| Mar 27, 2006 @ 11:48 PM |
Texas????
|
|
8Knots
Posts: 2,710
|
Wheres that?
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 10, 2006 @ 11:37 AM |
Texas???? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,161
|
Look down -- you are standing in it.
|
| |
|
| Aug 26, 2006 @ 3:13 PM |
Texas????
|
|
3BearMom
Posts: 195
|
Texas is a state of mind a slice of heaven on earth home for most people and a place a lot of others wish they could be. Big citys, small rural towns, subrubs and everything in between we have it all. Something for everyone no matter what you are into.
Where else can you be yourself a little bit country a little bit rock and roll and everythng in between. A bit crazy or wild and still fit in with the crowd.
Texas is in a persons soul no matter where they are if they are a native Texan or a born again Texan.  
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 26, 2006 @ 10:16 PM |
Texas???? |
|
TRAVIS1946
Posts: 82
|
Texas, the only state that is a state by treaty and can legally secede. The only state that was once an independant country, The Republic Of Texas. The only state that could possibly stand alone and dependant on no one.
If you have guessed I am proud of being a Texian (sic), you are right. Fifth Generation and proudly descended from a Confederate Hero and commander of a Texas Cavalry unit in the War of Northern Agression.
[Edited on 8/26/2006 10:23 PM]
|
| |
|
| Aug 26, 2006 @ 11:11 PM |
Texas????
|
|
3BearMom
Posts: 195
|
4th generation Texan here.
Another fact most people don't know -- we are the only state that can legally fly the state flag higher than that of the US flag.
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 26, 2006 @ 11:16 PM |
Texas???? |
|
Spiritraven24
Posts: 1
|
Texas is a great place to live and I'm proud of being a Texan. My father's family has been here since his great great grandfather came here from Spain.
|
| |
|
| Aug 28, 2006 @ 3:45 PM |
Texas????
|
|
SpiritOrnery
Posts: 24,142
|
I think I am 3rd generation... I like that secession ability... very ennnteresssting...
|
|
| |
|
| Aug 29, 2006 @ 3:45 AM |
Texas???? |
|
dragonfyr
Posts: 1
|
Referencing Wikipedia:
In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"...
The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."
Texas does not have the right of secession.
|
| |
|
| Sep 6, 2006 @ 11:12 PM |
Texas????
|
|
TRAVIS1946
Posts: 82
|
In 1869, Texas was occupied territory and was being punished along with the rest of the Confederacy. It is natural that the courts of the conquering nation would rule against a right to leave an oppressive nation such as the U.S. was at the time.
The reason for the War was not slavery as historical revisionists state, but economic warfare being waged by the North against the Southern States. Slavery was just an excuse. At any rate, the practice was slowly being abandoned in the South.
By the way, the major slave markets were in the North.
Remember, the conqueror writes the history books.
[Edited on 9/6/2006 11:18 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 7, 2006 @ 7:23 PM |
Texas???? |
|
redbronze
Posts: 100
|
Dragonfyr your right and Travis your also right.. Sux when we find out that ol George the First did not cut that Cherry tree down doesn't it.. I think of all the mis-information that people believe in and yes if the South had not been building their own factories to process the raw cotton in, the North would never have looked down but when the threat of economic disadvantage (we had the raw resources and still do and with factories would not need the North) came then an excuse was made to make war and to push an agenda to cripple the ones who were coming into power.. Sounds a lot like what is happening now.. What ever your political beliefs we are not in Iraq to save the people any more than the North was wanting to free the Slaves...
Texas is a great state I love it here even if I do not always agree with my neighbors..
|
| |
|
|
|
|