Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Texas following Britain? #TEXIT [View all]snooper2
(30,151 posts)33. In regards to federal lands it does, less than 1.5% of the land in Texas is federal property

Additionally, in most states in the West, extractive industries are permitted and regulated through the BLM; this is not the case in Texas, where the Railroad Commission of Texas is the agency through which companies gain access to the subsurface deposits of oil and minerals in the state.
How did this uniquely Texan condition, a wide-open western state with relatively little public-owned land, come to be? In a word: History.
snip-
The Republic attempted to entice new settlers with grant programs and relatively cheap land costs, although the uncertainty of the Republics future, continued wars with Native Americans, and the ever present threat of war with Mexico greatly reduced immigration.
As a result of low immigration, Texas was unable to maintain a sufficient tax base, resulting in the young Republic being saddled with crushing debt.
snip-
Texas wars with Native Americans and skirmishes along the Mexican border meant it owed a lot of money. The US did not want to take on that burden, however, so Texas entered the union with both its debts and lands intact, the first state since the original 13 colonies to do so.
The crushing debt would eventually be cleared as part of the compromise of 1850, which saw Texas ceding its claims over the territories in what would become New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Oklahoma in return for $10 million in bonds. However, as a part of the resolution, all of the land within the new, fixed boundary of Texas was the property of the State, rather than the federal government, a situation markedly different from other territories in the West that would eventually become states.
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/public-land-texas-brief-history/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They can leave the US one person at a time. We'll help them pack their bindles
struggle4progress
Jun 2016
#10
any state's effort to legally secede from the U.S. is absolutely pointless.
LanternWaste
Jun 2016
#13
Didn't the Republic of Texas have a special deal when it entered the Union?
workinclasszero
Jun 2016
#14
Yeah, a lot of people, including much of the secessionist movement in TX, have intentionally
TwilightZone
Jun 2016
#22
Not to secede, to break into multiple states to keep the free state/slave state ratio equal.
TransitJohn
Jun 2016
#29
In regards to federal lands it does, less than 1.5% of the land in Texas is federal property
snooper2
Jun 2016
#33
Nobody...maybe Mexico would reclaim its sovereignty over the wayward province of Texas?
workinclasszero
Jun 2016
#23
my MIL said that the Texans should have taken over all of Mexico and made
Laura PourMeADrink
Jun 2016
#24
There's no provision in the US constitution for Texas to secede, there is no Article 50. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jun 2016
#26