< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
It's hard to know where to put the blame here -- on the
Biased Liberal Media or on competing demands for newspaper
space and air time, what with the volunteer conference in
Philadelphia and the latest Ramsey twist. In either case, I
feel rather uninformed about the current insurgency
operating as the Republic of Texas.
According to the brief news accounts, the self-styled
republic has an ambassador, Richard McLaren, who claims
that the state of Texas was illegally annexed into the
United States and is actually a sovereign nation.
Texas was indeed a sovereign nation, more or less, from its declaration of independence in 1836 until it joined the union in 1845. It issued currency, operated an army and navy, conducted a foreign policy, oppressed most of its population to benefit a few rich people and otherwise exhibited all the attributes of sovereignty.
But on what grounds do they claim that the annexation of Texas was illegal?
That's where I feel shorted by the media. One possibility is that when Texas came into the union in 1845, it got to keep its public land. In all the other states, the federal government maintained control of public land. Perhaps it's this Texas oddity that makes the annexation illegal.
Another possibility is that Texas was annexed by joint resolution of the U.S. Congress, rather than by a regular federal law, like all the other states added since the original 13 colonies. This could be the problem.
At any rate, McLaren, the current ambassador,
says We want them to agree to a referendum to vote on
the independence issue.
But there was a referendum. On Oct. 13, 1845, Texas voted by a margin of 4,000 to 200 to annex to the United States.
Perhaps, though, McLaren believes that vote was invalid, since only white males could vote in the Republic of Texas then: women, black slaves, Hispanic natives, Comanche residents -- none of them were consulted about joining the Union in 1845.
The annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845 led
directly to the Mexican War a year later. As for the
legality
of that war which confirmed Texas as part
of the United States, well, all manner of people then
denounced it as immoral and unjustified.
Among the critics were Ulysses S. Grant, a young Army lieutenant who fought with valor and distinction, Abraham Lincoln, a Whig congressman from Illinois who apparently wrecked his political career by opposing the war, and Henry David Thoreau, a poet and essayist in Massachusetts who went to jail rather than pay taxes to support the war.
McLaren and his fellow Texians could be waging their struggle on those grounds, too.
See why I wish the media would provide us with more information about this revived Republic of Texas? They might pick up some support from squishy liberals if they're claiming that the Texas vote of 1845 was not sufficiently inclusive, or from hard-core conservatives if they're opposed to the U.S. because it is insufficiently opposed to abortion and too opposed to school prayer.
Further, this could affect me and thousands of other Coloradans, depending on the boundaries that the Republic claims.
If they're just after the current Texas, it doesn't
matter too much whether then gain sovereignty or not.
Already I have to learn to speak differently (Heidi,
yawl
) after crossing that border, master a different
vocabulary (ice house
means convenience store
there and Mexican food
means a bland concoction of
guacamole and sour cream), and remember to drive
friendly
on the highway shoulder, instead of the
regular traffic lane.
But if they're after the full domain of the old Republic of Texas, then all of Colorado between the Arkansas and Rio Grande (and lines drawn due north from their sources) might become subject to the restored Republic.
Now, I consider myself a fairly loyal Coloradan. But Texas, I sadly note, has lower taxes, better highways, a governor who stands up for its interests, several excellent universities, thousands of clean roadside restrooms, a senator who had the decency to resign office before changing parties and a much better sense of its history and identity.
So if there is a vote someday, I hope those of us in the lost northern reaches of the Republic of Texas will get a chance to participate, and in the debate before the referendum, we might learn whether there are any good reasons to remain part of Colorado.
I'm sure there must be some, and if you give a few weeks, something will come to mind.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >