Mike,
My response to your initial mention of Tennessee was written yesterday morning
before you had acknowledged in the message below that it was a "delayed flake
off state & not one of the 4 direct ones." My response, however, hovered in the
ethers for many hours (before returning here, anyway), possibly making it look
like I was arguing with you even after your self-correction. That would have
been rude, and I hope it did not appear that way.
I am not inclined to contact the Secretary of the Interior, the President, or
anybody else regarding this issue. I do not favor the subdivision of Texas into
smaller states; so it's not my fight. I only believe in it as a curious legal
possibility left over from an age when communication moved at the speed of horse
and a state nearly a thousand miles wide was thought perhaps ungovernable.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:52 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: whats wrong with this picture
> in fairness to both tennessee & texas & you lowell
> i should add
> it took west north carolina 6 years to get this erection in the first
> place
> under all manner of vicissitudes
> & then 6 more years with the erection to finally get admitted
> so tennessee is technically a delayed flake off state
> & not one of the 4 direct ones we have already enumerated
> & thus is offered as a role model for texas only in the sense of its
> extreme contentiousness
> but i would still multiply its full value by 4 in estimating a 48
> year potential lifespan for these 4 new texas sized erections
>
> & i really do wish you would take this to the secretary of the
> interior for a letter
> indicating at least his disavowal or indifference
>
> & why not take the opportunity ask him if he could use a new edition
> of bus&ss too while you are at it & to tell him that you know a bunch
> of clowns who might like to try it
>
> i will be proud of you in any case but especially if you can get this
> corrected
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > I am shaking my head yes and no at the same time.
> > >
> > > (If you wanted to know the specific words to which I object, why
> > didn't you just
> > > ask?)
> >
> > & i am still shaking my head in disbelief over this question
> > hahahahaha
> > but what makes you think i didnt ask
> > yikes
> >
> > really this is either a joke or a joke
> > yes isnt it
> >
> > > I disagree with both of Van Zandt's two "appearances." The
> second
> > one is
> > > embodied in the phrase that you suggest (the one regarding
> > congressional
> > > "recommendation or request"). The first, and to me the most
> > obviously
> > > erroneous, is that Texas acquired no advantage over other states
> by
> > the Brown
> > > Amendment.
> > >
> > > Throughout the current protracted exchange (and for 27 years
> > before), it has
> > > been a mystery to me how the great man could have written that
> > Texas has no
> > > advantage, when the Congress has clearly given it a consent that
> no
> > other state
> > > currently holds.
> >
> > well i am only doubling back here to answer your outstanding
> questions
> > for i still consider the conclusion of the united states government
> > as expressed by van zandt here to be not only the officially
> correct
> > reality but the prima facie reality as well for any further
> discussion
> >
> > now perhaps your mystery will be answered by a truly deliberative
> > argument
> >
> > & perhaps you really should take your quest for that to the
> > department of the interior
> >
> > I think that (just tonight) I am beginning to see where he
> > > went wrong (or the divergence of his reasoning from mine, if you
> > prefer), and
> > > I'm endeavoring to perceive his logic--though I shall never agree.
> >
> > wow
> > thats very strong headed of you
> >
> > congrats for your willfulness
> >
> > >
> > > Only in light of Van Zandt's second "appearance" does his first
> one
> > even begin
> > > to follow with any logic at all. Only if one can believe that
> the
> > Congress has
> > > the power to "form" new states does the prerogative of Texas
> become
> > reduced to
> > > that of "merely" its consent to the congressional decision--which
> > would be equal
> > > to any other pregnant mother state under similar erroneous
> > circumstances.
> > >
> > > Hold on, though! No American states are "formed" by the
> Congress,
> > as if they
> > > were mere counties being formed by some state legislature. On
> the
> > contrary,
> > > states are "formed" and invested with sovereignty by their people
> > (the very
> > > essence of republican government). It is only their admission to
> > the Union that
> > > comes by congressional consent.
> > >
> > > If you will reread Milton Brown's curious and awkwardly worded
> > amendment with
> > > this proper sense for the "forming" of states firmly in mind, I
> > think that you
> > > will begin to understand my problems with Van Zandt's two
> > appearances (though
> > > you still might not agree).
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:45 PM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: whats wrong with this picture
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > yes my friend i can tell you have a view
> > > > & vive la difference
> > > >
> > > > but i am still trying to understand what specifically you find
> > wrong
> > > > in the bible here
> > > >
> > > > & happily there is apparently new hope now
> > > > because
> > > > from what you have just added here below
> > > > even tho you yourself still wont say what part you find wrong
> > > > i am beginning to think i may have understood that it is the
> > > > following words
> > > >
> > > > right to make the recommendation or request for the division
> > resting
> > > > with congress
> > > >
> > > > & particularly the following phrase
> > > >
> > > > recommendation or request
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but i dont know for sure & might be putting words in your mouth
> > > > & i still dont want to do that
> > > > even if you yourself wont
> > > >
> > > > so will you at least confirm that this is indeed your erratum
> > > > by shaking your head yes
> > > >
> > > > or shaking no if i am mistaken in this guess
> > > >
> > > > or yes & no if there is actually some additional specific
> > objection
> > > > or some other objections entirely
> > > > etc etc
> > > >
> > > > do you see what i am trying for
> > > >
> > > > & i am not arguing with you
> > > > but only guessing what the interior department lawyers must
> have
> > been
> > > > advising van zandt & his predecessors
> > > > & guessing what is in your mind here too
> > > > in order to understand your heresy better
> > > >
> > > > & no need to shout even if you are politically incorrect
> > > > as i have the greatest respect for the tyrannized minority
> > > >
> > > > but the good news for you is that readers are requested to
> report
> > any
> > > > errors to the government itself
> > > > yesss
> > > > so you will have your chance not only to change my conclusion
> > > > because i am always open
> > > > but to change the bible itself if you desire
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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@h...>
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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/
>
>
>