TE>Narrative History of Texas Annexation, Secession, and Readmission
TE>to the Union
TE>Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the
TE>first election following independence in 1836.  However,
TE>throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of
TE>annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States
TE>was ratified by both nations.
 
      There were actually two treaties negotiated between the Republic
of Texas and the United States.  The first was neither approved by
Congress nor the Republic and would have made Texas an American
territory and not a state.  The conditions of that treaty were
unacceptable to Texas and rejected by allowing the time limit on the
offer to simply expire.
      The second treaty offer was made with the approval of both houses
of the American Congress and signed by the President.  It was a more
generous offer accepting Texas immediately as a state, and complying
with most of the expressed desires of the Texas government concering
such issues as debt, territorial claims, and some other relatively
minor details.   This treaty offer was hastily offered through a joint
session of Congress as Mexico offered negotiation of a treaty with the
Republic of Texas recognizing Texas independence in return for a
promise to not join the American union.
          Anson Jones, our fourth President, yielded to pressure to
call a convention, after receipt and consideration of the Mexican
offer, to consider and accept or refuse the American treaty offer.
It was that convention, held in Austin, that untimately approved the
American offer.  
          How ever one chooses to view the events of 1844 and 1845, the
United States of America, in accoradance with the provisions for
treaties between nations as outlined by it's own Consitution, voted on
and offered a separate and independent nation, the Republic of Texas, a
treaty outlining terms and consditions for admission as an American
state.  That nation, the Republic of Texas, though by a dubious process
in accordance with it's own national consitution, approved and accepted
the treaty between itself and the United States accepting the
conditional admission as an American state.
TE>When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed,
TE>the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a
TE>simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the
TE>United States.  Under these terms, Texas would keep both its
TE>public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to
TE>divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the
TE>future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military,
TE>postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States
TE>government.  (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance
TE>passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas
TE>the right to secede.)
 
     Secession, until the decision of White vs. Texas (1868), was an
assumed right of all states.  It had been seriously pondered by the
northern states in the Hartford convention, and was tentively
exercised by various southern states at the beginning of the Civil War.
Though, by Supreme Court decision, secession, which is the act of a
unilateral withdrawal form the union, has now been declared
unconsitutional, at the time of Texas acceptance of the American treaty
offer it was assumed by all parties that secession was a right of the
states.  In fact, even the issue of nullification, the right of a state
to nullify federal laws it disagreed with, was unresolved at the time.
        Still, I agree, it is a political and now constitutional
reality that secession is simply not an option available to any state
unless that state posesses both the desire and the means to sustain the
act of unilateral withdrawal by force, an option very few people find
to be an attractive one.  However, a mutually agreed upon withdrawal
from the American union, with only the approval of a simple majority of
the remaining states, remains an option, at least for Texas.  
        In White vs. Texas, and the court was unclear whether it was
speaking directly to the unique nature of the relationship between
Texas and the federal union, or referring to all American states, the
court stated that withdrawal could be achieved lawfully, peacefully,
and constitutionally, with the consent of the remaining states.
        What form that consent would take also was undefined.  it could
be by approval of the state's legislatures, by popular vote, or by mere
approval of the state's governors, but one interesting part of that
decision was the total absence of any federal role in the withdrawal
process.
TE>In July 1845, a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention met
TE>in Austin to consider both this annexation proposal as well as a
TE>proposed peace treaty with Mexico which would end the state of
TE>war between the two nations, but only if Texas remained an
TE>independent country.
 
      This is in error, at least according to the historical
information I have available.  The Congress of the Republic of Texas
rejected the treaty offer from Mexico, not the convention, and the
convention was not a "constitutional convention" with elected
delegates, but a special convention with delegates appointed  
from each of the national senatorial and representative districts, plus
members of the Senate and cabinet officers being given automatic seats
to consider acceptace of the treaty offer by the United States.  After
approval by the convention, and upon their recommendation, both houses
of the Texas Congress and the President approved the American treaty.
      The Mexican offer to negotiate a treaty, there really wasn't a
firm treaty offer by Mexico at this point, was brokered by the British
and was not on the table at the convention.
TE>The Convention voted to accept the United States' proposal, and
TE>the Annexation Ordinance was submitted to a popular vote in
TE>October 1845.  The proposed Annexation Ordinance and State
TE>Constitution were approved by the Texas voters and submitted to
TE>the United States Congress.
  
          The treaty offer to Texas was preapproved by tje United
States in accordance with her own constitutional requirements.  It was
on the table and only required Texans to accept it to be in force.
Though contrary to our own national constitution, we did accept the
American offer both by an extra-constitutional convention and by vote
of our own national government based upon the conditions of the treaty.
          We can get into the "popular vote" that was held later as a
separate issue if you like, but that was essentially a sham where less
that 1% of the population of Texas voted.  Hardly something one would
want to hold up as a lawful verification of annexation.
  
         Since Texas was not a United States territory, it's proposed
state consitution, the Constitution of 1845, was not submited to the
United States Congress for "approval".  There are only two instances in
American history where state constitutions have been required to have
congressional approval.  When states are formed from territories and
seek admission as a state, and, of dubious legality since secession was
declared unconsitutional and therefore the states in question never
left the union, when the southern states were compelled to apply for
re-admission after the Civil War.  In the latter case, I still wonder
how a state that never left the union can apply for "re-admission".
TE>-------------------------------------------------------------
TE>I repeat the *most* relevant statements from the narrative:
TE>       "no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic
TE>       and the United States was ratified by both nations."
 
     And I repeat the revelant responses:
  
       All constitutional criteria for a treaty were met by the joint
resolution offered to the independent nation of Texas and our
acceptance of that offer, and the subsequent actions upon it by the
United States, constitutes a treaty agreement.
TE>and
TE>       "Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by
TE>       the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas
TE>       the right to secede."
  
       I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed, Texas has a right of
secession since the decision of White vs. Texas (1868).  I do, however,
continue to claim that in accordance with that decision a
constitutional process does exist whereby separation can be lawfully
achieved.
TE>Give it up Mike.  There is *NO* Treaty of Annexation nor is there
TE>an Independant Republic of Texas.  That republic permanently
TE>ceased to exist in 1845.
 
        Permanace is an awful strong word.  I would be reluctant to
apply such a word without very cafeful consideration of what I am
applying it to.  I have no doubt that, at one point in hisory or
another, powerful master nations with global influence also considered
their absolute control of such proples as the Irish, Ukranians, Poles,
Lithuanians, Koreans, and even the Spanish and the French to be both
unquestionable and premanant.  Time, however, proved them wrong.  In
the political world permanance is virtually non-existant. 
  
        My father and my father's father and his before him, with his
father having fought for our independence, were all Texas nationalists.
We, and others like us, have kept the fire of Texas nationalism alive
in our hearts for generations and, if necessary, we will continue to
keep it alive for generations to come.  Restoration of self-government
in Texas will, almost certianly, not come in my lifetime, and probably
not in the lifetime of my son, but like my fathers before me, I am
certian it will one day come.  
        We must accept the circumstance of the present, but no power on
Earth can deny us our hopes for the future. 
        
        You may occupy a man's land, but you cannot occupy his heart.
God bless the Republic of Texas. 
  
                                             /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------