Annexation of Texas
Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1845
28th Congress Second Session
Begun and held at the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday the second day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-four.
Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the state of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the states of this Union.
2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First-said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second-said state, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said state may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the government of the United States. Third- New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire. And in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited.
3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with that Republic; then, Be it resolved, that a state, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing states, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two Houses of Congress, as the President may direct.
J. W. JONES
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
WILLIE P. MANGUM
President, pro tempore, of the Senate.
Approv'd March 1. 1845
Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.
Edited by Hunter Miller
Documents 80-121 : 1836-1846
Washington : Government Printing Office, 1934.
Where did the United States get its Constitutional authority for the attempt to take the People’s lands when the superior Treaty laws over-ride US Constitutional law?
To all North American Sovereigns inhibiting the lands of Texas, ¾ of New Mexico, 1/2 of colorado, Oklahoma Panhandle, Kansas above Oklahoma Panhandle and South of the Arkansas river, Counties of Wyoming at the 42nd Parallel.
•united States of America organic Constitution
•ARTICLE VI, paragraph #2;
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in this constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
In the year 1819 there was a Treaty officially signed by Spain and the United States setting the southern and eastern Boundaries between Spain and the United States. In that treaty the United States and Spain gave testimony by signature that neither party would ever tread on the agreed lands between them. In the above Article this Treaty became the supreme law of the land.
The boundary-line between the two countries, west of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulph of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north, along the western bank of that river, to the 32d degree of latitude; thence, by a line due north, to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches, or red River; then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward, to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington; then, crossing the said red River, and running thence, by a line due north, to the river Arkansas; thence, following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas, to its source, in latitude 42 north; and thence, by that parallel of latitude, to the South Sea. [Note added, today the South Sea is known as the Pacific Ocean.] The whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818. But if the source of the Arkansas River shall be found to fall north or south of latitude 42, then the line shall run from the said source due south or north, as the case may be, till it meets the said parallel of latitude 42, and thence, along the said parallel, to the South Sea: All the islands in the Sabine, and the said red and Arkansas Rivers, throughout the course thus described. To belong to the United States; but the use of the waters, and the navigation of the Sabine to the sea, and of the said rivers Roxo and Arkansas, throughout the extent of the said boundary, on their respective banks, shall be common to the respective inhabitants of both nations.
[Note added: South Sea at that time is the Pacific Ocean today.]
The two high contracting parties agree to cede and renounce all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the territories described by the said line, that is to say: The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions, to the territories lying west and south of the above-described line; and, in like manner, His Catholic Majesty cedes to the said United States all his rights, claims, and pretensions to any territories east and north of the said line, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, renounces all claim to the said territories forever.
Therefore it is affirmed by supreme law that the United States has never had any Constitutional or Treaty authority to tread on, sell, divide into parts, or promise to pay for any lands to the South and West of the Boundary lines set into supreme law by this treaty. The United States has formed the conglomerate Corporation of States in order to deceive the people into thinking they have authority over their lands when treaty law is supreme and gives no authority to any Corporations. There never ever has been a Treaty of Annexation agreed to between the united States of America and the republic of Texas for claiming the lands of Texas. Therefore;
- Now we know why the Senate voted in 1844, four to one against a Treaty of Annexation of Texas a sovereign republic with lands stretching to the Pacific. It would have been against the uSA constitutional supreme law of the land.
- Now we know the only way the United States could get control of the people of Texas was to incorporate by resolution (not treaty) and charter the State of Texas in 1845 and snooker the Texians using color of law into thinking this was a Government of and by the People. This scam is still running as of today.
- Now we know how after the war with Mexico in 1848 the Corporate United States placed new permanent boundary lines to separate Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California and make territories out of them so as to incorporate them.
- Now we know how the Corporate United States bypassed the Constitutions when breaking the Corporate State of Texas up into five separate parts in 1850 because a Corporation does not have Constitutional law only chartered corporate laws.
- Now we know when the Texian people voted three to one to succeed in 1861 with their own Constitution then the corporate United States declared the vote null and void. What this meant was it was actually true because Texas never ceded their lands in the first place so the vote was declared null and void? You can’t secede from something that you never ceded. Also the Texian people could not secede from a United States as a corporate citizen (as a 14th amendment citizen). They were all registered to vote in the Corporation. What the Texian people did not know was their Nation with its lands was still intact and all they had to do was reclaim it. As we the republic of Texas congress did in 2005 and have operated as a de jure government since.
- Now we know why the State of Texas Corporate Supreme Court ruled Lack of Jurisdiction over the de jure Republic of Texas in 1994. All Corporations have no Jurisdiction over a sovereign people of God and their Nation and all courts have been corporate courts for profit since 1845.
- Now we know why the Corporate Court of the Netherlands The Hague ruled Lack of Jurisdiction over the de jure Republic of Texas because they also can only rule on corporate matters.
NOTE by Ed Brannum: "I am convinced now that the whole matter of annexation by resolution for the republic of Texas Nation was a scam from the start."
Resolutions, Treaties & Law
August 26, 1998
In June of 1844, the United States Senate considered a Treaty which had been submitted for their approval. The Treaty was the Treaty of Annexation, designed to bring another nation, The Republic of Texas, into the union of American States as one of the united States of America. The Treaty of Annexation was defeated in the US Senate by a vote of 35 to 16.
This should have ended the matter, or they should have resubmitted the Treaty of Annexation at a later date, when they could get it passed.
This never occurred.
Rather, the House of Representatives introduced a "Resolution of Annexation" in 1845, along with a document called "Articles of Annexation." After this resolution passed, the United States declared that Texas was now one of the states of the United States. Interesting conclusion, but let's take a look at the word "resolution."
The word "resolution," when it is regarding a resolution passed by an assembly or legislature, simply means they have agreed on their intent on some matter. A resolution is not a law. Of course, Black's Law Dictionary, sixth edition, says that a Joint Resolution when signed by the President has the effect of law. Why would this be stated when any other definition you look at says it is a statement of intent? In fact, further down in Black's it says outright that a resolution is not a law.
We must remember that Black's, as well as other dictionaries, defines words according to current usage. In other words, Congress passes a Joint Resolution, has the President sign it, and tells everybody it is law. Then Black's includes this in its definition!! Does this make it law? No, it does not.
A law must come from an act passed by congress with specific language.
It must have an Enactment Clause, such as "It is hereby enacted" and it must have an enabling clause. A resolution has neither of these.
It is very simple. A resolution is not a law and it applies only to the body that passes it.
Now lets look at the word treaty. What is a treaty? Simply stated, it is an agreement, a contract between two parties, usually independent countries. It takes the approval of both parties to become a valid contract or treaty. Where is the process for Texas to sign off on a Resolution of the U.S. Congress? They may have the will to agree with it, as was apparently the case with the People of Texas in 1845, but how would that agreement be expressed? Since they were a separate nation, it would be absolutely necessary for a treaty to be consummated for the agreement to be a lawful contract between the two parties, Texas and the United States.
Let me give an example or two. Has anyone ever seen the "Resolution of Peace" with the Cherokee Indians or any other tribe of Indians? How about the "Resolution of Amity" between the United States and Spain in 1819. NO! There were "Treaties of Peace" signed with the Indians and a "Treaty of Amity" signed with Spain in 1819. Why did they use a treaty rather than a resolution in these instances?
Remember to have a valid agreement in the form of a document, it must be signed by both parties. The statement of the Congress of the United States of their intent to have Texas as a State is not sufficient to complete an agreement between both parties. It is simply the statement of one of the parties as to their desire or intent.
If everybody had to abide by the intent or desires of everyone else without agreement, what a crazy world we would have! If this would work the U.S. could just pass a "Resolution for Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" and, by golly, the WHOLE WORLD would have to abide by it. No more messing with those pesky treaties where they have to agree to it and NO MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! Of course, another nation might pass a "Resolution that all nations must have Nuclear Weapons." Now what?
In addition, according to their own founding document, the House of Representatives does not have the authority delegated to it by the People to initiate matters of foreign affairs. How then could they introduce a "Resolution of Annexation" of Texas? The answer to that is simple. They just acted outside their delegated authority. A practice that has become an everyday experience with the U.S. Government.
So the facts are very simple. There has never been a lawful process completed to make Texas one of the states of the United States.
Now lets address another issue. All political power is inherent in the People. This is a principle that has existed from time immemorial. It is a fact of the nature of things. This principle was stated in the American Declaration of Independence. It is included in the National Constitution for the Republic of Texas of 1836. It is stated in every "State" constitution written for Texas. We must remember that the People of Texas exercised this principle when they voted, in 1861 to withdraw from their unlawful union with the United States.
The vote, taken by county, was 75% in favor of withdrawal. This was the People of Texas exercising their political authority to determine their own fate and their own future. The United States, and its courts, maintains that the United States is a "perpetual union" and no one may leave or secede. How does this square with the statement in their own Declaration of Independence that "All political power is inherent in the people?" It simply does not.
There is, of course, the larger problem that Texas was never lawfully a part of the Union in the first place! And since the People of Texas have never voted to JOIN the union since they voted to WITHDRAW from it, how have we been forced to be a part of something that the People said they did not want to be a part?
Again the answer is simple. Military force. In 1865 the Union Army came into Texas and took over by military might. Is there a problem with this? There certainly is. A close examination of the Constitution for the United States of America discloses that there is no authority delegated by the People to the U.S. to conquer another nation by war and "take" it and make it a part of themselves. The U.S. Government can lawfully do ONLY that which the People give it authority to do.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were attempting to set up a government which would not oppress or tyrannize its people. It is inconceivable to think that they would condone the "taking" of another country of politically sovereign people and enslave them or FORCE them into their bailiwick.
When the U.S. forced Texas and the southern states to be a part of the U.S., they not only enslaved the people involved there, but also enslaved the people of the northern states. If we the People, allow our government to enslave others, it will be only a short time until we too become its slaves. That is exactly what has occurred.
There are many, many issues that could be discussed here but suffice it to say that the People, all over the North American continent, are waking up and realizing that they have indeed been enslaved by the government that is supposed to protect their rights and liberties and serve them. The issue of Texas Annexation, or lack thereof, is only proof positive that this enslavement has taken place and is ongoing.
In summary, let me restate, Texas has never been LAWFULLY joined to the United States, has expressed its will to be sovereign and independent (in 1836 and again in 1861) and has been a CAPTIVE NATION of the United States since 1865. Remember, this is a violation by the United States of their own law, the law given to them by the People who created the U.S. Government.
And remember, a resolution is NOT a law. Even if a resolution were law, one country cannot pass a law that binds another country. A Treaty is only law as long as the parties continue to agree to abide by it. It is a self-imposed law by agreement or contract. Then there is always the law of the gun. I submit to you that we are now subjected to the law of the gun imposed by a de facto United States government with the cooperation of THE STATE OF TEXAS government.
One man, when asked what he wanted the government to do for him replied, "Guard the shores, deliver the mail, and leave me the heck alone!" Good Answer!
The world, along with all Texans, needs to recognize the true, lawful status of Texas as an Independent, Sovereign Nation. The only way to resolve this is for the People, once again, to express and utilize their inherent political authority and re-establish our substantive, God-given freedoms and liberties and re-form our government into one which does what it is supposed to do. And that is: to protect the rights and liberties of the People from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Remember, THERE IS NO TREATY OF ANNEXATION! No Need To Secede
Respectfully, Jesse Enloe, President
Provisional Government, Republic of Texas
On The Fourteenth Amendment and Martial Law
Get to Know The State of Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS
State Department Lists Texas As A