EXCLUSIVE--TEXAS AG ABBOTT TO BLM: 'COME AND TAKE IT'

After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

“I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “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. 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.”

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country ...And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

All correct as far as it goes. Start with Spain. Additional reasons why Texas is different.

The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf

SUPREME COURT CASES:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172

Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural errosion and accretion, the boundary changes and follows the course of the river.

Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change and follow the course of the river.

A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.

This treaty settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.

Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually aquiesed to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.

Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.

The various court rulings have resulted in the following:

1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.

2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA).

3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.

4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).

The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986

It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.