----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:47 PM Subject: Re: More on Texas Re: Pledge of Allegence
> At 04:41 PM 3/7/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >----- 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) > > First of all, under American jurisprudence, the constitutionality of that > particular clause of the Joint Resolution would only be tested if, > inexplicably, Texas tried to split itself. I agree. And I can't think of a contemporary reason why Texas would want to divide itself. > > Secondly, the Joint Resolution could largely be considered as Congress > granting said approval or could be taken as simply referencing the existing > Constitutional process: > "Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in > addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may > hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory > thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the > federal constitution." It could also be read to mean that Texas can split itself of its own accord and it would be up to Congress to accept the new states as States. Kinda weird, but that is implied. IOW it doesn't say Congress has to approve beforehand. It says the new States are "entitled" to Statehood. It would pretty much be automatic under the terms of the agreement. But....and this is a big BUT..........is this still in effect considering the Confederate Secession and subsequent repatriation of the Southern States? I think this is an important question. > > Lastly, historians who have studied the Joint Resolution have traced the > origins of the "split" clause to pro-slavery Southerners. At the time, > Texas was making claims to territory as far West as Santa Fe, and some > Southerners clearly hoped that this western territory could be split off > into another "slave state" at some point in the future, since it was clear > by then that the natural progression of States into the Union would soon > produce more "free" than "slave" States. While I would agree that this would be the hope of the Southern Bloc, I think it is important to recognise the independence that Texas then enjoyed, and to understand that the potential to divide would also suit their own purposes. I know you look at old maps and see Texas as just a part of the Old South, But Texas was only a State for 15 years before the civil war. That's not a lot of time for that kind of solidarity to form, and it seems to imply some sort of conspiritorial and retroactive solidarity. At the time of Annexation there were a lot of other things going on that affected the annexation of Texas: "Initially, the traditional restraint regarding sectional issues seemed to prevail. The front-runners for the 1844 presidential nominations, Democrat Martin Van Buren and Whig Henry Clay, announced against immediate annexation. A treaty admitting Texas as a territory failed to win a majority in the Senate, much less the required two-thirds. But southern Democrats blocked Van Buren's nomination, opening the way for dark horse James Polk who campaigned for the acquisition of both Texas and Oregon (which presumably would remain free territory). Clay's subsequent equivocations on Texas may well have hastened the defection of antislavery Whigs to the Liberty party, a defection that probably cost him the election. Annexationists heralded Polk's narrow victory as a mandate. In early 1845 Congress, employing its power to admit new states, simply annexed Texas by a majority vote. Texan leaders who had been coy on annexation, hoping to prod either Europe into guaranteeing Texas independence or America into admitting Texas on the most favorable terms, likewise yielded to public sentiment. In June 1845 the republic's Congress accepted U.S. statehood." And after Texas was annexed: "James Buchanan would later compare Texas to the Trojan horse. Its admission hastened the unraveling of the national parties. Many Van Buren Democrats, convinced that southerners had ridden roughshod over them in 1844, found their way into the Free-Soil or even the Republican movements. Annexation helped provoke war with Mexico, bringing America additional southwestern territory and fatally linking the politics of slavery and expansion." My point being that the political climate of the time was not all that simple to characterise. > > Indeed, let us be real here.... why on Earth would the Republic of Texas > insist that the right to split itself, which already existed in the > Constitution, be spelled out specifically in this case? This does not > appear to be a "Texan" idea, as the "Texan Pledge" seems to indicate. To give *Texas* more power. 10 votes in the Senate would be better than 2. > > >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. > > You forgot the Guadalupe Mountains, South Padre Island, the Big Thicket > Reserve, and Lake Meredith. LOL......*Now* there are like 87 federal reservations and thats just parks and museums. At the time of annexation there were only a few and they were just a few acres each. It's not like Texans are uncooperative in good causes.<G> BTW, Big Thicket is the National forest I was refering to and you can remove the "South" because its The Padre Island National Seashore. Lake Meredith is just one of many Texas lakes where the Fed is involved, as there are *no* natural lakes in Texas and the Army Corp Of Engineers has administrative and maintanance duties at *every* Texas lake. The weird thing about the Guadalupe National Park is that no one goes there, no one knows it exists hardly, and it main population is illegal aliens headed north. Texas can be a weird place. > > As it is, as of about 1996, the federal government owned 1.41% of Texas' > total acreage. This is a greater percentage than Ohio, New York, Kansas, > Iowa, and Connecticut. Inneressin! > And, as noted previously, the Joint Resolution is either tantamount > to Congressional consent of a split, or else it is merely a reference back > to the existing constitutional process. > Well it was a joint resolution between 2 countries. xponent Welcome to Smallville Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
