I have to agree with Kevin.
Mike, the admission of Texas in 1845 WAS highly contentious THEN, but that's how
it went down--with the pre-approved Congressional consent for unilateral
subdivision. That provision was one of the several unique conditions negotiated
between the USA and the RT. Sure, there'd be folks with ruffled feathers if
Texas ever exercised its right, and anybody can raise a stink or sue; but the
law is the law. The congressionally required consent (representing the
interests of the rest of the states) has ALREADY been given!
The 1850 alienation of parts of Texas was by outright sale to the feds for $10
million. Whatever admissions to the Union and how many were eventually made
from that parcel was none of Texas's doing, but entirely up to the Congress.
That deal was no different from the 1802 sale to the feds by Georgia of what is
now most of Alabama and Mississippi for $1.25 million.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:10 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
> ah kevin but as usual you are altering what i said in order to
> disagree with me
>
> no problem
> but it is quite vivid in this case
>
> & so i would add that any unilateral attempt at multiplication by
> texas would most probably be no less contentious than the
> multiplication of any other state
> whether unilateral or otherwise
>
> & this certainty of contention or objection whenever one tries to
> leverage ones value at the expense of others is a third reason why
> texas doesnt appear to me to have acquired any advantage
>
> i mean beside the fact that she has already split into 6 states or
> parts thereof
> & the fact that every state can legally split into as many parts as
> it likes anyway
> per the constitution
> provided the totality will agree
>
>
> so its like
> oh & you certainly have been preapproved for that additional 10 grand
> on top of your regular line sir but we just noticed you already have
> 12 other grand outstanding
> so we would like you to apply for this additional application &
> security check too please if you wouldnt mind
> etc etc
>
>
> & so if that really is an advantage well i still dont see it
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:34 AM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New
> > Mexico(?)
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > & so texas does not appear to me either to have acquired any
> > > advantages over other states from this act
> >
> > I would disagree with your conclusion that Texas didn't acquire any
> > advantages over other states, even though I agree it would be
> contentious.
> > It has the specific right and expectation for eventual division
> built into
> > its admission into the union, and no other state had that TMK.
> That's not to
> > say there wouldn't be an argument if and when it occurred. But
> Texas has
> > sort of a pre-approved status, like those credit card offers I get
> every day
> > in the mail: "You are already approved for a $10,000 Visa!"
> >
> > If Texas were to move on this privilege, the foundation for the
> arrangement
> > is already out of the way. Other states do not have this leg up.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>