Mike,
When Van Zandt is right (almost all of the time), I'm with him. When I
disagree, I say so.
ANY state may subdivide itself into any number of smaller states, IF the state
and the Congress both consent(U.S. Const., Art. 4, Sec. 3). If Texas acquired
no advantage by the unique proviso of the Joint Resolution of Congress of March
1, 1845 (as Van Zandt claims), then why was it included at all? The reasonable
answer is that the Congress was granting its blanket consent for any future
division that Texas might wish to voluntarily undertake (subject only to the
stated limitation as to number of states and the geographic limitation on
slavery). Not only does it say that "New states...may...hereafter...be
formed..." out of Texas, but it also says that such new states "SHALL be
ENTITLED to admission." Doesn't that sound to you like the Congress consenting
to the division of Texas? Van Zandt seems to believe that it could be done only
at the future "recommendation or request" of Congress. If that were true, then
Texas would be denied an option available to all other states (that to seek
Congressional consent for subdivision)!
The whole long (1847-1991) and unsuccessful history of the many proposed
divisions of Texas into assorted new states (with such names as Texas, East
Texas, West Texas, North Texas, South Texas, Central Texas, Old Texas,
Jefferson, Lincoln, and Matagorda) can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/3db3z .
So, you see, some of your (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) speculations below are right
on target!
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:39 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico(?)
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "kontikipaul"
> <contikipaul@h...> wrote:
> > Texas and Vermont, upon once both being independant countries and
> > joining the Union were both given the right to leave the Union. I'm
> > not a constitutional expert but its what I was taught in school and
> > what I read in the encyclopedia. I don't double check every single
> > fact or statement I hear and I doubt anyone does. My president
> sold
> > me on a war against a sovereign nation based on an imminent threat
> > and weapons of mass destruction that have turned out to be BS. But
> > that doesn't mean I disbelieve (or believe) everything I hear.
> Who's
> > to say your facts or interpretations are correct. Van Zandts
> > arguments may be 100 percent correct.
>
> well it might have been funny to see an adoptive rhode islander
> testing this question with an adoptive texan
>
> i mean speaking as an adoptive connecticutie here
>
> but after rereading all the relevant messages i am not sure there is
> even any disagreement between you two
>
> funnier tho to see you lowell
> who usually say
> van zandt tells us this & van zandt tells us that
> duking it out with van zandt himself here actually
>
> van zandt btw is about 101 if still alive
> so he is not very likely to ever actually tell us anything
> & nothing more is known of him than that he is or was the most recent
> redactor of our great american boundary bible
>
> but if anyone can disprove anything in this bible it must be big news
> here at bp
>
> so without being provocative
> i wish you would explain lowell what exactly he is wrong about
> when he says
> if indeed this is the passage you would correct
> as follows
>
> texas does not appear however to have acquired by the quintipartition
> proviso any advantages over other states
> as it merely can give its consent to a division of its area
> the right to make the recommendation or request for the division
> apparently resting with congress
>
>
> for i would have thought all those shrewdly gerrymandering texas
> politicos would have figured out a way to leverage 2 senators into 10
> by now if it really could have been done legally
> i mean without losing a bit of their intrinsic texanness too
>
> like what about just calling these 5 states
> north texas
> east texas
> west texas
> south texas
> & texas
> or justatexas
> or whattatexas
> etc
> etc
> if anyone prefers
> with the old texas we already have
> as well as the new quintet & totality
> simply continuing to be known as good old texas
> & continuing to look like good old texas on a map
> as is proper
> albeit with these 5 primary subdivisions superceding the county level
>
> now you see it
> now you dont
> & no problem
>
> so unless i have misunderstood
> i believe it would be yours to demonstrate
> not only that texas could legally initiate such a multiplication of
> itself into 5 texases
> but also that there is no way in hell or rather no way in texas that
> it could ever happen
> since i believe you were actually making both claims at once
>
> >
> > By the way we sold about 15 islands/atolls/coral reefs that were
> > partially awash last year to Kiribati that nobody knew existed and
> > gave away another 5 or six to Russia to settle a border dispute.
> So
> > its happened before. A more realistic question is the Commonwealth
> > of the Northern Marianas Islands (ie Saipan) are they part of the
> > US? They have the right of abode here, they can join the FBI, I
> > can't move there legally and they don't have to abide by any US
> labor
> > laws. They were once a part of the US and now consider themselves
> > independant.
> >
> > I mean you're right that essentially they wouldn't leave, but
> > some politician looking for a vote with a 10 gallon hat would bring
> > it up. At the end of the day its something that people can point
> to
> > and use as a point/counterpoint in an argument. By the way if
> you
> > read past my point about Texas being able to suceed at anytime
> you'll
> > see I agreed with you about NM not being able to get 'three miles'
> > back.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>