i still trust the bus&ss bible better than these web pages
which make claims but dont substantiate
also in reality any state can be broken into parts that are states
virginia did it twice
once for kentucky
then again for west virginia
mass & nc also did it
etc
m
>From: PitHokie <pithokie@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: US counties, unincorprated territories
>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 14:04:31 -0800 (PST)
>
>Anton,
>
>Very interesting. I wonder how, if this came to pass
>one day, it would contradict U.S. law that says no new
>states may be created from territory of existing
>states. If you have ever heard of Jefferson, the
>state that almost was in southern Oregon-northern
>California or Franklin, which would have been formed
>out of TN/KY/VA, you would be familiar with this.
>I know Hawai'i has been independent so that's why I
>made sure to say "continental" U.S. :)
>
>Brendan
>
>--- anton_zeilinger@... wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > also, Texas is the only state in the U.S. which has
> > the power to
> > split into not more than four smaller chunks "of
> > convenient size"
> > which would have to be admitted to the Union as
> > separate states, see:
> >
> >
>http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html
> >
> > text of the resolution:
> >
> >
>http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
> >
> > Anton Z.
> >
> > PS: Brendan, though it's not in the continental
> > U.S., wasn't Hawaii
> > an independent kingdom or something like that?
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., PitHokie <pithokie@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > Peter et. al,
> > >
> > > Texas is unique in that it's the only part of the
> > > continental United States that was ever been
> > > independently governed as its own country.
> > > It's also been under more official rulers than any
> > > other part of the continental U.S. If you travel
> > to
> > > the Capitol in Austin, you will find in the
> > rotunda a
> > > seal of all the countries Texas has been ruled by:
> > > Spain, France, Mexico, Texas, and the United
> > States.
> > > Texas was independent from April, 1836 until the
> > U.S.
> > > annexed it in 1845.
> > >
> > > Brendan
> > >
> > > --- Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., PitHokie
> > <pithokie@y...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > The difference is in name only.
> > Governmentally,
> > > > there
> > > > > is no difference between a state and a
> > > > commonwealth.
> > > >
> > > > I know that in Germany, two "Laender" have the
> > > > official designation
> > > > of "Freistaat": Bavaria and Saxony. I don't know
> > > > whether this has any
> > > > implications. Does someone know?
> > > >
> > > > And I remember vaguely that the position of
> > Texas is
> > > > fundamentally
> > > > different from all other states in the US
> > (because
> > > > it used to be an
> > > > independent republic). Can someone say something
> > > > about that?
> > > >
> > > > What about the difference between territories in
> > > > countries like
> > > > Canada, Australia, and Russia (=krai) and the
> > > > regular subdivisions?
> > > > Why is it like this and what are the practical
> > > > implications?
> > > >
> > > > Peter S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Find a job, post your resume.
> > > http://careers.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Find a job, post your resume.
>http://careers.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp