March 2, 1836 - Texas Declares Independence

[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?

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.

if you're not interested in a debate, why did you respond in the first place, and respond 3 times subsequently? And all three times not answer a simple question?

if what you say is factual, secession and such activities are illegal, give me a basis of why that is factual. I have offered reasons for my own stance and still offer the simple question:

If secession and related activities are illegal per government created law as you stated, then is what the Founders identified in the Declaration of Independence a falsehood.

Yes or no?

It's a simple question and a simple answer.

my answer is no, what they Identified is exactly what they stated, "we hold these truths to be self evident". With the logical conclusion being any man-made malum prohibitum law does not have the legal authority over that.

[srothstein]

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.

I beg to differ. You are confusing morality (right or just) with legal. The law is the law, and it may be right and just or it may be wrong and immoral. But breaking the law is illegal. You seem to understand this concept in part when you talk about malum prohibitum or malum in se. If you have a right to do something, but there is a law against it, the act is probably malum prohibitum. This does not make performing it any less illegal, though it might be right and just to do so.

A great example of this was Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus. Her act was clearly illegal, but it was both right and just.

And the bar was a good example of this also. I clearly indicated that the law was what prohibits you from carrying in a bar, not the owner. Your counter raises a very interesting question though. If I have the right to carry a firearm, can the owner stop me from doing so on his property? Can an individual violate my rights? What happens in the case of conflicting rights?

Where the bar and the Rosa Parks example might be faulty is that both are examples of an individual right. The right to rebel is clearly a collective right only.

And thus, I get back to my point of this being a false dichotomy. It is not a simple statement of one is true and the other is not. Both can be true or both can be false. I contend that both are true. The people have the right to rebel and form a new government, but that does not mean that it is legal under the statutes of the existing government. An interesting question I should probably research is how international law (if there is such a thing) plays into this concept. Does the UN recognize the right of a group of people to rebel?

[srothstein]

if you're not interested in a debate, why did you respond in the first place, and respond 3 times subsequently?

And the more I think of this debate (which i find interesting and possibly useful for others to read and learn from), might I suggest we start a different thread on it. I would like to keep honoring those who fought in 1836, and i seems a little wrong for us to continue in this thread. I am definitely to blame for this also, but think maybe a new thread would be better.

[MadMonkey]

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.

I'm glad you were able to find so much detail! Interesting that he was chief justice of San Augustine County, after independence the grandfather I mentioned was sheriff of San Augustine County for two terms. I need to get over there and look up some of his history! ETA: I lived in Jasper County for about 7 years as a kid, spent a lot of time on Sam Rayburn Reservoir

ETA2: My grandfather, and I believe his father (I don't remember the specific generation), settled with other Scots/Canadian Scottish there in Jasper County and were in the lumber industry until my father moved into missionary work.