[O'Callaghan]

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

True the monarch has to give her ascent to every bill enacted by parliament, but in actual fact can anyone state when this last happened? I thought not. The role of the Sovereign is ceremonial, and provides a non-political focus for the nation in times of crisis. No elected official could function in the same way and still be above politics.

I was taught in school that the last time royal assent was refused was in the reign of Queen Anne. Whenever that was.

[Wolfhawk]

I think one of the reasons that the Scots used Texas as one of thier 'stopping points' was the fercece loyalty that Texans have for each other and the state; so much so that the idea that Texas can break away from the Union has cropped up several times in the years since Texas became part of the Union. San Houston asked that when the Civil War was happening, that Texas become a Republic again and not join the Southern states. The reason? Texas has a history of being a place that was a liitle beyond and above the rest of the Union. During the 'Tea Party' action around April 15th, our Govenor mentioned the idea that Maybe Texas needs to look at applying its right to leave the Union to become a Republic again. Why? Because Texas has too much 'wild blood' in it and at sometime they will try and take the reins again to control thier own lives. I feel like this is the way the Scots sometime feel. I am reading a HUGH book on Scotland and I can see where this runs deep in the veins of some over 'across the pond.'

I have strong feelings about to places in my history - Texas and Scotland. Outside that, I do not have as strong a feelings about any other places. It was mentioned one time that most people feel like they are Americans first and 'whatever state' second. Here in Texas, that is the oposite. I know quite a few people who if they were made to choose whether they would lose this Citizen-hood in one of the other, would keep the Texas one. Can many state make this claim? Does not the Scots feel this way? Does this desire not burn under their skin?

(off soap box now)

[cajunscot]

San Houston asked that when the Civil War was happening, that Texas become a Republic again and not join the Southern states. The reason? Texas has a history of being a place that was a liitle beyond and above the rest of the Union.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. From the Handbook of Texas Online article on Houston:

Houston always characterized himself as a Southern man for the Union and opposed any threats of disunity, whether from Northern or Southern agitators.

Adamantly opposed to secession,qv Houston warned Texans that civil war would result in a Northern victory and destruction of the South, a prophecy that was borne out by future events. The Secession Convention,qv however, convened a week later and began a series of actions that withdrew Texas from the Union; Houston acquiesced to these events rather than bring civil strife and bloodshed to his beloved state. But when he refused to take the oath of loyalty to the newly formed Confederate States of America, the Texas convention removed him from office on March 16 and replaced him with Lieutenant Governor Edward Clarkqv two days later. Reportedly, during these traumatic days President Lincoln twice offered Houston the use of federal troops to keep him in office and Texas in the Union, offers that Houston declined, again to avoid making Texas a scene of violence. Instead, the Raven-now sixty-eight years of age, weary, with a family of small children, and recognizing the inevitable-again chose exile.

-- http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/o.../HH/fho73.html

Of course, this is just one source, but I can't imagine Houston working so hard to get Texas into the Union only to take so easily out of it. If you have a source for this information, I'd love to see it and add it to my lecture on Houston for my classes.

T.

[Bigkahuna]

Originally Posted by Wolfhawk

I think one of the reasons that the Scots used Texas as one of thier 'stopping points' was the fercece loyalty that Texans have for each other and the state; so much so that the idea that Texas can break away from the Union has cropped up several times in the years since Texas became part of the Union. San Houston asked that when the Civil War was happening, that Texas become a Republic again and not join the Southern states. The reason? Texas has a history of being a place that was a liitle beyond and above the rest of the Union. During the 'Tea Party' action around April 15th, our Govenor mentioned the idea that Maybe Texas needs to look at applying its right to leave the Union to become a Republic again. Why? Because Texas has too much 'wild blood' in it and at sometime they will try and take the reins again to control thier own lives. I feel like this is the way the Scots sometime feel. I am reading a HUGH book on Scotland and I can see where this runs deep in the veins of some over 'across the pond.'

I have strong feelings about to places in my history - Texas and Scotland. Outside that, I do not have as strong a feelings about any other places. It was mentioned one time that most people feel like they are Americans first and 'whatever state' second. Here in Texas, that is the oposite. I know quite a few people who if they were made to choose whether they would lose this Citizen-hood in one of the other, would keep the Texas one. Can many state make this claim? Does not the Scots feel this way? Does this desire not burn under their skin?

(off soap box now)

Everybody knows New York is the best country in the world.

[Deil the Yin]

Originally Posted by Wolfhawk

I think one of the reasons that the Scots used Texas as one of thier 'stopping points' was the fercece loyalty that Texans have for each other and the state; so much so that the idea that Texas can break away from the Union has cropped up several times in the years since Texas became part of the Union. San Houston asked that when the Civil War was happening, that Texas become a Republic again and not join the Southern states. The reason? Texas has a history of being a place that was a liitle beyond and above the rest of the Union. During the 'Tea Party' action around April 15th, our Govenor mentioned the idea that Maybe Texas needs to look at applying its right to leave the Union to become a Republic again. Why? Because Texas has too much 'wild blood' in it and at sometime they will try and take the reins again to control thier own lives. I feel like this is the way the Scots sometime feel. I am reading a HUGH book on Scotland and I can see where this runs deep in the veins of some over 'across the pond.'

I have strong feelings about to places in my history - Texas and Scotland. Outside that, I do not have as strong a feelings about any other places. It was mentioned one time that most people feel like they are Americans first and 'whatever state' second. Here in Texas, that is the oposite. I know quite a few people who if they were made to choose whether they would lose this Citizen-hood in one of the other, would keep the Texas one. Can many state make this claim? Does not the Scots feel this way? Does this desire not burn under their skin?

(off soap box now)

Originally Posted by cajunscot

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. From the Handbook of Texas Online article on Houston:



Of course, this is just one source, but I can't imagine Houston working so hard to get Texas into the Union only to take so easily out of it. If you have a source for this information, I'd love to see it and add it to my lecture on Houston for my classes.

T.

Guid on ye, Wolfhawk. Well said.

Don't know about the Sam Houston bit, but I had heard... not to hijack the thread, but... that Texas took so long joining the Confederacy because they had a per capita vote for Secession as opposed to a vote in a convention of representatives?

[Wolfhawk]

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Of course, this is just one source, but I can't imagine Houston working so hard to get Texas into the Union only to take so easily out of it. If you have a source for this information, I'd love to see it and add it to my lecture on Houston for my classes.

T.

I stand corrected as I was basing my info off of the reported text of the speech in Salido Texas from the Stage Coach Inn balcony where he supposedly said that if we must leave the union, then we should become a Republic again.

As I do not have access to the reported text, I will redraw my statement as being faulty. The reason (in my understanding) that Texas was enticed to join the Union was the problem of Mexico. Once that problem was removed, the need to the unions protection was not as paramount, as Texas was now stronger and able handle their problem better. There are questions about the legality of the US to pass a resolution to annex Texas anyway.

[beloitpiper]

Originally Posted by Wolfhawk

Texas has a history of being a place that was a liitle beyond and above the rest of the Union.

We have a little saying in Wisconsin:
Wisconsin: Where the people are prouder than Texans but more modest about it.

[cajunscot]

Originally Posted by Wolfhawk

I stand corrected as I was basing my info off of the reported text of the speech in Salido Texas from the Stage Coach Inn balcony where he supposedly said that if we must leave the union, then we should become a Republic again.

As I do not have access to the reported text, I will redraw my statement as being faulty. The reason (in my understanding) that Texas was enticed to join the Union was the problem of Mexico. Once that problem was removed, the need to the unions protection was not as paramount, as Texas was now stronger and able handle their problem better. There are questions about the legality of the US to pass a resolution to annex Texas anyway.

Okay, now that I can see Houston saying.

I'm not sure we can say Texas was "enticed" to join the Union, as many Texicans, including Houston, actively sought statehood before 1845. Even after the Mexican problem was gone, there was still the issue of Commanches and other Native Americans, especially with the beginning of the Civil War and the withdrawl of Federal forces. The Texans not only had to send troops to support Richmond, they also had to deal with the Native American problem on the Western frontier.

What questions specifically were there in regards to Texas annexation? Are you referring to the concern of Northern Whigs, who were against the annexation because of the concern over the expansion of slavery?

T.

[cajunscot]

Can many state make this claim? Does not the Scots feel this way? Does this desire not burn under their skin?

My Scottish ancestors were loyal Union men, who fought for their adopted country and state (Iowa), as did many Scottish immigrants.

I am very proud of my Iowa and Arizona heritage, but I am an American citizen first.

Loyally,

Todd

[BEEDEE]

Originally Posted by beloitpiper

We have a little saying in Wisconsin:
Wisconsin: Where the people are prouder than Texans but more modest about it.

and all this time I thought it was Wisconsin: come smell our dairy air



Brian