Don't Mess with Texas?

That is the direct letter from the AG's office in this situation.

And yes they will fight the Federal Gov't over this.

I'll take the word of Texas over the words of our Gov't at this time, which would include the BLM.

if you put your ear close to the monitor when that 'direct letter' is on the screen you can actually hear the chest thumping.
 
That is the direct letter from the AG's office in this situation.

And yes they will fight the Federal Gov't over this.

I'll take the word of Texas over the words of our Gov't at this time, which would include the BLM.

if you put your ear close to the monitor when that 'direct letter' is on the screen you can actually hear the chest thumping.

Yeah haw.............

Perhaps you can go talk to those deed holders over there and you can hear the blood boiling over this..............

That would be a hoot..........Or perhaps they'll just say a hoot owl lives there, and say it's endangered and take the land under the endangered species act.

They rule like a king anyway, and fools don't give a damn........
 
https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rnr01

he Republic of Texas recognized the Red River as a boundary when, in an act of December 19, 1836, Congress made the eastern boundary coterminous with the western boundary of the United States, as fixed by the treaty of 1819. The area between the true 100th meridian and the 100th meridian according to the Melish Map extended from the Red River north to 36°30" latitude and was more than 100 miles in width, embracing an area of 16,000 square miles. According to strict construction of the treaty of 1819, this strip belonged to Texas. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, on March 16, 1896, held that Texas was stopped from claiming this strip, for the following reasons: (1) In the Compromise of 1850, wherein Texas ceded all territory north of 36°30" latitude and west of the 100th meridian, Texas had agreed to the true meridian and not the Melish meridian. (2) The true 100th meridian had been made the eastern boundary of Lipscomb, Hemphill, and Wheeler counties when they were legally formed. (3) The true 100th meridian as ascertained had been acquiesced in, recognized, and treated as the true boundary by various acts of Texas, and both governments had treated it as the proper boundary in the disposition they made of the territory involved. The view was virtually conceded as to all the strip, except for 3,840 square miles east of the true 100th meridian and between the forks of the Red River. The United States contended that the line following the course of the Red River eastward to the 100th meridian met the meridian at the point where it intersected the lower fork of the Red River; Texas contended that her boundaries extended along the Red River to the point where the upper fork intersected the 100th meridian. In other words, the question was which was the main fork of the Red River. The Supreme Court held that the disputed territory belonged to the United States. The decision, known as the Greer County case, resulted in the loss from Texas to what is now Oklahoma of 1,511,576 acres. A quarter of a century later another argument between Texas and Oklahoma occurred when oil was discovered in the bed of the river. With the extension of the Burkburnett Townsite pool, known as the Northwest Extension, it was discovered that a part of the pool lay in the bed of the Red River. This brought up the old question of Indian headright titles and caused a controversy that reached the Supreme Court and resulted in fixing the boundary of Texas at the bluff on the Texas side. Militia of both Texas and Oklahoma, together with the Texas Rangersqv, engaged in several battles. The bridge was burned, oilfield equipment destroyed, and property confiscated.
 
Perhaps you can go talk to those deed holders
There are no deed holders - oh wait .... yeah there is .... the People of the United States of America

And maybe it's true that you "Don't mess with Texas" but I know without a doubt, you don't mess with the People of the United States of America.
(Just ask the people of texas - who failed so poorly as a country that they BEGGED the United States to annex them and take over their massive debt - that they ran up in less than 10 years).
 
Last edited:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4718

April 22, 2014

The Honorable Neil Kornze
Director
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Kornze:

Respect for property rights and the rule of law are fundamental principles in the State of Texas and the United States. When governments simply ignore those principles, it threatens the foundation of our free and prosperous society. That is why I am deeply concerned about reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas and that it now claims belongs to the federal government. Given the seriousness of this situation, I feel compelled to seek answers regarding the BLM’s intentions and legal authority with respect to Texas territory adjacent to the Red River.

I understand that your office is in the early stages of developing a plan—known as a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS)—to regulate the use of federal lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply troubled by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim—for the first time—that 90,000 acres of territory along the Red River now belong to the federal government.

Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.

Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.

Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”—not the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.

This issue is of significant importance to the State of Texas and its private property owners. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the BLM believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:

Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.

Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.

Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.

Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.

Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
In short, the BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. It is incumbent on BLM to promptly disclose both the process it intends to follow and the legal justification for its position.

Sincerely,

Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas
Eagle, please explain to me and all of us, what you think this letter is saying....

From what I can gather in 2000 a compact/treaty was agreed to, and signed by the state of texas and the state of oklahoma agreeing to the property lines between the 2 States....

AND NOW this AG guy is complaining about this compact agreement that took place in 2000 between Congress, and Texas and Oklahoma????

The Picture in your next post is beautiful btw....lovely region....

So what is the actual issue?

The difference between the Texans thinking it was
from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River.

verses what Texas and Oklahoma with Congress ratified compact which says

“the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”

From looking at your picture, there seems to be no difference between the 2.....in many spots the vegetation goes right up to the river bank......?

but I can understand wanting this clarified, but why go to the Blm to clarify this Boundary Compact? That's the part I don't understand? why not go to congress to have them clarify the 2000 compact boundary agreement or something?

What am I missing and why is the blm inovlved with this river in the first place? I thought Oklahoma owned the river and texas the land south of the bank of the river?

Do you have anything, anything at all that shows the blm is trying to "grab" this property or even has an interest in it, other than hearsay? Or what this dude is crying wolf about? where was he in 2000 when this wording he is up in arms about was changed?
 
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4718

April 22, 2014

The Honorable Neil Kornze
Director
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Kornze:

Respect for property rights and the rule of law are fundamental principles in the State of Texas and the United States. When governments simply ignore those principles, it threatens the foundation of our free and prosperous society. That is why I am deeply concerned about reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas and that it now claims belongs to the federal government. Given the seriousness of this situation, I feel compelled to seek answers regarding the BLM’s intentions and legal authority with respect to Texas territory adjacent to the Red River.

I understand that your office is in the early stages of developing a plan—known as a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS)—to regulate the use of federal lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply troubled by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim—for the first time—that 90,000 acres of territory along the Red River now belong to the federal government.

Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.

Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.

Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”—not the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.

This issue is of significant importance to the State of Texas and its private property owners. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the BLM believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:

Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.

Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.

Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.

Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.

Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
In short, the BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. It is incumbent on BLM to promptly disclose both the process it intends to follow and the legal justification for its position.

Sincerely,

Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas
Eagle, please explain to me and all of us, what you think this letter is saying....

From what I can gather in 2000 a compact/treaty was agreed to, and signed by the state of texas and the state of oklahoma agreeing to the property lines between the 2 States....

AND NOW this AG guy is complaining about this compact agreement that took place in 2000 between Congress, and Texas and Oklahoma????

The Picture in your next post is beautiful btw....lovely region....

So what is the actual issue?

The difference between the Texans thinking it was
from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River.

verses what Texas and Oklahoma with Congress ratified compact which says

“the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”

From looking at your picture, there seems to be no difference between the 2.....in many spots the vegetation goes right up to the river bank......?

but I can understand wanting this clarified, but why go to the Blm to clarify this Boundary Compact? That's the part I don't understand? why not go to congress to have them clarify the 2000 compact boundary agreement or something?

What am I missing and why is the blm inovlved with this river in the first place? I thought Oklahoma owned the river and texas the land south of the bank of the river?

Do you have anything, anything at all that shows the blm is trying to "grab" this property or even has an interest in it, other than hearsay? Or what this dude is crying wolf about? where was he in 2000 when this wording he is up in arms about was changed?

If you are asking eagle for an accurate summary - you are dipping your bucket in a dry well. He claimed that Nevada was a state while it still belonged to Mexico.
 
OLD GREER COUNTY

A history of the disputed area.

You live in Oklahoma today..........go further in history........and NOPE you are a Texan.

Only the Federal Gov't is dumb enough to screw things up like this.

General McClellan's screw ups way back then actually started the whole dang thing, and it's been BS ever since according to the history.

Why doesn't the Feds redraw the lines again and make it Oklahoma again.

LOL
 
I am pretty sure that this will be decided in a court of law. Aren't you?

Yep. But it will not be the Federal Gov't facing off against a lone Cattle Rancher and his family this time.

He will be fighting States who have the resources to take them on.

And you still will not engage on these land grabs one way or another.

Should the feds take these 90,000 acres via the BLM?

Huh..........I can't hear you................

I don't know. Haven't looked at the case at all. Not too worked up about it either way.

What I do know is that the case will be decided peacefully.....in a federal court. You know.....the kind you don't recognize. Your wet dream of an armed conflict over "land grabs" will not come to be.

Well, lets hope there armed aren't militia members riding on horseback with rifles to stand off with BLM........only to put the women and children up front to be shot first.

And yes, reasonable people will settle it in court. Just like the Bundy situation was. Until Bundy decided he didn't recognize the court.
 
Ahem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt8rs_0XLyg].[/ame]
 
So the LT. AG bases his bloodboil on a report from Breitbart Texas...so even the Lt AG is a hater dupe...lol.

OP- Your "news" is rabble rousing bs propaganda.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c24zIkPnLYI]The Alamo - Davy Crockett Playing Violin - YouTube[/ame]

Davy Crockett wasn't from Texas either..................

As Texas wasn't a state back then..........

After the fighting was done by the people, the Federal Gov't granted them state hood leading to another fight with Mexico on another day.
 
Now the Federal Gov't fights the people with a pen and a phone........................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_skPgxH178]Obama: "We're not just waiting for legislation, I've got a pen and I can use it" - YouTube[/ame]
 
That is the direct letter from the AG's office in this situation.

And yes they will fight the Federal Gov't over this.

I'll take the word of Texas over the words of our Gov't at this time, which would include the BLM.

The word of a Texas AG running for Governor and looking to make a name for himself?

I don't think so
 
OLD GREER COUNTY

On May 2, 1890, Congress passed the Organic Act for the Territory of Oklahoma. One section of the act required that the attorney general of the United States file a suit in equity in the U.S. Supreme Court to officially settle the disputed boundary. Attorneys for the United States searched the archives of Mexico and Spain. Testimony was taken in 1894, and the case United States v. Texas was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1895. On March 16, 1896, the Court ruled that the southern branch of the Red River was the true Red River of the 1819 treaty. By this decision 1.5 million acres were added to Oklahoma Territory. Congress passed a bill to establish a government for Greer County, Oklahoma Territory, with Mangum as its county seat, and the president signed the bill on May 4, 1896.

Settlers in Greer County quickly took action to protect the claims they held in the new Oklahoma Territory county. U.S. Rep. Jeremiah Cockrell of Texas introduced a bill to open the county for homesteading. An important provision of his bill was that any settler already in Greer County had six months to file for any quarter section of land at a cost of only the land office fees. Each settler also had to right to purchase another quarter section of land for one dollar per acre. Cockrell's bill was approved by the House in 1896 and by the Senate during the next session and was signed on January 27, 1897. The Mangum land office opened on June 24, 1897. There were one hundred original homestead applications. By the end of 1898, there were three thousand applications. By 1902, 95 percent of Greer County was occupied.

The 1906 Oklahoma Constitutional Convention divided the county into Beckham, Jackson, and Greer counties. In 1909 Harmon County was created out of a part of southwestern Greer County. Mangum remains the seat of the smaller, new Greer County.

History and the Supreme Court were not through with Old Greer County. In 1929 a new survey was run to locate the true 100th meridian using more modern and accurate methods of triangulation. This survey established that the present meridian was located 4,040 feet too far west at the Red River and 880 feet too far west at the north end of the Texas Panhandle. On March 17, 1930, the Supreme Court confirmed the new line as the official boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There were no cities or towns on this narrow strip, but some five hundred people suddenly found themselves citizens of Texas once again.
 
No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

Let me put in 2 cents that are very relevant to this topic.

One thing that is unique about Texas is that the "Public Lands" that fall within that state do not belong to the BLM.

Every state that joined the Union with the exception of one upon statehood deeded over all of their public lands to the United States, except for one.

Yep, Texas.

So unlike Nevada or Idaho or California or Alaska or any other state, such lands belong to either individuals, or the State of Texas.

And has been shown over and over, the changing of the course of a river does not change the ownership of the land.

So the statement by the BLM is actually factual, if not accurate. A court ruling in 1986 may have indeed stated that this land in question was "Public Land".

But Public Land in Texas does not belong to the BLM, it belongs to the State of Texas.
 
Better get all your facts right before you go shooting of the mouth.
Something notorious for texas :eusa_liar:



If the federal government is such a horrible entity. The next time there is some natural disaster that affects your state, don't ask for federal aid.
If you want a fence built between your state and Mexico.
Build it yourself.
Find the resources within your beloved state.
Leave federal monies alone.
:eusa_boohoo:

Texas doesn't want a dumb ass fence. Fences are only good for keeping cows in. The illegals & drug traffickers would just laugh at it.

As to federal tax payers funding every natural event in every state... what a load of bull shit that is. Get your own damn insurance and stop using TX tax dollars to fund your mistakes ya panzy asses.
 
No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

Let me put in 2 cents that are very relevant to this topic.

One thing that is unique about Texas is that the "Public Lands" that fall within that state do not belong to the BLM.

Every state that joined the Union with the exception of one upon statehood deeded over all of their public lands to the United States, except for one.

Yep, Texas.

So unlike Nevada or Idaho or California or Alaska or any other state, such lands belong to either individuals, or the State of Texas.

And has been shown over and over, the changing of the course of a river does not change the ownership of the land.

So the statement by the BLM is actually factual, if not accurate. A court ruling in 1986 may have indeed stated that this land in question was "Public Land".

But Public Land in Texas does not belong to the BLM, it belongs to the State of Texas.

That is a mighty broad claim

I would like to see a link

There is a shitload of federal land in Texas
 
That is a mighty broad claim

I would like to see a link

There is a shitload of federal land in Texas

Only land that has been given to the Federal Government, or bought by it.

But hey, you want references, I can give you references.

In the early days of the republic the unappropriated public domain was considered the chief source of future public revenue. The largest single land transaction made by Texas from the unappropriated public domain was the transfer to the United States in connection with the Compromise of 1850 of an estimated 67,000,000 acres in settlement of the boundary dispute, Texas receiving from the United States $10 million in bonds and in 1855 an additional $2,750,000 in cash. This vast acreage became parts of New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. The transaction not only settled a burdensome state debt inherited from the republic, but also left Texas, unique among the states, with full control over her public domain.
PUBLIC LANDS | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)

When Texas was annexed to the United States in 1845 by a joint resolution of Congress, Texas retained both its debts and its public land. Texas was the only state, other than the original 13 colonies, to enter the Union with control over its public land.
http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do.../_documents/history-of-texas-public-lands.pdf

Q: Why did Texas get to keep its public lands?

In 1845, Texas was still sparsely settled with about 40,000 inhabitants. More than 225 million acres of land were still public domain—that is, they were unsettled and legally owned by the Republic of Texas. Texas had always considered this land its chief source of future revenue.

One of the compromises that won over opponents of annexation provided that Texas would extinguish its own debt. To do this, Texas became the only state in the Union to retain control of her own public lands.

Texas relinquished 67 million acres in the Compromise of 1850 in exchange for a cash payment that wiped out the debt. Future land sales were earmarked to fund Texas education. But sales proved to be disappointing. Over the remainder of the 19th century, about 86 million acres—more than half the present area of Texas—were simply given away, rather than sold, to encourage settlement and development in remote areas.

However, in the 20th century, the public lands of Texas proved to contain billions of barrels of petroleum. Revenue from oil sales sent billions of dollars into the Texas Permanent School Fund and Permanent University Fund, providing an endowment that still underlies the funding for the Texas public school system, state institutions, and the University of Texas System.

In the 1950s, the federal government tried to claim that offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico was not covered by the annexation agreement. The “Tidelands” crisis became the most serious dispute in federal-state relations since the Civil War before eventually being resolved in favor of Texas.
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/exhibits/annexation/part5/question8.html

Is that enough links and references, or do you want more?

And suggestion, next time try researching it yourself for a few minutes. Although I am sure you expected me to do like so many of the Liberals in here do, and simply blow you off and never validate my claim.
 

Forum List

Back
Top