Well based on that statement there are many flaws as if to say Texas and the US are two separate entities. The US is a country and Texas is a state of that country. But here is how I would answer. The US gains troops out of Texas by having recruitment centers and integrated corps within colleges. So no, Texas does not directly give troops to the US. Also, oil in Texas in owned by the US its not Texas but it is under the state funds to regulate the oil and their employees. Of course though the FED government gives them the funds though. Taxes are also regulated on the state level but, in this case you are right the country does get the money from these taxes and we allocate them accordingly. No though healthcare depends on the states laws and the US gov gives them annual spending for the lawmakers to decide. Education is also based on state laws. As far as infrastructure goes this also goes along the lines of healthcare where the US can implement laws to fix certain aspects but ultimately it is in control of the states. They both depend on one another and thus no one truly benefits more because they depend on one another. Texas is the US and therefore it is the best interest for them to be successful. Maybe what should be asked is the tax output relative to the funds given to the state.
The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy.
Land runs allowed the land to be opened to homesteaders on a first-arrival basis. Native American lands decreased significantly under the Dawes Act. Reservation lands went from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres in 1934! That is a loss of 65 percent, before the Dawes Act was repealed.