1. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    Vermont considered itself an independent republic after colonial US independence, but it was also claimed by both New York and New Hampshire; NY at one time
    Jan 05, 2004 @ 03:25 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  2. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    Hmmm.... it would be interesting to know if Van Zandt is related to Isaac Van Zandt, who according to your link was the chief proponent in 1847 of splitting
    Jan 07, 2004 @ 05:18 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  3. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    ... From: m06079 [mailto:barbaria_longa@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:34 AM To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
    Jan 07, 2004 @ 19:19 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  4. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    ah kevin but as usual you are altering what i said in order to disagree with me no problem but it is quite vivid in this case & so i would add that any
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 16:10 - m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
  5. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    I absolutely didn t alter anything you said, sir. My point was to highlight that Texas has specific approval language already built into its admission process
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 17:08 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  6. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    I have to agree with Kevin. Mike, the admission of Texas in 1845 WAS highly contentious THEN, but that s how it went down--with the pre-approved Congressional
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 17:10 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  7. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    I have to agree with Kevin. Mike, the admission of Texas in 1845 WAS highly contentious THEN, but that s how it went down--with the pre-approved Congressional
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 17:10 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  8. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    really its ok kevin but look below & see that you did indicate i concluded something which in fact i merely expressed as an appearance or as how something
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 19:39 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  9. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    ... a distinction with no apparent difference, I would say. It s ok. All I meant to do was to reinforce what I thought was a clear circumstance setting Texas
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 19:45 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  10. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    Well, we ve each stated our own arguments about twice all around, and we still disagree. Such is life! Let s get over it. It would be interesting to find Van
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 21:23 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
  11. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    yes thanx i agree no matter but there is all the difference in the world between what i said & meant on the one hand & what you said i said on the other as
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 22:03 - m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
  12. RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    Egad. I cannot follow you here. Your writing style loses me halfway through, and the combativeness puzzles me. All I have noted is the obvious and clear fact
    Jan 08, 2004 @ 22:13 - Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
  13. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    excellent thank you of course i dont agree with all of this but we do finally appear to understand each other ... through, and ... clear fact ... states if it
    Jan 09, 2004 @ 19:00 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  14. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    ... and we still ... get over life we apparently cant it appears to keep coming & to never end get over this discussion ok i am complete for now ... even
    Jan 09, 2004 @ 19:12 - acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
  15. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    Dont you mean a 400% increase in Senators, and going from a 2% share to a 9.3% share? (By going from 1 Texas of 50 states to 5 Texases of 54 states.) Of
    Jan 12, 2004 @ 04:19 - Michael Kaufman (Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>)
  16. Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    big pine key yes thats it exactly thanx glad someone is paying attention too & your corrections mean texas would get 11 percent more leverage overall than my
    Jan 13, 2004 @ 17:51 - m06079 ("m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>)
  17. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    But how would the fact that Texas seceeded and required readmission effect this, surely its orginal admission treaty was voided by its secession and
    Jan 13, 2004 @ 21:21 - bramwellhayes@doctors.org.uk (<bramwellhayes@...>)
  18. Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Texas panhandle - 3 miles into New Mexico (?)
    The feds never recognized any of the secessions as legitimate. The readmissions that occurred afterward were more like restorations to the states
    Jan 14, 2004 @ 03:11 - Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)