--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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
as a possibility
an alternative thesis
yes i can see that
but in the dawns early light
our bible is still there too
as is the official position of the united states government expressed
in it
intact
& probably even buttressed by your latest findings about the lost
footnote
so i would say your bp try to confute or correct our bible remains
class e
as in elusive
on the other hand
a response
if not from bush or norton
then at least from the director of the geological survey
who is directly responsible & has asked for corrections in his
preface to this book
& who probably already has a fat file & at least a form letter on
this contentious subject to share with us
could conceivably make your point for you
class a
for yes it is possible your thesis has already been sustained
& is only waiting for the next edition of bus&ss to be proclaimed by
the usa
but as i have said
i still think all that would be an uphill climb for you
even with all the courage of all your convictions about it
& anyone may suspend their try at any point & for any reason
& of course be none the worse for it
it is just a matter of what it pleases one to do
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@h...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >