DH> According to whom? The Republic of Texas people? It has been a long
DH> time since I have had to apply this knowledge, but I seem to remember
DH> that, on an Air Force base, the state flag is typically flown on the
DH> same staff, below the Stars and Stripes.
 
       According to the flag protocols of the state of Texas.  In
affairs of the state government, and at state institutions, the Texas
flag cannot be properly flown beneath the American flag on the same
staff.  Federal institutions in Texas generally abide by this protocol.
       
DH> Until such time as the people of Texas earn the privilege of
DH> independence, Texas *is* only one state of fifty, and the same laws
DH> apply in Texas, as apply elsewhere. Granted, we have too many federal
DH> laws, but that doesn't change the fact that Texas is no more
DH> privileged than any other state.
  
         I continue to believe, because of the special circumstances of
Texas admission to the union, Texas the conditions of our relationship
with Washington are slightly different than that of other states.  I
agree, the difference is relatively insignifigant, and translantes into
very little of substance at this point, but it is an importance
difference.  All other states, for example, were either American
territories or among the origional colonies before admission.  None
were immediately recognized as a state upon admission.  No other state
entered the United States by treaty, and so entering joined the union
based upon the conditions of that treaty.
         For any people, Texans or Ukranians, Kurds or the Brits, I do
not consider, in my own mind, self-government a privilage to be granted
or taken away by others at their pleasure.  Self-government is a right,
posessed by all men and women and may, as they choose, be exercised at
their own pleasure.
           At present there is no overwhelming support in Texas for the
proposition of self-government and as such I believe our relationship
and agreements with Washington ought be adhered to, but I also believe
that the federal government is slowly and inalterably abandoning the
principles and values that united us.  As the gap between the things we
believe in and that government widens, there will come a point in time
when we must at least seriously consider the options available to us.
           From my own perspective that point in time has already
arrived, but I am yet a small minority even among my peers here in
Texas.  I do beleive, however, as time passes, what is today a small
minority will one day become a large majority.  Events, merit, and
circumstances will ultimately determine the course of the future of
history.
DH> 
 MA> With congressional approval, however, Texas reserves that right
 MA> unilaterally and requires no congressional approval.  
DH> Guess again, I am no great legal scholar, but for the new states to be
DH> admitted as states, would require Congressional approval. Bottom line,
DH> any special provisions of the original treaty of annexation(or whateve
DH> it was called) no longer apply.
 
           However, in the Treaty of Annexation, Congress pre-approved
the right of Texas to sub-divide into as many as five states. 
Congressional approval has already been granted and no additional
approval need be aquired.
 
DH> The I am not aware of this Supreme court ruling.
 
      It's an interesting one and the one that supposedly determined,
once and for all, the unconstitutionality of secession. In White vs.
Texas (1868), the Supreme Court, lacking a constitutional foundation
for it's ruling, actually had to refer to the Articles of Confederation
to rule that secession was unconstitutional.  It's one of the more
interesting rulings ever to come down from the court. 
      Still, as a Supreme Court ruling, it is the law of the land and
carried the same force as the constitution itself.  If you should read
it please take special note of paragraph 6 where Texas is granted two
means by which it can effect separation from the United States.  The
first, by sustainable armed rebellion is, IMHO, merely a recognition
that nations are born by revolution and certianly not an endorsement of
rebellion, but the second, "with consent of a majority of the remaining
states", gives Texas a constitutional means to lawfully restore
self-government.  It may not be an easy means, and should not be, nor
can it be a unilateral act, which also may be in our mutual
self-interests, but the path, should we ever decide to exercise it, is
a clearly marked one.
 
DH> Which renders the Texas independence movement itself irrelevant.
 
        Of relative insignifigance I would accept, but totally
irrelevant I would hesitate to say.  Since 1846 there has been, in one
form or another, a movement in support of restoration of the Republic.
Even mainstream politicians in Texas occasionally broach the subject
and a fierce sense of national identity is a part of Texas.  
         Texas A&M University, in the late 1980's, conducted a poll
involving several hundred individuals on the topic and found that 28%
of Texans would consider independence under the right circumstances.
As long as this many Texans are willing to look at independence as a
viable option, it's hard to declare those advocating a harder look at
the viability of the proposition as being totally irrevelant.  Even as
we speak, at least one of the three political parties that are
recognized by the state, based upon votes recieved in previous
elections, has as a plank in it's party platform a call for a public
referrendum in the issue.
      This topic may not be taken seriously outside of Texas, but when
someone brings the topic up in Texas it is discussed quite seriously.  
  
                                     /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------