaty failed ratification in June 1844. Had it passed, Texas would not have immediately become a state, but would have to first pass through a territorial status and surrender all its public lands to the federal government.

When the annexation issue was reintroduced as a Joint Resolution of Congress in December 1844 (with the Texas Congress concurring in July 1845), American Manifest Destiny ambitions and fear of British encroachment into Texas were at an all-time high. This was partly due to a wily Texas administration alternately cozying up to Britain and keeping her at arms length to play on American Anglophobia. For these reasons, and perhaps because Texans might feel wounded over the defeat of the annexation treaty, the Joint Resolution significantly sweetened the deal for Texas. Texas would skip territorial status, being admitted directly as a state, and would retain its public lands.

The retention of public lands was critical. The US owns 50%-80% of public lands in most western states. In Texas, it owns less than 2% -- which it had to acquire by purchase, mainly for military bases. It also means Texas, not the Feds, controls the state's oil reserves.

 

[ftwfrog]

 

[Showtime Joe 2.0]

If the joint resolution was approved by both houses of the US Congress and mutually approved by the Texas Congress, how was it "constitutionally dubious"?

Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution clearly says: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...."

I believe the argument is that since both the United States and the Republic of Texas were sovereign countries that any agreement between them would have to come in the form of a treaty.

 

[Limey Frog]

If the joint resolution was approved by both houses of the US Congress and mutually approved by the Texas Congress, how was it "constitutionally dubious"?

Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution clearly says: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...."

That had never been applied to a putatively sovereign nation. Until they did it, no one assumed they could. The constitution assumes that binding agreements with foreign states need 2/3 Senate approval. Of course, in an age where wars and treaties are just the work of an emperor-president, who cares?