----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 3:48 PM Subject: More on Texas Re: Pledge of Allegence
> Indeed, most of the Original 13 States had far more of a functioning > government than the Republic of Texas ever did..... which really had little > centralized authority for most, if not all of its history. Where do you get that from? Texas was a country, recognised by other countries including the US. It had an elected government. What more do you want? > > Actually, Texas did not gain any special rights under the Treaty (It is > also worth noting that Texas' first applications for Statehood were > rejected.) Indeed, if it had done so, those rights would probably be > unconstitutional. All States in the United States are equal. > > Every State has the "right" to split into multiple States under Article IV, > Section III: > "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." Then clearly the Joint Resolution annexing Texas is illegal and the USSC is wrong several times over in re-affirming those documents. (Re: Republic Of Texas nutcases) > > In the case of Texas, this provision was not written into the Annexation > because of any special request of the State of Texas, but because the > Southerners wanted the right to be able to produce additional States with > two Senators apiece to preserve balance in the Senate. Sounds pretty speculative, since those details were written into a document that Congress wasn't too hot on. It was more of a westward expansion movement than a plot by the South. Especially since the document specifies that the new states need not be "slave" states. You have to remember that many prominent Texans were former Americans and that was a great impetus for statehood. > > In terms of other special rights, the ordinance of annexation requried that > Texas had to cede jurisdiction of any boundary disputes to the Federal > Government. Texas was also given control of its public lands, which I > guess is one difference from the other Western Territories, but this was > done in large part to ensure that Texas would be able to pay off its > substantial debts, and to ensure that its debts would not fall upon the > Federal Government to be repaid. > At any rate, the Federal Government had ownership of public lands in the > other territories largely by default, by virute of having purchased them, > or otherwise negotiated for them in Treaty. Thus, in this sense the > status of public lands in Texas largely parallels those in the Original 13 > - but this hardly seems like "certain rights that other States don't have" > to me. > Well Texas being able to divide itself into 5 states when *Texas* wants to seems a bit different, as does the lack of Federal Lands in Texas. To this day pretty much all the Federal government has is Big Bend and a patch of National Forest and a few bases that it is selling off like hotcakes. xponent Eh? Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
