On Right to Revolt Against Waves of Corrupt Governments; Texas vs. Mexico

Texas, Arizona, California have become invasion routes for neo-annexation of much of the United States onto the corrupt neo-narco trafficker state with oppressive concentrated wealth through illegal migration. Even legally arrived Mexicans take seafood processing jobs in Alaska while Alaskans are rejected from being hired. Mexican-American citizens with dual citizenship implicity corrupt the sovereignty of other just U.S. citizens over their own nation.

As wealth is being concentrated in the United States and the elites are increasingly globalists seeking to degrade the quality of life of ordinary Americans in order to more like the Mexican ruling elites it may be useful to review the historical evolution of revolution and rights of liberty of the state of Texas and also consider briefly Mexico, Arizona and California.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/mexicanamericanwar/a/MexicanCause.htm

There is a basic principle in the history of revolutions against governments that are successful that the new government formed has legitimacy through its ability to dominate its claimed territory and hold it. It must also receive recognition by other national governments in order to receive whatever sort of security that exists in such peer consideration.

California as a colony of New Spain experienced an increase in non-Spanish trade and visitors toward the end of Spanish rule. There were several revolutionary phases and changes of government in Mexico. Distant California was increasingly developing an infrastructure and populace ready for independence. In the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s California was growing into independence. Alta California was ceded by the Mexican Government after the Mexican-American war.

The Mexican Government required that immigrants be Catholic in its distant territories. The desire for religious freedom for Protestant would have been an underlying cause to revolt against a neo-theocratic joint political power. Since the Inquisition Spanish government authorities had worked very closely with church hierarchy.

In Texas, German immigrants actually made a fairly substantial purchase payment of land from Commanches in order to settle disputed land claims in the hill country.

The Republic of Texas had absolutely no obligation to recognize the claims of sovereignty of the first Mexican Empire over its territory. The first Mexican Empire was a deal cut by the Mexican revolutionary leaders with the government of Spain. Spain was having its own problems at the time with Napoleon. The Mexicans agreed that a joint government would be formed with a leader appointed by Spain, the Houser of Bourbon, The Habsburgs or whomever (I need to research that).

The Texans had not obligation to recognize the New Mexican Empire at all. When New Spain existed the legitimacy of the government was without question from a western point of view, although it was of course undesirable and oppressive to the Indian population. The quality of the government is not at issue here, nor is its oppressive caste system.

The New Mexican Empire was short-lived and replaced by the First Mexican republic that existed until a coup that put Bustamente in the office of President between 1830-1832 and 1837 and 1841. Texans had no obligation to recognize any of these governments as rightfully sovereign over Texas. With the principle of self-determination, California and Arizona neither had any legal obligation to recognize the claims of any government following the end of New Spain. When the Soviet Union ended, several nations sought independence and claimed such. It basically was their power and will for separation that provided the opportunity to claim independence as peers of core Soviet States such as Russia.

General Santa Ana cancelled the Mexican Federal Constitution in 1835 and the people of Coahuila y Tejas and the Yucatan revolted. The Texans of course were successful at asserting their Independence though General Santa Ana led a force personally to annihilate the insurgents at the Alamo. Captured later in the war he granted Texas recognition as an independent Republic in exchange for his freedom. The ensuing Mexican Government proclamation disavowed the assertion of liberty.

An earlier Mexican government following independence issued land grants to citizens of the United States. In the absence of Spanish imperial forces the New Mexican Government believed that Americans would better defend their territory against Comanches. (see wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexico#After_Independence_.281821-1846.29

The Governments of Mexico following the revolution from New Spain were no more legitimate than their ability to assert political control through force over subject peoples. Those governments revolted upon themselves on several occasions through coup d’etat changing form and personnel.

Initially Spanish priests that had lost cash and land through a Spanish confiscation order led the Mexican Revolution. Deprived of their wealth Father Hidalgo and later Father Morelos led Indian armies to war upon Spanish regulars. They were not ultimately successful, yet they paved the road to revolution for Guerrero and other in 1921.

When governments are perennial corrupt, distant, out of touch, imperious and ineffective it is a duty of the people to effectively take whatever means are required to rectify the situation and install a representative government with the consent of the governed.

When the Texas Republic petitioned the United States to become a state and was admitted Mexican military forces invaded and attacked Fort Texas. The following Mexican war with the United States brought Ulysses S. Grant to battle in the border region as an observing supply officer. It was his first bloody experience in combat with an invading, oppressive power. He stayed with Thorton far into Mexico, and is said to have commanded an artillery battery on the final fight into Mexico City to enforce a regime change or surrender to place people that would not attack the United States into power. Today, human smuggling gangs have arisen in Mexican border towns specializing in bringing middle easterners into the U.S.A. In 2007 I.N.S. officers reportedly arrested 70 in one group in rural Arizona and are said to have allowed another 500 to escape.