Mike,
I've stated repeatedly what I find wrong with the picture that "appears" to Van
Zandt. You have every right to disagree with my view, but is there so much
difference between our respective dialects that you cannot tell from my writings
that I have a view? I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes trying to
explain THAT.
HOWEVER, when you suggest that: "congress couldnt abdicate to texas its
responsibility for admitting new states to the union even if it wanted to & even
if it said it did," you have a supportable argument (which is not to say that I
necessarily agree). That is perhaps the best argument that could be made
against the Texas division proviso, because it is based on the Constitution.
Let's see what the Constitution says about the admission of states, the division
of states, and whether there are any subtle differences in the prerogatives of
the Congress in each case.
The Constitution says:
"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states
shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any
state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states,
without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of
the Congress."
Clearly, the people have given the Congress the authority to admit new states,
and the power of that decision is vested solely in the Congress. Let us now
ask: What does the Constitution require for the division of an existing state?
Two things: (1) consent of the state; and (2) consent of the Congress. What was
the subdivision proviso of the act of March 1, 1845, if it was not the consent
of the Congress for the formation of up to four new states within Texas "by the
consent of said State"?
Congress has given its consent. All that lacks is the consent of Texas. It's
that simple!
Now, you might be thinking that each new daughter state would still need to
petition the Congress separately to be admitted at whatever future time, even
though the Congress had already consented to the division of a state. Let's
look at precedent.
Two mother states have been subdivided by the direct admission of daughter
states (as opposed to cession to the federal government of lands from which
other states subsequently evolved). Those mother states were Virginia (twice)
and New York (once).
In 1789, the very year that the federal Constitution became effective, the
Commonwealth of Virginia consented to the formation of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky within its territory. The Congress gave its necessary consent by act
of February 4, 1791 (1 Stat. L. 189) with an automatic effective date of June 1.
The Congress did not first give consent to the formation of the new state, then
admit it to the Union by a separate act. There was only one act.
A royal decree of 1764 had placed what is now Vermont under New York
jurisdiction. Vermonters rebelled and formed a rival government in 1777, but
were refused admission into the Continental Congress, the Confederation, and the
federal Union (each in its turn) until after New York gave its consent to the
formation of a new state within its territory in 1790. New York's consent was
conditional upon Vermont's payment of $30,000 in reparations. That having been
done, the Congress gave its consent in a single act on February 18, 1791 (1
Stat. L. 191), automatically effective on March 4. There was no two-step
congressional process.
After the secession of Virginia in 1861, certain Virginia unionists held a
convention at Wheeling, declared the state offices at Richmond to be vacant and
elected themselves. The federal authorities recognized this rump government as
the Commonwealth of Virginia. This was the Virginia legislature that consented
to the formation of a new state within its territory. Another convention was
held at Wheeling to constitute the State of Kanawha, changing the name to "West
Virginia" as an afterthought. The Congress acted only once on the matter, on
December 31, 1862 (12 Stat. L. 633), giving its consent to the separation of
West Virginia from Virginia, with the division being effective 60 days after the
President could declare that West Virginia had provided legally for the eventual
abolition of slavery. Again, there was no two-step congressional process.
Perhaps the notion that statehood is a two-step process in the Congress is
fostered by the experience of most of the western states. In those cases, there
were indeed two acts. The first was the enabling act, by which Congress
consented to the erection of a proposed state government by the people of a
given region. This was followed some time later by a second act admitting the
new state to the Union. An enabling act was necessary in such cases because the
proposed states were to be formed within territory subject to the exclusive
authority of the Congress. Without Congressional enabling, any such proposed
state would be a rival government to the Congress, which would never do! In the
cases of Kentucky, Vermont, and West Virginia, however, the new daughter states
were rivals only to the mother states. Thus, the constitutionally required
consent of the mother states was the practical equivalent of the enabling act.
All that was left for the Congress to do was to give its consent.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: whats wrong with this picture
perhaps you missed something during my peregrinations too lowell
& i agree you are looking blue in the face
but you still havent said whats wrong
you only say it is wrong
repeatedly
but i ask again
whats wrong with this picture
& he is not hedging a bit
but is giving his complete reasoning
please follow the reasoning one more time
moreover
it is not just van zandt talking to us here
but it is the department of the interior & the united states
government at large opining about what they perceive to be prima
facie reality
i think what the government is resting on here is the fact that
congress couldnt abdicate to texas its responsibility for admitting
new states to the union
even if it wanted to & even if it said it did
congress is sworn to uphold the constitution
constitutionally the responsibility still rests with congress
& of course someone would have an uphill climb & run out of breath
trying to contradict that appearance
so now at last i am ready to conclude something
if thats truly your last word
& my conclusion is
it is not van zandt who is in denial & who is in error