Well, we've each stated our own arguments about twice all around, and we still
disagree. Such is life! Let's get over it.
It would be interesting to find Van Zandt still vertical somewhere!
It is indeed uncharacteristic of him to hedge at all, much less twice in the
same sentence. I note that my 1966 edition has a footnote for that sentence
that was eliminated in the 1976 edition. The footnote, number 62a, says: "See
speech by Representative Garner relating to this proposal (Cong. Record, June
17, 1930, p. 11459)."
Now, we know that John Nance Garner (then a Democrat Congressman from Uvalde,
Texas, and about to be Speaker of the House in 1931 and Vice President in 1933)
was the greatest 20th-century advocate of the division of Texas. If anyone has
access to that speech, it might shed some light on his thinking that influenced
Van Zandt's. I would caution, however, that Garner was a politician, not a
legal scholar. He was a "lawyer," but he'd attended Vanderbilt for only one
semester, after which he "read law."
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
> ... a distinction with no "apparent" difference, I would say. It's ok. All I
> meant to do was to reinforce what I thought was a clear circumstance setting
> Texas apart from other states, one that you blurred as not representing any
> particular advantage over the other 49. You still maintain that, and I still
> disagree, so I don't understand your nitpicking, even after I plow through
> your excess verbiage.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:39 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico
> (?)
>
>
> really its ok kevin but look below & see that you did indicate i
> concluded something which in fact i merely expressed as an appearance
> or
> as how something seems to me & as what i see or dont see
> just as i think van zandt also did when he so carefully used the word
> appear
> & not only once
> & just as it all still appears to me at least
>
> & i would add
> even after lowells latest redoublements as well
>
> but i think we really should look for van zandt next
> to see what more than my 3 meager flatulations he had in mind
>
> he doesnt usually relieve himself of such utterances
>
> & what fun it will be if we find he is still physically focused too
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@r...>
> wrote:
> > I absolutely didn't alter anything you said, sir. My point was to
> highlight
> > that Texas has specific approval language already built into its
> admission
> > process that permits the division; no other state has this. That
> means,
> > contentious as the process surely would be, one hurdle already is
> crossed.
> > This clearly and undeniably gives Texas something other states do
> not have.
> > It's like Texas starts on "square two" while other states would be
> on
> > "square one."
> >
> > But I most certainly changed none of your statements top say any of
> this. In
> > fact, you're repeating the exact stance that I disagreed with.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@h...]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:11 AM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>