March 2, 1836 - Texas Declares Independence

[oljames3]

Happy Birthday, Texas!

[Rafe]

The first flag of the Republic of Texas

[wil]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

[Rafe]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

But Texas had never been a state, or even a part of the United States, when it declared independence at Washington-on-the-Brazos. It had been absorbed into Mexico when Mexico won independence in 1821. My early Texan ancestors had to declare that they were Catholic and take an oath of Mexican citizenship in order to settle here. In 1830, Mexican president Bustamante outlawed the immigration of U.S. citizens into Texas, and then--the straw that eventually started to break the camel's back--established and began to enforce with new presidios those immigration restrictions and new customs duties, which affected not just recent Anglo arrivals to Texas but all of the existing Mexican citizens. Which is how, overlooked by some recent "woke" historians (like the HBO special that claimed the Battle of the Alamo was purely racist), we ended up with Mexican-born citizens leading the fight alongside Anglos, and thousands of them fighting for independence.

Texans lobbied for more political freedom at the Convention of 1832 and the Convention of 1833; at the latter Stephen F. Austin was arrested and jailed on suspicion of treason. And then the move by Santa Anna to repeal the Mexican Constitution, centralize power in Mexico City, and further disenfranchise Texas. The first armed conflict was October 2, 1835: the Battle of Gonzales where Texans fought back an attempt by Mexican troops to take a cannon, a small one, in fact. But hence we get one of the one of the great repurposing of the Trojan line from the Battle of Thermopylae: "Come and take it." The U.S. did actually try to negotiate the purchase of Coahuila y Tejas from Mexico, but that never got far. Then, ultimately, the revolt was on and the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos.

On February 28, 1845, the U.S. Congress passed--but only barely--a bill to authorize the annexation of Texas if it so voted...which it did on October 13, 1845. After statehood, the U.S. claimed all land north of the Rio Grande, which didn't sit well with Mexico who claimed the Nueces River to be its border with Texas. On April 25, 1846, a Mexican Cavalry unit attacked a small U.S. patrol that was north of the Rio Grande but south of the Nueces. That was the start of the Mexican–American War. It started over the Texas border, though no more battles would be fought north of the Rio Grande; the U.S. took the war into northern Mexico.

[jerry_r60]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

[wil]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

[jerry_r60]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

You are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.

[wil]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

You are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.

you didn't answer my question.

if what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence is the truth, they correctly identified the right to self-determination and how that relates to the authority of government and it's purpose.
Is it the truth that no man-made law can legitimately supersede that right.

yes or no?

Because according to your statement and hence logic, secession or otherwise removing a government from a body politic was or is illegal according to government created laws. Be it Mexico, Britain, etc.
If what you state here is the truth, then what the Founders wrote & identified is not the truth, ie: a lie.

It is either/ or. Either one of these is the truth, there is no in between. Which is it? Is it illegal to engage in the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence or is it illegal owing to government created law and hence what the Founders wrote is a lie?

[jerry_r60]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

You are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.

you didn't answer my question.

if what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence is the truth, they correctly identified the right to self-determination and how that relates to the authority of government and it's purpose.
Is it the truth that no man-made law can legitimately supersede that right.

yes or no?

Because according to your statement and hence logic, secession or otherwise removing a government from a body politic was or is illegal according to government created laws. Be it Mexico, Britain, etc.
If what you state here is the truth, then what the Founders wrote & identified is not the truth, ie: a lie.

It is either/ or. Either one of these is the truth, there is no in between. Which is it? Is it illegal to engage in the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence or is it illegal owing to government created law and hence what the Founders wrote is a lie?

This would be an interesting discussion around a cup of coffee. I saw your "question" about my logic more as a statement just with a question mark at the end so commented on that. I'll grant a big caveat, our constitution allows change.

In your original post you said to ask if Texas declaring independence was illegal. At that time it was under Mexican law and the answer would be yes so I wasn't sure what asking that did.

As for the Declaration of Independence question it makes interesting discussion around a table on what it means and how it applies in theory but we already have a test case in this country with states wanting to secede. I suppose some state may ask in the future and the federal decision go the other way.

We have also already had a SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White

[MadMonkey]

The first flag of the Republic of Texas

The Zavala flag hangs proudly in front of my place (well, when I'm not deployed).

My great (x6) grandfather fought with Bowie at the Battle of Nacogdoches, kicking off the Texas Revolution. He redeemed himself for fighting in the Battle of Lundy's Lane in the war of 1812... as a British captain

[Rafe]

The Zavala flag hangs proudly in front of my place (well, when I'm not deployed).

My great (x6) grandfather fought with Bowie at the Battle of Nacogdoches, kicking off the Texas Revolution.

Small world, ain't it?

My 4g-grandfather (a couple of very long generations in there) and one of his sons fought at the Battle of Nacogdoches, too. I'm descended from a daughter, so the son was my 4th great-grand-uncle. After house-to-house fighting, the Mexican force retreated to the primary fortification, the cuartel. The main band of Texans gathered north of the town and came down North Street. My grandfather and his son were with a group that had come over from the San Augustine area to the east; they followed the banks of Lanana Creek and circled around to approach the town square from the south. During the night, Colonel José de las Piedras, commander of the Mexican Twelfth Permanent Battalion at Nacogdoches, opted to evacuate his men and head for San Antonio.

Before dawn on August 3, James Carter and Jim Bowie organized a total of 17 men to go after Piedras's march west. The small band caught up with the Mexican troops at the Angelina River, and what ensued was a running, guerrilla-warfare skirmish that moved upriver toward Linwood Crossing. Near what is now Douglas, Piedras's men turned on him and a captain, Francisco Medina, assumed command and surrendered to the Texans, who marched the whole lot back to Nacogdoches. Asa Edwards took Piedras to San Felipe and turned him over to Stephen F. Austin where, after a while, he was released and returned to Mexico. Jim Bowie took the lead to march what was left of the Mexican Twelfth Permanent Battalion to San Antonio.

There were only a little more than 100 Texans who remained after the first Mexican cavalry charge and who did the real fighting in the Battle of Nacogdoches. The bulk of the hastily-formed "National Militia" under James Bullock withdrew and didn't engage in the subsequent up-close work. Out of those hundred, three of them were your 6g-grandfather and my 4g-grandfather and his son. In Piedras's unit, 47 were killed and somewhat more than 40 wounded. On the Texan side, a total of 4 were killed and 4 wounded.

My 4g-grandfather went on to represent the Ayish Bayou District at the Convention of 1832. He was elected alcalde of San Augustine in 1833. And in 1836 the president of the new republic, Sam Houston, appointed him chief justice of the recently organized San Augustine County.

James Bullock went on become commander of the Texas forces in the rebellion, and my 4g-grand-uncle was his aide for a time. He also served under Captain John English (but wasn't at the siege of Bexar), and under Captain William Scurlock. He was chosen lieutenant colonel of the militia at San Augustine in February 1837, and was elected to the Texas Senate of the Sixth Congress from Jasper and Jefferson counties and served in Austin from November 1, 1841, to February 5, 1842, and in Houston from June 27 to July 23, 1842. He later took on the role his father had held as chief justice of San Augustine County and served three terms. He is mentioned on two Texas Centennial historical markers.

[wil]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

You are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.

you didn't answer my question.

if what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence is the truth, they correctly identified the right to self-determination and how that relates to the authority of government and it's purpose.
Is it the truth that no man-made law can legitimately supersede that right.

yes or no?

Because according to your statement and hence logic, secession or otherwise removing a government from a body politic was or is illegal according to government created laws. Be it Mexico, Britain, etc.
If what you state here is the truth, then what the Founders wrote & identified is not the truth, ie: a lie.

It is either/ or. Either one of these is the truth, there is no in between. Which is it? Is it illegal to engage in the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence or is it illegal owing to government created law and hence what the Founders wrote is a lie?

This would be an interesting discussion around a cup of coffee. I saw your "question" about my logic more as a statement just with a question mark at the end so commented on that. I'll grant a big caveat, our constitution allows change.

In your original post you said to ask if Texas declaring independence was illegal. At that time it was under Mexican law and the answer would be yes so I wasn't sure what asking that did.

As for the Declaration of Independence question it makes interesting discussion around a table on what it means and how it applies in theory but we already have a test case in this country with states wanting to secede. I suppose some state may ask in the future and the federal decision go the other way.

We have also already had a SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White

what i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.

It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.

Either individuals have the inherent right of self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence and no 'law' has the legitimate authority to deny that right on any basis, OR man-made law has the authority to deny that right. Hence secession or related activities are illegal.

As for the Tx vrs White decision. Here is the question: If that decision is correct, then on what basis of authority does that court exist?
The court said the very action which created that court is illegal, secession. therefore it is a logical conclusion that court exists illegally, in violation of the british crown.

Their so-called 'ruling' is self-contradictory. Either that court exists legally as part of a legitimate government owing to the legality of secession, or secession per that court is illegal and therefore the logical conclusion is that court does not exist legally owing to it was created by an illegal act per it's own ruling.

Again, it is an either/or answer.

The same applies to your logic about a test-case. Did the south have the inherent right to self-determination, therefore the logical conclusion being what they did was lawful and Lincoln had no legal right to wage war against that new nation?

[srothstein]

what i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.

It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.

I disagree and think you are proposing a false dichotomy with your logic. You may have a right to do something while there are still laws against. If you assert your right and do something, you may be convicted in a court. If you assert your right to rebel against the government and win, you go down in history as a hero, a la Washington. If you assert your right to rebel and lose, you go down in history as a traitor a la Washington to the British.

To put this in more modern terms, we have a constitution that expressly guarantees me the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Note that the exact wording says this right cannot be infringed (by the government at least since the constitution only restricts them and not private individuals). But you cannot legally carry your arms in several places in Texas, such as at a bar or in a professional sporting event.

So, you can have a right and still have laws forbidding it. What you forgot is if the government and courts recognize your right the same way you do.

[jerry_r60]

Next time someone says secession is illegal or that people don't have the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence, remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.

Yes it was illegal, it was against Mexican law. There was a revolt and a declaration of independence. Same with the colonies declaring independence from Britain. It was against British law, the people revolted with a war and declared independence. Of course the south tried and failed to separate from the US.

There are people who have commented that they thought Texas had a right to declare independence legally, that's what is your hearing people respond to that incorrect and illegal. So not the same thing as how the state or the country were formed unless you are talking about revolution.

then by your logic what the Founders wrote in our Declaration of Independence is a lie?

You are certainly free to think that's what my logic dictates.

you didn't answer my question.

if what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence is the truth, they correctly identified the right to self-determination and how that relates to the authority of government and it's purpose.
Is it the truth that no man-made law can legitimately supersede that right.

yes or no?

Because according to your statement and hence logic, secession or otherwise removing a government from a body politic was or is illegal according to government created laws. Be it Mexico, Britain, etc.
If what you state here is the truth, then what the Founders wrote & identified is not the truth, ie: a lie.

It is either/ or. Either one of these is the truth, there is no in between. Which is it? Is it illegal to engage in the right to self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence or is it illegal owing to government created law and hence what the Founders wrote is a lie?

This would be an interesting discussion around a cup of coffee. I saw your "question" about my logic more as a statement just with a question mark at the end so commented on that. I'll grant a big caveat, our constitution allows change.

In your original post you said to ask if Texas declaring independence was illegal. At that time it was under Mexican law and the answer would be yes so I wasn't sure what asking that did.

As for the Declaration of Independence question it makes interesting discussion around a table on what it means and how it applies in theory but we already have a test case in this country with states wanting to secede. I suppose some state may ask in the future and the federal decision go the other way.

We have also already had a SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White

what i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.

It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.

Either individuals have the inherent right of self-determination as identified in the Declaration of Independence and no 'law' has the legitimate authority to deny that right on any basis, OR man-made law has the authority to deny that right. Hence secession or related activities are illegal.

As for the Tx vrs White decision. Here is the question: If that decision is correct, then on what basis of authority does that court exist?
The court said the very action which created that court is illegal, secession. therefore it is a logical conclusion that court exists illegally, in violation of the british crown.

Their so-called 'ruling' is self-contradictory. Either that court exists legally as part of a legitimate government owing to the legality of secession, or secession per that court is illegal and therefore the logical conclusion is that court does not exist legally owing to it was created by an illegal act per it's own ruling.

Again, it is an either/or answer.

The same applies to your logic about a test-case. Did the south have the inherent right to self-determination, therefore the logical conclusion being what they did was lawful and Lincoln had no legal right to wage war against that new nation?

I'll go back and respond once more to your original post and leave it at that. You commented ".... remind them of how this state came to be an independent country and ask them if it was legal to do so.". The answer to that question is no it was not legal. To me and I think anyone else reading this is plain English take this to mean is it against the law? This would be man made law from the prevailing government. Given that, i didn't see the point of asking that question. If it was a discussion about what is moral or ethical, that's a different question but not the one suggested.

I'll leave this topic at that, I'm not interested in a constitutional debate on this topic or try to argue the logic of my statements or yours with messages back and forth in the forum.

[wil]

what i wrote is called a logical conclusion based on your statement. If secession is illegal per man-made law such as Mexico or Britain, as you stated. Then the logical conclusion is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence is a falsehood, ie: a lie.

It is why I said this is an either/or answer, either one or the other is the truth.

I disagree and think you are proposing a false dichotomy with your logic. You may have a right to do something while there are still laws against. If you assert your right and do something, you may be convicted in a court. If you assert your right to rebel against the government and win, you go down in history as a hero, a la Washington. If you assert your right to rebel and lose, you go down in history as a traitor a la Washington to the British.

To put this in more modern terms, we have a constitution that expressly guarantees me the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Note that the exact wording says this right cannot be infringed (by the government at least since the constitution only restricts them and not private individuals). But you cannot legally carry your arms in several places in Texas, such as at a bar or in a professional sporting event.

So, you can have a right and still have laws forbidding it. What you forgot is if the government and courts recognize your right the same way you do.

you are confusing 'might makes right' with what would be a just and proper law. Government may have the power to force a law on the public, such as unconstitutional infringements on our right to bear arms, However that does not make the so-called law right, just, and proper, or an act of legitimate authority.

The same for secession and related actions. Win and you are right, lose and you are a criminal, does not address whether or not the act was an inherent right of self-determination. It only falls into the category of 'might makes right'

And a bar is not a proper example owing to that is private property, the owner has the authority to tell someone they cannot carry on his property. government does not have the legal authority to do so. government may have the power to force such laws however see my previous on such laws as well as your own post.

Again the same question. If acts such as secession or a revolt to the aim of secession from a given government are illegal per the laws of the parent government, then is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence an untruth?

The answer to that question is a simple yes or no. Malum prohibitum is not always the truth, Malum in se is almost invariably the truth.