Texas is unique as a state in that it was neither one of the original colonies that joined together to form the US nor was it aquired via purchase or war. Texas was an independent country which voluntarily joined the US. In fact its borders were established via treaty with the United States and by Supreme Court action. In a previous thread I had brought out that Texas has the right to split to become as many as 6 states. This quickly degenrated into a Texas is different thread. Is it time for Texas to go its own way again? Should Texas secede from the United States of America?

How could it? Surely the US wouldn't allow their 2nd largest state to separate? I'm sure that Texans have no qualms with being part of the US.

Actually there are quite a few that want to leave. They are still not a sizeable number. Search Republic of Texas. One site is a "virtual" Republic of Texas, it is only semi-serious, really more tongue in cheek. There is also a site for an extremist group that already feels and acts like they aren't part of the USA (nuts with guns who refuse to pay taxes and play GI Joe in barbed wire compounds).

Is this so? Were Idaho or Illinois acquired via purchase or war. (BTW I know there were many more. Hawaii?)

My question is, would anyone miss Texas? Heh. Besides, let's say by some unknown miracle Texas broke from the US, what then? They could build casinos!!

What about Vermont, eh? Nobody eber mentions Vermont! Nobody! Nobody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Whoops, I got a little out of control there. But anyways, why should Texas secede from the US? It's not like they would do any better as a new country. They'd have to make up all of the new laws, etc., and not to mention all of the illegal aliens who would seize the chance to come into Texas. And what about the people living in Texas? What are they supposed to do, pick up their house and drag it to California? Huh? Huh?

[ 11-05-2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Willard ]

Texas leaving the US...wouldn't Bush be happy? :D

EDIT- This situation is much the same as Quebec when it wanted to leave Canada!

[ 11-05-2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Sir Goulum ]

You are correct Donut. Some areas were just part of American expansion into areas that no other country claimed. {Since the Indian tribes living there already possessed no valid claim.} I believe that at least part of Idaho was acquired in the Louisiana purchase. The Spanish American War also played a part.

Willard, nobody mentions Vermont for a reason :D Also I'm sure the only immigration we would want to control is keeping out "damn yankees". Those Northerners who were smart enough to move to Texas would be given naturalized status.
Sir G then WE could keep Bush out. He is about as Texan as I am a Canadian.
Have you ever wondered how his family is a native of Mass.,Tex., and Florida?
Their state pride stretches to where they can get elected.

Damn yankee...now there's something I haven't heard in...two months. Heh.

I thought he was texan! :confused:

Sir G, that's what he tells everyone. IT'S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU! Actually he has lived here for a long time as was even Gov. Don't you have family members you want to hide and not admit to?

Actually yes [img]tongue.gif[/img]

if I were texas i would succede from the US, and then apply for foreign aid.

[ 11-05-2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe ]

LOL, this is like the time when they split up Springfield into Old Springfield and New Springfield on the Simpsons, just because of an extra area code. All of the rich people lived in New Springfield, and Homer and his buddies lived in Old Springfield. All they did was sit around and drink beer all day. :D

Is this so? Were Idaho or Illinois acquired via purchase or war. (BTW I know there were many more. Hawaii?)</font>[/QUOTE]Idaho was part of the Louisanna(SP?) purchase, Illinois we won won during the revolution :D I'm not sure about Hawaii I believe it was acquired through a treaty. Vermont and Texas were both Independent Countries before they joined the Union. I don't beleive Texas ever signed the surrender of the U.S. Civil war, I could be wrong on that my Old Fart's memory being what it is :D . So in essance Texas is still indepenent and at a state of war with the U.S.A. How's that for monkey wrench in the works :D

No, what would be the point? Not too much to gain if Texas did that. And for the record, no Bush is not a native Texan, he moved here when he was 3 I think and grew up in Midland.

Edit: John D. It was actually N. (or S. ?) Carolina that never surrendered to the Union :D

[ 11-05-2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

<font color="#00ccff">Were Idaho and Iowa not part of the Louisiana purchase? I havent looked at the map of that in a long time....time to go searching on the web [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Is this so? Were Idaho or Illinois acquired via purchase or war. (BTW I know there were many more. Hawaii?)</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#00ccff">I found this on the web.
<font color=lightgreen>
Thirteen states or parts of states have been carved from The Louisiana Purchase Territory. They are as follows: Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, lowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana. </font>

In my history class last week we covered the purchase of Idaho and Washington, and I found in my notes that we bought those from the British as part of a deal to give the British help if a feared Russian threat emerged in Canada...or some such. Im still researching. </font>

Are you sure about that? Sherman did a number on S. Carolina in his march to the sea, along with what he did to Georgia, and I thunked he turned north. (note to self re-read Civil war books, nay, I'm to old I'll just watch the discovery channel :D )

Well the European Union would rub it's hands with glee if that ever eventuated. ;)

Are you sure about that? Sherman did a number on S. Carolina in his march to the sea, along with what he did to Georgia, and I thunked he turned north. (note to self re-read Civil war books, nay, I'm to old I'll just watch the discovery channel :D )</font>[/QUOTE]No I am not sure, thats just what I have heard before :D

Well, it seems like the one thing this thread has done is to send us all scurrying back to check our history books. Teachers everywhere are clapping with glee. They're learning, they're learning.
Trying to get back on topic, does anyone have any views concerning the Republic of Texas? There are people here working to make it a reality. I think their legal premise is weak and our Civil War pretty much answered the question. (ie. What Congress has joined together no state may separate)
What I'm afraid will happen is that those acting like the "Republic" already exists will cause the next big confrontation and shoot out.

[ 11-05-2002, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: antryg ]

<font color = lightgreen>Although I am quite sure that there are plenty of people elsewhere in the US who might like to see Texas secede, it will never happen (at least not anytime in the next century or two).
Were Texas to secede and try to become its own nation, we would need a currency, not to mention other governmental agencies we don't have already. The problem with this is that the average Texan is opposed to big, expansive government.

Even though I disagree with the Republic of Texas, they do raise an interesting point about whether the bringing of Texas into the US was, at that time, Constitutional. This question has never been answered satisfactorily.</font>

What about Vermont, eh? Nobody eber mentions Vermont! Nobody! Nobody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, Willard beat me to it. And, at least one other person on the board thinks to mention Vermont upon occassion, Willard, but don't let me ruin your inferiority complex. ;)

West Virginia, by the way, was never properly chartered as a state, a fact they love to point out. Oh, and they still have a border dispute with Virginia, which the government solved by creating a National Park over the area.

Sorry, just pointing out that Texas is not so different.

But secede if you like, President Bush will become unqualified and Cheney will be president. ;)

Excerpt from http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehoo.html :
On October 24, 1861, residents of thirty-nine counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist state. The accuracy of these election results have been questioned, since Union troops were stationed at many of the polls to prevent Confederate sympathizers from voting. At the Constitutional Convention, which met in Wheeling from November 1861 to February 1862, delegates selected the counties for inclusion in the new state of West Virginia. From the initial list, most of the counties in the Shenandoah Valley were excluded due to their control by Confederate troops and a large number of local Confederate sympathizers. In the end, fifty counties were selected (all of present-day West Virginia's counties except Mineral, Grant, Lincoln, Summers, and Mingo, which were formed after statehood). Most of the eastern and southern counties did not support statehood, but were included for political, economic, and military purposes. The mountain range west of the Blue Ridge became the eastern border of West Virginia to provide a defense against Confederate invasion. One of the most controversial decisions involved the Eastern Panhandle counties, which supported the Confederacy. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which ran through the Eastern Panhandle, was extremely important for the economy and troop movements. Inclusion of these counties removed all of the railroad from the Confederacy.

*******

The United States Constitution says a new state must gain approval from the original state, which never occurred in the case of West Virginia. Since the Restored Government was considered the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the state of West Virginia.

When Congress addressed the West Virginia statehood bill, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner demanded an emancipation clause to prevent the creation of another slave state. Restored Government Senator Carlile wanted a statewide election to decide the issue. Finally, a compromise between Senator Willey and Committee on Territories Chairman Benjamin Wade of Ohio, determined that, after July 4, 1863, all slaves in West Virginia over twenty-one years of age would be freed. Likewise, younger slaves would receive their freedom upon reaching the age of twenty-one. The Willey Amendment prohibited some slavery but it permitted the ownership of slaves under the age of twenty-one.

The United States Senate rejected a statehood bill proposed by Carlile which did not contain the Willey Amendment and then, on July 14, 1862, approved a statehood proposal which included the Willey Amendment. Carlile's vote against the latter bill made him a traitor in the eyes of many West Virginians and he was never again elected to political office. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the act. On December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia as a state loyal to the Union without abolishing slavery. The next step was to put the statehood issue to a vote by West Virginia's citizens. Lincoln may have had his own reasons for creating the new state, knowing he could count on West Virginia's support in the 1864 presidential election. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the fifty counties approved the statehood bill, including the Willey Amendment, and on June 20, the state of West Virginia was officially created.

Ack! I was born in Hawaii the year after it acquired statehood....you think they'll secede and leave me homeland-less? ;) :D sheesh, and I love pineapple, too! :D

[ 11-06-2002, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font color="#00ccff">Ok, according to the notes I took in history class, All the lands east of the Mississippi were basicly declared US property in the treaty of Paris. Spain Owned Florida for a while, and Napoleon Held the Louisiana territory (as described in my earlier post) The New England states were fleshed out in agreements with the British who ended up owning Canada.

We eventually got Florida from Spain, bought the Louisiana purchase from Napoleon (who apparently did not realize exactly how much land was at stake).
California was bought from Mexico, the territory north of California was received from the English in return to form the current canadian border (we turned over some of the Louisiana purchase lands which extended into what is now canada) And for our pledge of aid if the Russians decided to make incursions into British territories.

The South Western US was refered to as the "Great American Desert" and wasn't looked at till later in the 1800's

The US made the Monroe Doctrine to keep European countries out of the western Hemisphere with the backing of the British who pledged to use their fleet to attack nay invasion forces sent to the new world from any other european nation.

Well thats all I got on the aquisition of territory by the Early US.</font>

And Alaska was bought from Russia

Three West Indian Isles was bought from Denmark (St. Cruix and two others)