thanx lowell
very nice
i knew there was perhaps some basis for this belief of texans
& now i see how strong it is
but i think van zandt is right in saying there doesnt appear to be
any basis for such thinking & reasoning as you are presenting
since i just cant imagine how such a fundamental principle of the
constitutional union could be so simply contravened
whatever the actual intent of the legislators of 1845
& no matter that we dont actually know their intent
for if texas ever did initiate & present any new texases for
admission to the union
you can bet there would be a congressional uproar & judicial review
before any supposed entitlement became effective
also since the texas of 1845 was in fact reduced in 1850 by its own
voluntary reduction in the sale of an area that subsequently became
part of 5 other states
nm ok ks co & wy
the quintipartition proviso
if it ever really had any special meaning or validity or force
has in fact already been fulfilled & even exceeded
& so for both reasons i would think the wonderful history of all the
attempted divisions of texas subsequent to 1850
regardless of what texans may have thought they were doing in terms
of the act of 1845
was just like the history of any other such attempted divisions &or
recombinations that occurred anywhere else in the usa
& so texas does not appear to me either to have acquired any
advantages over other states from this act
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@h...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >