"Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out...as they really are, men who are badly disguised." Pope St. Pius X, September 8, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Thursday, March 15, 2012

A Proposal For An Independent Texas

Originally penned on April 11, 2008:

The point here is to fan the flames of Texan nationalism.


Texas finds itself precisely in the middle of the trends that will culminate during and define the current century (2000s) in North America. The origin and progress of these trends, demographic, ideological, governmental, cultural and otherwise, are already clearly evident.

Abroad, America’s power is waning. While still visibly the most powerful military power, America’s influence has declined over the past decades, as America continues to define its interests singularly, that is, without consideration of the reactions of other foreign powers. While ideally a foreign policy should always be crafted firstly to address the needs of the nation in question, this ideal presumes that the nation in question is concerned primarily with maintaining its existence as is and is not interested in imperial expansion. If a country embarks upon building an empire, or in this politically correct age, “being the policeman of the world,” – an unwise path to embark upon – it may find itself unopposed until it has squandered its goodwill. Thus, America will find itself increasingly in need of proving that its superpower status remains and increasingly having to resort to exercising military action in order to do so. This need will increase faster as goodwill continues to decline. This is the path all empires face, and they eventually pay for their military conquests with, among other things, a devaluation of their currency.

Domestically, then, America faces important and growing economic constraints. A rapidly devaluing currency can spell the end of a great empire; however, the longer this devaluation can be papered over by other gains or somehow postponed, the longer the empire can persist in existence. The dollar’s status as the international reserve currency has forced, to a certain extent, our inflation into the hands of foreigners; they are beginning to refuse dollars for this very reason. As prices rise due to inflation and as our ability to purchase goods oversees declines due to foreign refusals of the dollar, another so-called “crisis,” that of our open borders, will come even more into the forefront. A certain amount of immigration is always healthy, morally right and economically necessary. Economic incentives distorted as they are by our government, it makes it difficult to see what this “normal” amount of immigration should be. There are cultural factors as well (these are also not entirely separable from government action). America, a nation very much enamored with sex, but unable to accept the obvious and logical consequences of that act, has turned towards abortion, birth control, and smaller families. One of the primary factors that effects economic growth being the amount of labor available, the increasing amounts of economic growth necessary to paper over losses due to inflation will require an ever increasing influx of citizens to the United States. The stale, progressive-liberal-interventionist culture of America will slowly, and necessarily from an evolutionary perspective, be overcome by the more conservative, Catholic, and family centered culture that already pours forth across our Southern border. America's artificial economic needs will only hurry this trend.

As this flood of immigration continues, it will only aid in justifying another attempt at papering-over our inflation-related economic losses, the combination of America, Canada and Mexico into the so-called “North American Union.” There is already speculation that if the dollar continues to drop in value precipitously and if important Canadian business interests find it not in their interest to put up with the continued fluctuations in the value of their currency vis-à-vis the dollar, a North American monetary union – modeled on the European Monetary Union – may gain favor as a way to “stabilize” our failing dollar. Along with Mexico, such a monetary union with Canada will bring two large economies fully into the American sphere of influence, allowing us to mortgage yet two more nations’ futures along with our own as we continue to print dollars to pay for our military interventions. The Western liberal-progressive consensus since World War II has indeed had as its aim a world government (think “we are citizens of the world” mentality), and the union of entire continents is the first logical step in the movement towards such a world state. This is the ideological background to the more concrete problems which exist that will incentivize a move towards a North American Union.


Instead of allowing the continuing erosion of the Texan identity and of Texan sovereignty and the rights of Texans, as the nation we entered ponders a move towards its own entrance into a greater continental union, Texas can solve more effectively the same problems the U.S. intends to solve through continental union by reclaiming its independence.

Texas, at least to my knowledge, holds a distinct station as a nation whose founding fathers included a large number of typical White, Protestant Americans, but also more than a token number of Hispanic, Catholics. The latter group included Lorenzo de Zavala, José Antonio Navarro, Juan Seguín, and José Francisco Ruiz. An encyclopedic indication of the cooperation between these two groups in the creation of Texas and against the tyranny of the Mexican central government can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejano and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande.

Everyone would do well to remember some of the violations of the fundamental rights of the American immigrants to Mexican Texas, e.g., forcing them to convert to Catholicism. Many are quick to forget that the same hurdles faced by immigrants from south of the border today, i.e., restrictions on allowing their relatives to join them in their new country and a feeling that the powers that be do not properly represent the immigrant, were also faced by the American immigrant in Mexican Texas.

My intention here is not to justify either the previous actions of the Mexican government against “Anglo” settlers or to justify the more recent actions of the U.S. government against “Hispanic” settlers. My intention is to provide a resolution.

Anglo culture, religion and language were unduly suppressed by the Mexican government of Texas during the colonial era. Hispanic culture, religion and language have also been unduly suppressed by the American government of Texas at times since Texas joined the union. American settlers in Mexican Texas persevered with their grievances until Santa Anna declared himself dictator. These settlers are admittedly much more patient than I. Texas, in my opinion, should move now to pre-empt the current slow move of Washington towards ever greater exercise of its imperial powers. If we cannot move now, when and if martial law is ever declared by an American president, our experience under American rule will have become no better than our experience under Mexican rule. It is then time to reject both!

Recognizing this historical experience, then, I propose the founding of the Second Republic of Texas, in which we recognize the coequal importance of both our Anglo-American heritage and our Hispanic-Mexican heritage. Our American heritage was the original impetus behind and helped us preserve the Texan focus on individual freedom, gun rights, and a free economy. Our Spanish heritage has helped Texas maintain a more family-centered culture, helped insulate us from the stale liberal-progressive tendencies that now permeate many parts of the United States, and given Texas its unique cultural institutions, like the cowboy, the county judge (alcalde), our food, our historic cities, and so much more.

Again, Texas rejected the rule of the Mexican government. We then gave U.S rule a try. Both have, in my opinion, failed (or will fail soon). Texas can make it on its own. We do not need to rejoin the economic backwardness of Mexico, nor do we need to labor to support an empire that is not our own and that we joined voluntarily.

And we must pay more than lip-service to the idea that our two heritages are coequal. I propose that the Second Republic make both Spanish and English its official languages, i.e., the languages in which government business is conducted.

An independent Texas, especially one that recognizes its dependence on both sides of its cultural heritage, can easily meet the challenges to which the imperial U.S. is likely to succumb. The Second Republic will not face an amount of military expenditures proportional to the amount currently spent under U.S. domination. In other words, with no needed worldwide military presence, Texas will not face the currency crisis which the U.S. faces. The currency of Texas will be stable, and will likely even increase in value in relation to a falling dollar. This will preclude the need for Texans to move into a North American monetary union. In fact, if America, Canada and Mexico proceed to such a union anyway, as Switzerland pokes a hole right through the heart of the European Union, Texas can be the lone ‘no’ vote to a North American Union. That’ll give the phrase, “Lone Star State,” a whole new meaning.

A Texas Republic that recognizes the importance of its dual heritage will find itself very comfortable amongst the demographic trends likely to overwhelm the United States in the coming century. As mentioned previously, a stale, imperial America has brought upon itself the need for massive immigration, for both economic and cultural reasons. While this will likely lead to increasing conflict and racial tensions in places like California, Texas’ special place as a nation co-founded by the two cultures in question can be parlayed to provide us with both greater cultural and social stability relative to the U.S. and greater economic growth in terms of a healthy rate of immigration not perversely effected by government-created economic imbalances.

To further pre-empt the need for continental union, free trade with all nations can and should be mandated by the Texas constitution. Not only because economics has long ago proved that free trade increases standards of living, but also because free trade stands behind that more nefarious trend known as “globalization.” The bounty of free trade is being corralled by liberal-progressive-interventionists to incentivize greater political unions. If Texas makes its free trade status permanent, the need for SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) and WTO type organizations, along with NAFTA, CAFTA, and other like treaties will evaporate. The Constitution of the Second Republic of Texas can become a pre-emptive strike against such internationalism, enshrining the ideal of free trade inviolably in our to-be-nation’s highest law. Like the Confederate States of America before us, who suffered under the tariffs imposed by the Northern States, Texas can prohibit any trade protectionism whatsoever. And again like the Confederacy, whose agricultural products depended heavily on free export markets, Texas is a significant exporter, exporting more than all of the other forty-nine states (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas#Economy). If free trade, already very much in our economic interest, is mandated by our Constitution, the integration of the Republic of Texas with other pre-existing nations loses its justification: “But trade is already free in Texas.”

There’s also the small issue of what the folks in D.C. are likely to think of these plans. If the pseudo-Texan, born in New England (might as well be Canada) [and, under my plan, former] Decider decides that he would like his “rogue province” back, Texas has four words for him:
“Come And Take It.”
La Reconquista, Texas-style

When Texas joined the Union, it surrendered a large portion of its western territory in exchange for the Federal government’s subsuming of its (Texas’) national debt. In exchange for Texas now re-assuming its share of the United States’ current national deficit, Texas should demand the return of our western territory. While some libertarians and/or conservatives may look upon this, prima facie, as an action that violates the state rights, essential sovereignty and right of secession and self-determination of these other states, I will present a more historically nuanced counter-argument.

Indeed, as a general rule I accept the right of all jurisdictions to secede and self-determine their form of government. Specifically, in the context of U.S. history I unconditionally recognize the right of the original thirteen colonies, the Southern states, and all states formed prior to the so-called “Civil War” to secede. The Civil War having decided from the federal perspective against secession, the formation of [U.S.] states, which previously had proceeded under the assumption that the state to be created was itself essentially and ultimately a sovereign entity, has since that war proceeded under the assumption that the states themselves are ultimately creations and creatures of the Federal government. Texas, having a definite and sovereign existence prior to both its entrance into the Union and the final decision of the matter of secession after the Civil War, retains from my perspective its total and complete sovereignty and right to secede and self-determine in a form commensurate with its original extent. In other words, the Federal government had no right to establish what it considered to be artificial entities (i.e., Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma) out of what was and is the fully sovereign land belonging to Texas.

Oh, and someone should ask our old friend Coahuila if they’d like to come along…

(As Always) A Special Thanks to Switzerland

The inspiration for my plan for Texas is taken primarily from Switzerland. Switzerland put in place and cemented with grand success the very combination of strategies I am suggesting for Texas. Switzerland reached the height of its imperial prowess during the 15th century, after which it suffered important setbacks in terms of its expansion. In response, the Swiss became satisfied with the extent of the land under their control; they transitioned from an acquisitive imperial state to the neutral nation we know today. Due to their foresight in knowing when the empire jig was up, so to speak, Switzerland did not face the decay that many empires face.

Switzerland, in the heart of Europe and in the middle of Germany, France, and Italy, did not have an ethnic identity of its own. To this day, the nation is divided rather distinctly into German, Italian and French parts. The national government communicates in three languages, German, French, and Italian. Yet, this small and seemingly disparate country survived essentially intact over 700 years, unscathed by, though in the midst of, two World Wars, that prominently pitted Frenchmen versus Germans. Its identity and ideology, that of a neutral, multi-ethnic constitutional democratic republic, has served to unify the country, keep it safe, and allow it almost unmatched prosperity until this very day.

God Bless the U.S.A. is a mere blessing by association; originally, God Blessed Texas.

Addendum One: Immigration (added 10/6/2008)

Having now a better recognition of the problems that the American settlers in Texas faced in terms of outright immigration restrictions and deportation (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_revolution ), seeing that the Mexican settlers in Texas of late encounter a nearly identical environment, and recognizing that the resolution to this problem lies both in equal treatment and freedom, it seems Texas, as an independent state, should also mandate free immigration. As long as there exists no welfare state, only those seeking jobs will immigrate to Texas. Free trade implies free immigration. And because free trade is a core tenet of the overall project of an independent Texas, free immigration is equally allowable under the recognition that free trade would allow the export of any job out of Texas; thus, Texas might as well retain the job and gain a worker than lose both.