Brian asks: “What position does the movement take on the possibility of Texas expanding territorially by negotiating the annexation of counties from New Mexico?”
This question touches on one of the most complex legal and political processes in American governance. The Texas Nationalist Movement takes a careful, principled stance that respects both sovereignty and proper legal procedures.
The Bottom Line: Counties are administrative subdivisions without sovereignty. They cannot secede from their state on their own. If certain New Mexico counties wished to join Texas, they would first need to secede from New Mexico through proper legal channels. Only then could an independent Republic of Texas decide whether to incorporate those newly free territories.
Daniel Miller addressed this exact scenario during a recent Late Night Coffee Talk session, distinguishing between county movements like “Greater Idaho” and full independence movements. As Miller explained, counties are state administrative units without inherent sovereignty—they exist at the pleasure of their state government.
This differs fundamentally from Texas independence. Texas is already a political entity with constitutional standing. The U.S. Constitution’s Article IV, Section 3 requires that any boundary changes between states must receive consent from both state legislatures involved plus Congressional approval. This creates a three-step process that makes county annexation extremely difficult within the current federal system.
However, an independent Texas would operate under different rules entirely. As a sovereign nation, the Republic of Texas would have the authority to negotiate territorial arrangements with neighboring jurisdictions—but only after those counties had legitimately freed themselves from their current state government.
The Greater Idaho movement provides the clearest modern example of this process. Thirteen Oregon counties have voted to explore leaving Oregon for Idaho, but these are advisory votes only. The actual transfer would require Oregon’s legislature to consent to losing those counties, Idaho’s legislature to consent to gaining them, and Congressional approval for the boundary change.
The TNM position reflects respect for self-determination rather than aggressive expansionism. We believe in the right of peoples to choose their own government, but through legitimate political processes. If New Mexico counties genuinely wished to leave their state, that decision must originate from those counties themselves and follow proper legal channels.
Post-independence, Texas would face different considerations. Historical precedent shows that boundary negotiations between sovereign nations follow international law rather than domestic constitutional requirements. An independent Texas could negotiate with an independent county or region that had legitimately freed itself from New Mexico.
It’s worth noting that Texas has historical experience with territorial questions. The original Republic of Texas claimed territory extending into present-day New Mexico, but sold those claims to the federal government as part of the Compromise of 1850. As Miller has explained, “that territory was sold off. Texas was paid for it. And the fact that we were paid for it means we don’t have any claim to it.”
The practical reality is that an independent Texas would likely maintain its current boundaries unless extraordinary circumstances created opportunities for voluntary territorial additions. The focus of TEXIT remains on securing Texas independence within our existing borders, not on territorial expansion.
This approach reflects TNM’s broader philosophy: we support self-determination and proper legal processes over aggressive territorial ambitions. Counties seeking to change state affiliation must first secure their own freedom through legitimate means. Only then could meaningful negotiations occur between sovereign entities.
Understanding these distinctions matters because it demonstrates that Texas independence follows established legal principles rather than revolutionary conquest. We seek to restore Texas sovereignty through constitutional processes, not through territorial expansion at others’ expense.
