Dialogue: Carl Laning & Jesse Enloe
(The Laning - Enloe Debate)
Volume 1

[from Mr. Laning]:

To whom it concerns,

I am a lifelong Texas resident, born and bred. I hold a degree in history from a Texas university and have been teaching history for 10 years now. I have perused your website and read what your statement of "Texas Independence" has to say along with other literature I have come across from time to time. I have a statement and a few questions for you that were not addressed in what I have read and hope that you can answer them.

History is a much maligned subject in many ways. The problem is that it is open to interpretation. Some see a certain subject in a different way because of their perspective while others twist the facts and create "facts" in order to support a certain point of view. The former is understandable, the latter is unforgivable. From what I have seen your organization falls into the latter category. Perhaps you can explain.

In 1836, at the end of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, an election was held. The presidency of Texas was one of the issues. Of a total of 6,640 votes cast for the presidency, Sam Houston got 5,119. Sam Houston ran on a campaign platform of annexation by the United States. The issue of annexation was put to the voters of Texas on the same ballot. The result: 3,272 for annexation versus 91 against
annexation by the United States.

In 1845 another series of votes were cast on the issue of annexation by the United States. The popular vote tally was 4,120 for annexation versus 211 against United States annexation. In the Texas legislature there was 1 vote against annexation by the United States. I see no reason to believe anything else except that the vast majority of Texans of the time desired annexation by the United States and supported the idea wholeheartedly.

As to the issue of the joint resolution passed by the U.S. congress to affect the annexation of Texas being illegal; how? Texas came into the Union of its own accord as stated by the will of the voters and the legislature. The actual method used by the U.S. congress to carry the act out was of course different than any other state of the country before or since. Texas was the only foreign country annexed by the U.S.

Therefore, since Texas was never a territory of the U.S. it is completely understandable why Texas never went through the system put in place by the Articles of Confederation Congress in 1787 known as the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This law spelled out the method by which land could get territory status once the white male population reach 5,000 and establish a territorial legislature. Upon reaching a white male population of 60,000 it could then appeal for statehood. Texas was already a fully formed political entity therefore going through territorial status was seen as redundant.

These are the main reasons why I cannot support your claims as legitimate from a historical perspective. The historical facts are, I believe, clearly against you. Furthermore, being a part of the United States has been very beneficial to the state of Texas in most every way I can imagine. Economicly, security, culturally. I believe the United States can do a much better job of securing the blessings of liberty than an independent Texas.

This is my perspective on this issue. I would very much like you to address these issues. I must find it impossible to support your claims unless you can statisfactorily address theses issues.

Thank You for your time,
Laning

Mr. Enloe's Answer:

Mr. Laning,

We do appreciate your communicating with us regarding our position on the status of Texas.

First let me say that we understand your point about the desire of the early Texians to join the United States. We completely agree with you on this point as it is clear from historical events that the people did desire such a union. It is our perception that this desire arose from the need for additional military forces to help protect Texas from Mexico and to secure financial aid to take care of the war debt and stabilize the financial structure of Texas at that time. Regardless of the reasons, the desire they had at that time is clear.

I also think that you have a very logical point about the process needing to be different for bringing Texas into the Union than that of territories. You are correct that Texas was already well established political entity; it was recognized as a nation by the United States and other nations. We may have neglected to point these things out clearly enough to our critics, and that is why we appreciate your letter immensely. The question, however, is: was the "union" consummated by the laws of the United States, the laws of Texas, and by International Law?

Our position is that for two nations to have a lawful contract there must be a consummated treaty (contract). The people clearly established their INTENT, but there was never a lawful consummation in the form of a written document. The reason for this is that the Treaty of Annexation as presented to the Senate of the United States in June of 1844 was defeated by a vote of 35 to 16 so there was no treaty to sign. In his letter to Minister Van Zandt of Texas in 1844, the United States Secretary of State, Upshur, stated that the proper form to accomplish the annexation was a treaty. We believe that this would have been the only lawful means of accomplishing this "union" as it is well established in international law that a treaty is the proper form for nations to make agreements or enter into a contract. In 1845 the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation" which was supposedly passed by the congress.

There are several problems with this process:

  1. The House of Representatives had been given no delegated authority to initiate matters of foreign affairs.
  2. The Congress of the United States was not given the authority to annex anything. They were only given the authority to admit territories to the Union as States. I refer you to seek the definitions of "annexation" and "admit."
  3. A resolution is not a law.
  4. Even if a resolution were a law, one nation cannot pass a law that is binding on another nation. In other words, even though there was the clear intent on the part of the people of Texas, there is no lawful document, created by a lawful process, that accomplishes or consummates the joining of the two nations. Some call this a "technicality." I would submit that the law many times is technical and must be precise.
However let me make another point. Even if we are wrong in our conclusion regarding the annexation process (though we don't believe we are) there was another vote in 1861. In February of that year the people voted by a 75% margin to withdraw from their "union" with the United States. Some would argue that they didn't have the lawful authority to withdraw from the "perpetual union." If they had the ability to agree to the "union" in the first place, they certainly had the ability and the right to withdraw from the agreement.

I would refer you to the principle, which I'm sure you have seen mentioned on our website many times, that "All Political Power is Inherent in the People." This principle was stated in the United States Declaration of Independence and has been stated in every constitution written for Texas, from the Republic of Texas Constitution of 1836 through and including the State of Texas Constitution of 1876.

From the 1836 Republic of Texas Constitution, Declaration of Rights: "Second. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times an inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they may think proper."

From the 1845 STATE OF TEXAS CONSTITUTION, Article 1, Section 1, "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient."


Here to go to second installment.