The feds never recognized any of the secessions as legitimate. The
"readmissions" that occurred afterward were more like restorations to the
states' "rightful" positions in the Union. Secession never affected Texas's
extraordinary three-league territorial sea, did it?

By the way, the negotiated admission treaty between the USA and the RT wasn't
going anywhere because it would have required two-thirds ratification by the US
Senate, and that wasn't about to happen. For that reason, the proposed treaty
was scrapped, and Texas was admitted (like other states) by joint resolution,
which required a simple majority in each house. That was do-able. This
particular joint resolution imposed upon both Texas and the US certain
conditions not applied to other states. That is the origin of whatever
differences exist.

Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: <bramwellhayes@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)

> But how would the fact that Texas seceeded and required readmission effect
this, surely its orginal admission treaty was voided by its secession and
readmission?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
> Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:51:57 -0000
>
> ><html><body>
> >
> >
> ><tt>
> >big pine key 
> > 
> >yes thats it exactly 
> >thanx 
> >glad someone is paying attention too 
> > 
> >& your corrections mean texas would get 11 percent more leverage 
> >overall than my erroneous computations would have given her credit for 
> >insofar as you have raised her potentially inflated value from my 
> >understated 431 percent figure to fully 463 percent of present value 
> > 
> >so you are a true son of texas podnuh 
> > 
> >but i also posted a long reply yesterday from key west to lowells 
> >latest reiterations of van zandts supposed error 
> >which is evidently lost or still hanging in the ether 
> >hahaha 
> >& which i dont have time to reconstitute from concentrate just now 
> > 
> >so please stand by for additional data too 
> >which may indicate still further reevaluations are warranted 
> > 
> >the internet is a little sketchy here in paradise tho 
> > 
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman 
> ><mikekaufman79@y...> wrote: 
> >> Dont you mean a 400% increase in Senators, and going 
> >> from a 2% share to a 9.3% share? (By going from 1 
> >> Texas of 50 states to 5 Texases of 54 states.) Of 
> >> course the electoral totals would depend on the exact 
> >> nature of the gerrymandering (with every state having 
> >> at least 1 rep, no matter how small). 
> >> 
> >> --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote: 
> >> > yes thanx i agree no matter 
> >> > 
> >> > but there is all the difference in the world between 
> >> > what i said & 
> >> > meant on the one hand & what you said i said on the 
> >> > other 
> >> > 
> >> > as well as all the difference in the world between 
> >> > taking a hard 
> >> > stance & taking a soft stance 
> >> > 
> >> > van zandt & i are clearly sitting on the fence 
> >> > & offering noncommittal opinions 
> >> > admittedly with our butts facing texas 
> >> > & ready but not overeager to come down on the other 
> >> > side 
> >> > & so it could hardly be said we are taking any 
> >> > stance at all 
> >> > 
> >> > the texophiles however are apparently taking a very 
> >> > hard stance indeed 
> >> > while perhaps also mistaking our tentative 
> >> > assessments for a hard 
> >> > stance & our farts for actual commitment 
> >> > 
> >> > for we must be tentative until & unless we actually 
> >> > see this thing 
> >> > play out 
> >> > dont you agree 
> >> > 
> >> > & your problem is we wont stand up & fight with you 
> >> > the way everyone would if texas actually tried to 
> >> > pull this off 
> >> > 
> >> > like should i tell you yes you may be on square 2 
> >> > now but your 
> >> > checkerboard has to be increased from 64 to 81 
> >> > squares in order to 
> >> > accomodate your promotion 
> >> > 
> >> > or the already usurious interest rate on your 
> >> > liberal new credit card 
> >> > will now have to be doubled owing to your negative 
> >> > net worth 
> >> > just joking of course 
> >> > 
> >> > but lets not drag this one out in detail the way 
> >> > they would in 
> >> > congress & the courts 
> >> > at their best 
> >> > 
> >> > cmon we are talking about 8 extra electoral votes in 
> >> > both parties 
> >> > plus a 500 percent increase in senators 
> >> > from a 4 percent share to over a 17 percent share of 
> >> > the senate 
> >> > 
> >> > but please do read the 1845 act itself again 
> >> > 
> >> > up to 4 new states may by consent of texas be formed 
> >> > out of its 
> >> > territory etc etc 
> >> > which shall be entitled to admission under the 
> >> > provisions of the 
> >> > constitution 
> >> > 
> >> > thats the nutshell 
> >> > 
> >> > & thats the only freakin entitlement i can see 
> >> > 
> >> > the same entitlement any other such new entities 
> >> > would have btw 
> >> > 
> >> > & under the constitution 
> >> > unless i am mistaken 
> >> > for i admit i slept thru most of high school civics 
> >> > the erection & admission of new states is if not 
> >> > initiated by 
> >> > congress certainly the business of congress to 
> >> > ultimately approve 
> >> > or it aint gonna happen 
> >> > yes 
> >> > do you agree 
> >> > i could be wrong 
> >> > but the blurring nitpicking & excess verbiage are 
> >> > entirely in the 
> >> > eyes of their beholder 
> >> > 
> >> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin" 
> >> > <flynnk@r...> 
> >> > wrote: 
> >> > > ... 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@o...] 
> >> > > 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: 
> >> > > > <a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/grou
p/BoundaryPoint/</a> 
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
> >> > to: 
> >> > > > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
> >> > > > <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links 
> >> > > 
> >> > > To visit your group on the web, go to: 
> >> > > <a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/grou
p/BoundaryPoint/</a> 
> >> > > 
> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> >> > > BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: 
> >> > > <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> __________________________________ 
> >> Do you Yahoo!? 
> >> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes 
> >> <a
href="http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus">http://hotjobs.sweepsta
kes.yahoo.com/signingbonus</a> 
> > 
> ></tt>
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> ><tt><hr width="500">
> >Yahoo! Groups Links 
> ><ul>
> ><li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoundaryPoint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/grou
p/BoundaryPoint/</a> 
> ><li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a
href="mailto:BoundaryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">Boun
daryPoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a> 
> ><li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
> ></ul>
> ></tt>
> >
> >
> ><PRE>________________________________________________________________________
> >This email has been scanned using the CleanPort MEF antivirus
> >system. Funded for members by the Doctors.net.uk Bulletin service
> >How does this protect me? http://www.Doctors.net.uk/qualityemail
>
>________________________________________________________________________</PRE>
> >
> > </body></html>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> All email and attachments sent from http://www.Doctors.net.uk have been
> scanned by the MessageLabs SkyScan antivirus system
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>