I had dinner at a “Red River Roadhouse” in Springfield, VA this weekend. On the front of the menu was an essay explaining why Texas is not now nor has ever been a part of the United States of America. (Never mind that they had a 50-star flag hanging in the bar area.)
The essay basically said: 1) Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 (true enough). 2) Texas was “annexed” in 1845, but was never formally made a state. 3) In 1861, Texas simply cancelled the annexation agreement as was their right. They did not illegally secede from the USA. 4) In 1870, a special law was passed that allowed Texas full voting rights in the US Congress, but still nothing was resolved by Congress that made Texas a state.
To what degree are these arguements true? If truly true, would that mean that the acts of Texas-born presidents (LBJ and GWB) are null and void?
Or is it all a ploy so that I’ll pay higher prices at Red River Roadhouse because they serve foreign food?
Briefly, Texans voted for statehood in October of 1845. At the same time, Congress voted they should become a state, and the president signed the “Texas Admissions Act” at the end of December. The Governor was sworn in and the US Senators appointed in Feb. of 1846, and the members of the US house sworn in in March of 1848.
In 1861, Texas considered what they did a Secession, appointing a Secession Commission, who wrote an Ordinance of Secession, and in the Ordinance of Secession, they said
and in their Declaration of Causes, passed at the same time, the Texans stated:
The Supreme Court rejected this type of argument in a case shortly after the Civil War, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868). The provisional government of the state of Texas was suing some bond traders in the Supreme Court, to recover some bonds that the sescessionist government of the state had alienated. That raised the question whether the provisional government of Texas could sue under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, which in turn raised the issue whether Texas was still a state of the Union.
The Court held that Texas was a state, notwithstanding the attempt at secession and the fact that it was currently governed by a provisional government:
OK, that’s more cute Texas bluster. If it quacks like a duck…
The Congress has the power to admit states into the union and can and does change the method for doing so as time passes. But “Statehood” is not the result of a magical incantation that must be repeated in an exact manner for it to take effect.
IANAL, but to me, a jurisdiction that is under US sovereignty; that has duly constituted for itself a government fo the republican form; that elects 2 federal Senators and a number of Representatives and Presidential Electors in accordance to the US Census apportionment, who are then duly seated and recognized in the exercise of their functions by Congress; and wherein the US’s taxes and tariffs are levied and collected; and wherein the Constitution of the United States (and the Acts of Congress and Treaties passed in compliance with said constitution) is recognized as Supreme Law of the Land, is a “state of the union”, whether or not the words “Let X be a state” show up anywhere in the Acts, Resolutions, ordinances or hastily-scribbled-notes-on-a-napkin involved in getting it to be that way. (This is reminiscent of the argument as to whether Ohio was not really admitted until the mid 20th Century. )
In any case, a Republic IS a “state” : an organized body politic. Four of the 50 “states of the union” style themselves “Commonwealth” w/o it affecting their condition. As far as I am concerned they could also style themselves Republic, Freehold, Electorate, or Sugar-dusted Jelly Donut and they would still be states (as long as the government is republican: sorry about any Hawaiian monarchists).
I have nothing to add except that if you’re in that neighborhood and planning to eat dinner, for God’s sake walk the 50 feet to the Hard Times Cafe instead.
Even if true, the acts of LBJ, GHWB and GWB are all legal.
Even if Texas is not a state, but a “territory” of the U.S., it’s residents are still natural-born citizens (provided, of course, that they were born there) much like people born in Puerto Rico today are natural born citizens. Any of them (provided they meet the other constitutional requirements) are eligible to run for the presidency. So, even if Texas were not a state (or Ohio, as tax-resisters would like to believe), the natural-born citizens of those states are eligible to become POTUS.
