Like many Coloradans, I live on land once claimed by Texas, and judging by all the drawls I hear on summer days, many Texans may not yet have grasped that they ceded this territory in the Compromise of 1850.
Thus, I must pay heed when the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, starts grumbling that when his “unique place . . . came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”
Perry is dead wrong; the unique Texas proviso was that it could divide itself into five states. Our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, certainly saw no right for Texas to leave the union.
Nonetheless, Texas is the only polity known to history that has seceded twice in order to protect slavery. The first revolt came in 1836 after the Mexican government outlawed slavery in 1829. Texans saw this as a failure “to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.”
So when you “remember the Alamo,” remember that the Texans were fighting to protect their property; that is, their right to own slaves. Texas became independent until it joined the United States in 1846.
The second secession came in 1861, with declaration that “the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States.”
Gov. Perry has been complaining about federal power lately, so perhaps that explains the most recent independence talk. But with slavery out of the picture, just what “interests and property of the people of Texas” are now threatened?
Surveys have shown a substantial number of Texans who say the place would be better off as an independent republic. Aside from the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, is this something Coloradans should support or oppose?
Conservatives should support it, because if Texas were a separate country, many Colorado liberals would support improved border security, from gunboats on the Red River to a wall around the Panhandle.
With the requirement for passports, visas, and customs inspection to enter the United States, we’d likely see fewer Texas tourists. Lake City might become a real ghost town, so there would be room for Coloradans in the San Juans.
And without Texas production, prices for Colorado oil and gas should go up, thus putting people to work drilling and improving our state revenues.
So at first glance, why not support Texas independence?
Because when it was independent, Texas was not a good neighbor. Texans raided American commerce on the Santa Fe Trail. The country’s currency was next to worthless, and it borrowed more money than it could repay. It even sent an army on an unsuccessful expedition to capture Santa Fe.
Do we really want to live near a rogue regime like that? Especially when you consider that the Santa Fe invasion came because Texas insisted its western boundary was the Rio Grande — all the way to its headwaters above our Creede, then north to the 42nd parallel in present Wyoming. The east side was the Arkansas River, and from its source north to the 42nd parallel. Texas agreed to its current border in 1850, after the United States gave it $10 million to help pay its bills.
Since I live on the Texas side of the Arkansas, I have to wonder whether Gov. Perry includes parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming when he talks about 1845 and independence. I called the governor’s office in Austin Monday to find out just how much land he would claim for a revived Republic of Texas. The secretary said someone would call me back with an answer. If that happens, I’ll let you know.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) of Salida is a freelance writer and history buff, and a frequent contributor to The Post.
