Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
Date: Jan 07, 2004 @ 05:18
Author: Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> ----------
> From: Lowell G. McManus[SMTP:mcmanus71496@...]
> Reply To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
> Mexico(?)
>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>