Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] whats wrong with this picture
Date: Jan 14, 2004 @ 19:26
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


Mike,
 
I've explained this until I'm blue in the face, and I'm not the only one!  Perhaps you missed something during your peregrinations.
 
The prevailing Texas view (to which I subscribe) of one of the "guarantees"  given to Texas by the Congress on March 1, 1845, is that up to four additional states may, by the consent of Texas, be formed out of Texas, each of which would be "entitled" to admission.
 
No other state has ever been given such congressional carte blanche to subdivide.  It would take congressional action to authorize any other state to do this, but Texas already has such authorization in hand.
 
Van Zandt gives us a doubly-hedged denial that Texas acquired any advantage over other states by this proviso. The first time I read that sentence 27 years ago, I said to myself, "That's not right.  The author has stepped in it there!"  My opinion has not changed.
 
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Donner
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] whats wrong with this picture

here complete at last & all in one message for the first time since the discussion about the unilateral multiplication of texas began
in case anybody has been wondering what it is really about
is the actual text from bus&ss aka van zandt
which has been alleged to be erroneous
 
 
open quote
in a joint resolution approved 1 march 1845
congress gave its consent for the erection of texas into a state
provided certain conditions & guarantees were accepted
one of which was as follows
 
open internal quote
new states of convenient size
not exceeding 4 in number
in addition to said state of texas
& having sufficient population
may hereafter
by the consent of said state
be formed out of the territory thereof
which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution
close internal quote
 
source 5 statutes at large 797
 
resume primary quote
texas does not appear however to have acquired by this 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
close quote
 
 
also
within quotation marks are the words
guarantees
in the first sentence
&
consent
in the last sentence
 
 
now i expect some wag will answer
whats wrong is that this just isnt spotless enough to go capless
 
 
but i mean what is wrong with the picture actually presented here by bus&ss
or by van zandt or whoever you think is telling us this
& whoever you think we are
& to which exception has been taken
 
 
this question has until now apparently been completely overlooked
 


Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.

Yahoo! Groups Links