GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

[MoreThanConquerors]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

I didnt know that after the Americans won their independance from Mexico, they (Texas) didnt immediately join the union.
So they were, for a short time, an independant State.

Texas was its own country, its own Republic. As far as I know, its the only state that flies its state flag at equal height to the American flag. All other states fly below.

[Andy]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

Texas was its own country, its own Republic. As far as I know, its the only state that flies its state flag at equal height to the American flag. All other states fly below.

True, brother - The Republic of Texas is a real entity...

[MoreThanConquerors]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

I have never been anywhere that had the same level of pride that Texans have for their state. Even those of us that move from other states take on the same level of pride and ownership. The only other place I have been to that comes close is maybe NYC.

If ANY state ever pushed its right to secede, it would be Texas.

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

Hold on now. If we are going to start talking about pride; then I would propose we just go back to pre-revolutionary borders, you know, when the western border of the Great Empire State of Georgia extended all the way to the Pacific

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_it...tchin,%20sculp.

[MoreThanConquerors]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

yeah, but Georgia has the Atlanta Falcons and that automatically drops them down a few notches in the "Cool State" factor.

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

Texas was its own country, its own Republic. As far as I know, its the only state that flies its state flag at equal height to the American flag. All other states fly below.

When we went to visit The Alamo, we learned that because of the delay in help (not remembering all the details right now) Texas was the only state granted at least two things that I can remember:

1) To fly its flag at an equal height as the American Flag.
2) The ability to leave the Union.

So even though I know it is allowed, I seriously doubt it will happen.


In His care,
Tammy

[Lay it to Heart]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

So what's the end result? What if California decided to split? They could deny any responsibility for the national debt and then deny rights for all people. They could make homosexuality top priority. They could take away guns and arest people who protest against MTA. They could shut down churches and take away Bibles. When that happened people could complain about their constitution rights. How would it work then?

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

I have never been anywhere that had the same level of pride that Texans have for their state.

Thank you, Sir!

After the fall of the Alamo, the Mexican Army marched to the Houston area, where they were defeated in 1836. General Santa Anna, the leader of the Mexican forces was also the President of Mexico at the time. He was allowed to return to Mexico, and in return for his not being executed in Texas, Mexico granted independence to Texas. It was an independent Republic from 1836 - 1846.
My alma mater, Baylor University was chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas.

The Republic of Texas awarded land grants to the heirs of the Alamo defenders. My maternal Great-great-grandmother traveled from Tennessee to Texas and claimed the land grant awarded to her because of the death of her brother, Andrew Nelson. Uncle Andrew was one of the Tennessee Mounted Volunteers who went to San Antonio with David (Davey) Crockett and Daniel Boone and put themselves under the command of Col. William Travis (2/8/1836.)

My paternal Great-grandmother went to Texas (again from Tennessee) as an infant in 1844.

Although I've never actually joined the organization, I am eligible to be a member of the "Sons of the Republic" in as much as I am kin to/descended from people who died in the Alamo and/or were living in Texas during its Republicancy. I am very proud of my heritage.

(Sorry for boring you all with this.)

[VickiV]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

As one born and raised in Texas, I was taught in 7th grade---that Texas could leave the union any time.
So, with fond memories, we say goodbye.....
actually, we are placing a large fence around the state
and using trained long horned steers to keep watch of the borders.
Dr. Pepper will be our national drink and we officially claim all recipes and
foods as Texas products. O.K?
Y'all are all welcome to come visit. Maybe.

If ya'll do leave, we will relocate to the Great State of Texas! Don't have a passport...will a LEGAL birth certificate showing I was born in Texas be good enough to get us in? I can deal with not liking Dr. Pepper....

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

She left Tennessee?
She lost her rights to the still then.

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

PlumBob you have a wonderful pedigree I really enjoyed my visit to the Alamo and riding the little boats around downtown SanAntonio..what a delightful city core.
I have been informed that Texans actually vote on a regular basis (perhaps during congressional elections) to continue the federation with the USA. Is this simply a myth, or does something along this line exist?

[Guest]

Re: GOVERNOR SAYS TEXAS CAN LEAVE THE UNION IF IT WANTS

Ahhh, HSB -

A myth, I must report. At least from any "functional" perspective.

BUT - you do seem to have a way of poking the conversation to a higher level of consciousness, I must say.

Your question may in fact deserve a thread of its own, but I'll simply start my answer here, to wit -

What is the nature of a man's consent to be governed?

I would propose that it is rooted in one or the other of two concepts. And I'll liken those two constructs to "payment in advance," and/vs. "payment in arrears."

If a man's consent to be governed is rooted in the concept of "payment in advance," then it follows that such a man is paying today, for the goods and services that he presumes his government will provide for him tomorrow. Moreover, he is agreeing to pay in advance for a basket of goods and services that is not well defined at the time he pays. His governors may choose to actually deliver a basket of goods and services that includes things the man doesn't want or need. Nevertheless, he has already paid in advance, and is tacitly obligated to accept the proffered basket, whether it serves him well, or whether it serves him ill. To summarize, the man has sold himself into slavery to his governors, working for whatever wage they choose to pay.

Or perhaps a man's consent to be governed is rooted in the concept of "payment in arrears." We are all fully aware of the function of this - we go to a restaurant and eat the meal before we pay. If the meal is not satisfactory, then we have the option to either argue with the restaurateur concerning the value of the meal and settle on some mutually agreeable price, or pay the price asked, but never visit that restaurant again. In this case, a man may say "Ahh, yes, I will agree to pay my fair share to the governors again this year, in as much as I agree that the value of the basket of goods and services I received over the past time period was worth the price asked." In as much as the man has not paid in advance, he has the inherent option of either arguing with the governors concerning the value of the goods and services, and settling on some agreeable price, or paying the bill (for the prior period) but not patronizing that government again. This man is not a slave to his government, but rather the government is a vendor to the man, and will try to modify the basket of goods and services to a point that it will be acceptable.

So?

In a spiritual sense, I believe it's clear that our position in Christ comes from the "Payment in Arrears" concept. Jesus already defined the basket of services. The basket includes forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. We may purchase the product offered, by inviting Jesus into our lives. Some will think the price too high, some will not.

In a human sense I rather imagine that our submission to our government should be much the same thing. They package up a basket of goods and services. And IF we find it to be acceptable, we purchase it, without enslaving ourselves to it.

The reason I got started thinking about this was that I can imagine that a Texan might say to her/himself, "Yup, when I vote in a federal election, I'm paying for the things that they did for me last time. Next time? Well, let's see what they have to offer, first."

Other thoughts, anyone?