Governor Perry and Secession

I have descended into the tenth circle of hell, what happening to the State of Texas we had the nutters from the Republic of Texas separatists. Now it is being reported that both Governor Bush in 1994 during his campaign against former Governor Richards, and Governor Perry at various points in their tenure while, it is true that they have done so those incidents were not taken in situ

I would like to make four points in regard to these stories.

First, Texas was annexed to the United Sattes and admitted into the union in December 1845. No secession clause was included in the treaty admitting Texas into the Union. A prior treaty in 1844 which included such a clause failed to pass the United States Senate.

Second, the issue of Texas secession was settled in 1868 when the United States Supreme Court issued it decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)(1868)

Third, the formation of the original Republic of Texas was only an interim measure, The original intent of the majority of the founders who were involved in drawing up the Texas Declaration of Independence in March 1836. General Houston and with his Jacksonian allies wanted to draw Santa Anna across the Sabine River and into Louisiana, where he would then face the combined armies of General Houston, and the Western Department of the United States Army commanded by Major General Edmund Pendleton Gaines. President Jackson and General Gaines favored the idea, while the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Major General Alexander Macomb and Major General Winfield Scott who commanded the Eastern Department opposed the plan. The purpose of the plan was to draw Mexico into a war with the United States so that the United States could acquire through military the Mexican province of Coahuila y Tejas.
It was only the dissatisfaction of the rank and file of the Texas Army that forced General Houston into battle at San Jacinto, and the opposition from the Whigs andthe northern Democrats that prevented annexation immediately after the Battle of San Jacinto.

Fourth, Governor Perry's comments were purely made out of poilitical calculations, specifically the need to align himself with the most conservative elements within the Republican Party in Texas. Governor Perry's standing within the Texas Republican Party made it necessary because on the whole he is less popular with the more moderate elements within the party are looking for other candidates to challenge him in the 2010 gubenatorial primary.

If Governor Perry's only opposition in the 2010 gubenatorial primary were from either Larry Kilgore of the Texas Secession Party, or Debra Medina, Chairwoman of the Wharton County Republican Party, then his renomination becomes more likely.

However, many of the influental moderate and liberal Republicans are looking to Seantor Kay Bailey Hutchison to challenge Governor Perry in the 2010 Republican primary election for the gubenatorial nomination. Senator Hutchison's potential challenge poses a looming obstacle to Governor Perry's desire for a third term as Governor of Texas because, the popular affection and popular support she possesses within Texas, are items to which Governor Perry cannot lay a claim and diminishes the Governor's chances of winning renomination.

I do not mind that both he and Governor Bush before him used the concept of secession for their own political gain. The problem I have with theris speeches are that they demonstrated how little they actually know about the history of the State of Texas. It is my belief that if any individual desires to occupy the statehouse of any state in the Union, then those candidates have a duty and a responsibility to study closely the history of their respective states. In my experience decisions made without due regard being given to the past, are questionable in both content and spirit.