By Nathan Barton
A new Red River War?
Most of the boundary between the Republic of Texas and the State of Oklahoma is along the Red River, running generally west-east as it flows to the Mississippi. Like most of the rivers of the Great Plains, it is convoluted and frequently changes its exact location. It is an old border, dating back to the mid-1600s and claims of the Kingdom of Spain (still in existence) and the Kingdom of France (long gone). The United Mexican States inherited the border from Spain with independence, and again with Independence in 1836, the Republic of Texas too had this as one of her original borders. To the north, a successor (the French Empire) sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, and the land was briefly part of Arkansas Territory and then Indian Territory (actually, part of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations) and the Territory of Oklahoma, and included in the State of Oklahoma when the Sooners won statehood.
Both Texan families and those to the north recognized this boundary: it was more than an imaginary line on a map. Texan families homesteaded the land south of the Red River, perhaps even before Texas joined the Union in 1845. Amerind families, some long inhabitants of the area and some recently forced to move to the area (due to the Trail of Tears and other acts of deprivation by the FedGov), did the same. In many cases, the FedGov voided their stake to the land and opened it for homesteading by Anglos, especially in the last decade leading up to statehood in 1910.
The original boundary between French and Spanish territory was the treeline on the south bank of the river (there was no way, at that time, to mark the “ordinary high water mark” of the river or the centerline of the river, both used today for boundary purposes. In writing the “Enabling Act” to admit Oklahoma to the Union, the idiots in Congress apparently used the middle of the river as the boundary.
The river, of course, didn’t care what the papers said, and just as God made it, continued to change its course back and forth, bit by bit, year by year. In some cases the people living on both sides recognized that the river had changed its course, and used the old manmade border. But most folks figured they’d get along and go along with the river.
Jump forward about 105 years. A greedy and corrupt Federal government, led by a man of dubious origins and background, and in particular an agency now known for its iron fist, heavy hand, and slavish devotion to so-called environmental causes and federal power-grabbing, has begun to take action to claim that the land between the two old boundaries, that land south of where the river did or now flows that was not the boundary of Texas in 1845, didn’t belong to the people who settled on it and claimed it (and usually bought it) before or after 1845, or the suckers who bought it from those original settlers or AmerInd families. Nope, it belongs to the FedGov. All of it. 90,000 acres of it. That is more than 140 square miles, or nearly twice the size of the current District of Criminals (excuse ME, “District of Columbia!).
Apparently, the BLM isn’t claiming that the land belongs to the State of Oklahoma (or more accurately in their eyes, is “located within” the State of Oklahoma). It is still in Texan jurisdiction, apparently: it is just that as far as the BLM and DOJ and the other arms of the federal tyrants, the issue of jurisdiction isn’t worth a bucket of spit. Their only position is that something between 110 and 170 years of private ownership is worthless, and just because the FedGov is just now getting around to defending its claim doesn’t really matter. They have the power, they have the people, and they have the guns.
Now, most of this is bottom land. Most of it is probably in cottonwood groves along the river, useful for grazing (if that) and our modern catch-all of land use “wildlife habitat.” There may be a farmstead or ranchstead or five or ten on the land. Shucks, there may even be a town or two, or something like a sewage lagoon or water treatment facility (cemeteries and landfills in the Plains are usually put on hills or shallow, dry ravines, and not in river bottoms). It ain’t gonna break the budget of either Texas or Oklahoma if they don’t get to collect property taxes on it. It won’t matter anything seriously to the ability of Texas or Oklahoma to defend themselves should they have to go to war sometime. And 90,000 acres is not even a drop in the bucket to how much land the BLM controls, much as a corrupt and absolute monarch in England or Scotland might have half a millennium ago.
Indeed, this entire situation reminds me of the parable that the prophet Nathan (yes, my namesake) told King David. The one about the wealthy rancher with hundreds of sheep of his own, who steals the only lamb belonging to a poor, beggared man and serves it up as a banquet for his wealthy friends. Nathan told David the story to point out not just that making Bathsheba his mistress and sleeping with her, cuckolding her husband Uriah, then having Uriah killed in combat was not just a sin but was a disgusting, brutal, greedy, and heinous act.
Would that some modern preacher stand up to that squatter in 1600 Pennsy and his minions with the same courage that Nathan stood up to David 3,000 years ago!
It is well and good, though, to point out that the BLM has so much land (the Feds “own” 40% of 10 western states), but what is being done is still a sin (can’t call it a “crime” apparently) even if the BLM only owned a half-acre. Theft is theft.
You see, land in Texas is different than land in most of the rest of the nation. Yes, really! It is usually a lot drier and harder and often has this “disgusting” smell of petroleum hydrocarbons and sulfur! Seriously, though, it is different legally. The FedGov didn’t own or claim a single square inch of Texan land, unlike it did or does in virtually every state admitted to the Union since about 1810 or so, by right of purchase and fast dealings by Congress. Every bit of federal land in Texas, from a local post office’s lot to Fort Hood and Sam Houston National Forest and Padre Island National Seashore was bought from Texas or Texans by the FedGov (or stolen by forfeiture or for failure to pay taxes or bought by the Feds FOR local taxes owed (the infamous Bankhead-Jones Act of the Dustbowl and Great Depression).
Texan land was paid for in a number of ways: by treaty (with Spain or Mexico or various Indian tribes), by purchase of settlers from AmerInd (which may or may not have had much of a title to it) or by right of discovery and occupancy. And by blood. Texican blood, Texian blood, Texan blood. The blood of Anglo Texans and Spanish Texans and French Texans, yes and AmerInd Texans and people from Tennessee and Louisiana and Mississippi and the Carolinas who became Texan by adoption and sometimes didn’t get to live to enjoy their residency in the Republic very long. Texians who rose up against a tyrannical and unjust oligarchic government for liberty for themselves and their neighbors.
I am not saying that American blood (other than the volunteers of 1835 and 1836) was not shed to defend Texas: it was in 1845-48 and in 1914, at least, and I suppose we can pretend it was shed in defense of Texas and the rest of the now Fifty States in the bloodbaths of the 20th and 21st Century. But proportionally Texans shed a lot more blood for their own liberty and land, and for their neighbors’ liberty and land, than the other way around. The events leading to the victory in the War for Texan Independence started with the settlers (and metizo) of Texas trying to aid themselves and their neighboring Mexican states in reestablishing the republican Constitution of 1824, voided by the oligarchs fronted by Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana. When that didn’t succeed, they went to Plan B, complete Independence. But they let their emotions rule, and opted for what we can today call the Crimean Solution: annexation into the United States.
To win their war, they got a lot of help from American states, especially but not only several Southern states. A debt of blood. Fifteen years later, Texas tried to pay that debt back, joining the Confederacy and sending its treasure and troops to fight and bleed east of the Mississippi. Texas could have gone back on its own, but it didn’t. It made other mistakes as well (who doesn’t?) but in 1865, Texas wasn’t conquered by the Union, it in essence pled “no contest” and had to give up because it no longer had the resources to fight, because they’d paid their debt of blood twenty times over.
For the thirteen years between the end of the Mexican War (1845-48), and then for another twenty years after the War Between the States, Texans and other Americans shed blood to defend their homes and people. Texas was still poor, but with a new century and new wealth, Texas again began paying back its blood debt: a tiny bit in the Punitive Expedition of 1914-1915 after Pancho Villa’s raid into New Mexico, a lot more in France in the Great War, and an incredible amount in the Second World War and the wars since then: even if that payback was misguided.
The FedGov MUST consider what they are doing. Texas was a poor, barely populated (25,000) half-state which faced down a population in a (at the time) wealthy nation-state with almost 7 million (280 times its number), in an era when physical numbers were very important in war. It was part of a confederacy outnumbered 10 to 1 in people and 20 to one in industrial strength, at a time when industrial strength was equal to population in factoring war. It was not defeated, but instead let itself be drained helping those who had helped it. Today, Texas would be outnumbered still, with 25 MILLION people, against another 300 million Americans, but with incredible industry and access to military installations that provide at least 25% of the total American military force, and probably 100 million of those remaining Americans would at worst be neutral and at best JOIN Texas in its fight, once more, for liberty. Oh, I don’t like the government in Austin much more than the government in DC (or Denver or even Pierre), but I’ll take it over DC any time. It is TIME to make a stand, once again.
Libertarian Commentary on the News, #14-17A: Satire or Truth?
By Nathan Barton
It is getting harder and harder to see the truth for the satire. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s newest anti-gun initiative Everytown For Gun Safety was recently parodied in a public service announcement that was designed to look like it was created by a person with very little understanding of how firearms operate. I first saw this ad featured in a number of on-line publications stating that this was a REAL ad, but now the claim that it is bogus is popping up. I don’t know, yet, whom to believe. We really know that some hoplophobes and hoploclasts are indeed too stupid to understand how weapons work, but…
Another example of trying to figure out what to believe is THIS story (Oklahoma Militia pledges 50,000 Troops to support Bundy) by Freedom Outpost. As is so often the case with the mainstream media, the headline doesn’t really match the story’s content, and other stories about this announcement are also muddled. Apparently, a “constitutional Oklahoma militia” which claims to have 50,000 members has announced that they will send some unspecified number of troops to Nevada if BLM or other agencies try to again seize the Bundy cattle and land, or arrest them. I could not find any information about the actual number, or even if the spokesperson or organization were real. That said, there is no way ANY organization, including the US Army, could mobilize and deploy 50,000 troops to Bunkerville, or even Las Vegas, in time to respond to a sudden resumption of operations. I hope that sites like Freedom Outpost are not getting “more professional” and therefore imitating the MSM.
Speaking of troops, the Pentagon says that sending US Troops to Europe is ‘More than symbology’, indicating that even Pentagon press writers’ writing skills has significantly deteriorated, since “symbology” is NOT the correct word. But if deploying troops to Poland is NOT just a token, a symbol, then it means that the FedGov (read, the Fuehrer) is seriously considering starting a war over Crimea and Russian anger about Ukraine treating ethnic Russians like garbage. How far is the Fuehrer willing to push Putin? Putin doesn’t seem to take well to pushing, whereas the Fuehrer’s five years squatting in the White House seem to be one big shoving match: like on a ghetto basketball court.
Mama’s Note: I’d love to see Obummer shoved into a deep hole, or maybe back into the closet where he came from. The very idea that this cretin could take all 310 million of us back into a world war is just too maddening.
Supreme Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of a voter-approved Michigan law banning affirmative action in college admissions, overturning a lower court decision that invalidated the ban. In the five days since, we’ve seen the usual Tranzis and Liberals freak out over it (Pelosi, Sharpton Respond…) and call for a plethora of new laws to force “equal treatment.” Shocking though this ruling is (it is almost as if the Constitution still was in force), it appears to be very limited, and affirmative action still pretty much rules.
While we are on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, speaking to a high school class, pointed out that while the federal government has the right to tax the citizens, “if it reaches a certain point perhaps you should revolt.” The Supreme Court Justice explained to the students: “You’re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag.” Like the Michigan case, these are unusual, if welcome, words coming from a Nazgul, but you can be sure that both conservatives and liberals will express anger over some or all of this. It certainly runs counter to what that retired Nazgul has been writing and babbling. And honestly? We are WAY past that “certain point,” Mr. Justice.
Mama’s Note: If theft is always wrong, and we know it is, that “certain point” is the very first time the theft occurs, be it a penny or anything else. Tax is theft and is wrong, always. Coercion, aggression is wrong, always… and the only rational “point” at which to stop it is when it begins.
Cops getting bolder in their abuse of citizens. A Santa Clara County (California) woman is suing the Sheriff, a dozen deputies, and others for illegally searching her home, planting drugs in the home, and spiking her blood tests to “prove” she was taking meth,: almost all with evidence provided by the recordings from the sheriff’s radio system and dash cams on patrol vehicles. It apparently stemmed from the sheriff’s officers arresting her husband several blocks away. I suppose they were desperate to get a good case against him, and figured she’d roll over.
Mama’s Note: The arrogance and stupidity of these “cops” seems to grow by leaps and bounds. They are either too stupid to turn off the cameras, or they think that none of their employers will hold them to account. Most won’t, of course, but the body of evidence against them is growing fast. Maybe soon the people will reach that “certain point” where they simply will not tolerate it anymore.
One of the latest efforts by the believers in manmade global warming (what I consider one of the “new religions” of the modern era) to convert others to their beliefs is the claim that Western American wildfires are more frequent and bigger in the past decade or so, as a direct result of global climate change. This bogus claim runs contrary to the facts. I will admit that the cause of MANY Western wildfires is human, but NOT increases in “greenhouse gases” raising average global temperatures. No, we are still seeing the results of 140 years of wildfire suppression, allowing natural fuels (doghair, forest litter, etc.) to build up, and preventing natural systems, WHICH NEED FIRE, from functioning properly. Indeed, as I am writing this, riding from Sturgis to Deadwood in the Black Hills, I look out my window at the thick stands of doghair and the heavy layer of fallen trees, brush, fallen needles and branches of Ponderosa, just waiting for some idiot to throw out a smoldering cigarette or let a campfire get out of control. Secondly, as there is more and more urban build-up in the fringes and even inside forests, especially in mountainous areas, there is more potential for both accidental and intentional wildfires to start up.
Mama’s Note: Dog hair? Visible from the roads? I’ve never seen any… well, except on my carpets. 🙂 I empty the vacuum cannister outside so the birds can have the dog hair for their nests. Who knew?
The “facts” (like those about gun violence) are pretty much wrong, as well. As more and more scientific and logical forest management is allowed (at least on private and state property, and sometimes, despite the best efforts of environists, on federal property), the amount of wildfire is decreasing: the risks are reduced. As with the overall justification for harsh government regulations to control greenhouse gases, the motive behind screaming about increasing danger of wildfire in the West seems to be in order to justify more restrictions on ANY human activity in the mountains and plains. Which brings us back to the Bundy standoff and others in the West.