Despite Chase's thundering, I notice that the "Citizen Handbook" on the Texas State Senate page explains that "Texas remained a state until 1861 when it seceded from the Union . . [and] was readmitted to the United States in 1870.
On the division question, apparently the Reconstruction federal Congress, state constitutional convention, and state legislature discussed dividing Texas several times (including one plan to create a new state of "Lincoln" in west Texas. If West Texas voters were more likely to be Republican [and I don't know if that's true], then this would be in keeping with the Reconstruction-era Republican strategy of creating thinly populated but reliably Republican states in the West to protect the Senate and the presidency). The possibility of division was discussed again in the early twentieth century (when West Texas grew in population) and was last seriously advocated by John Nance Garner in the early 1930s (perhaps to enhance his presidential prospects? Has Karl Rove heard about this!!). The "one and indivisible" language in the pledge was adopted in 1933 (it also now appears on the reverse of the state seal). The division info. from the Handbook of Texas online. I would tak! e the pledge to be a reaction to Garner's plan and an expression of the commitment of Texans at the time to preserve Texas a single state (though I haven't seen a direct discussion of the origins of the pledge). Keith Whittington -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Levinson Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance I know of no evidence that Texas was required to waive its special deal (though my lack of knowledge is not dispositive evidence that evidence doesn't exist). Furthermore, it is quite misleading to speak of Texas "re-entering" the Union, since, as Justice Chase thundered in Texas v. White, the Union was "indissoluble" and, therefore, Texas was never out of the Union. This is obviously a disputed proposition, but no US official has ever conceded the legal reality of secession. sandy -----Original Message----- From: "Eastman, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:44:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance Forgive me if my recollection is inaccurate, but did not Texas waive its "split" option as a condition of re-entering the union following the Civil War? If so, this option did not perish over time, but was cancelled. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence -----Original Message----- From: Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Texas Pledge of Allegiance Bryan writes: Finally, it is silly to refer to Texas as "indivisible" when the 1845 statehood act expressly gives Texas the option of splitting into five states. So we have an interesting meta-issue. Is the sponsor of this new pledge conceding that the original legislation containing the option was either unconstitutional or has perished over time, or could one legitimately argue today that Texas has an option to split into five states (with ten senators) without any congressional approval? If the latter is true, then the pledge states a false theory, for Texas is indivisible only so long as Texans wish it to remain that way. sandy sandy
