Skip to comments.How Texas Could Mess With Us (How about 8 more Ted Cruz's in the US Senate?)
Posted on 04/02/2013 7:23:06 PM PDT by bestintxas
Texas can legitimately claim to be holding an unusual ace up its sleeve,
a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew 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." Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divideunilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congresshas been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.
the division clause remains on the books. Its legality has been discounted by some and defended by others, but the issue has never been put to rest in any authoritative, legally binding way. (Snopes.com is uncharacteristically wishy-washy on the matter; newly minted liberal demi-god Nate Silver, hardly the gullible sort, seems far more credulous.) Until that day comes, dreamers and dissidents will continue to view it as a sneaky way to ensure Texas' political supremacy in this era of the closely divided Senate and the opportunistically wielded filibuster.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
would have to do some serious gerrymandering to make sure all five new states were “conservative”
Too bad Jim DeMint hasn’t cloned himself.
Yep, they could be the ‘Texas pinstripes’.
Texas only gets 2 Senators as does the other states.
Resolution Annexing Texas to the United States
(1 March 1845)
The annexation of Texas was a key issue in James K. Polks U. S. presidential election campaign of 1844. As a result, Polks victory that November was interpreted in the United States as a mandate to annex the ten-year old republic. Early the following year, a joint resolution for annexation passed both houses of the U. S. Congresseven before Polks inauguration. It was signed by outgoing President Tyler on March 1, 1845, subject to acceptance by the Republic of Texas.
The following summer, the Convention of 1845 met in Texas to consider the annexation issue. By a vote of fifty-five to one, the convention accepted the annexation offer by passing an Ordinance with virtually the same wording as the U. S. resolution.
The resolution, as shown below, contains several interesting provisions unique among the states. Under the agreement, Texas was to retain all of its vacant and unappropriated lands, as well as its public debts. In addition, Texas, which claimed a land area about 50 percent larger than that of the present state, was given the option to form out of its territory up to four additional states. The issues of land boundaries and public debt, however, would not be finally resolved until the Compromise of 1850.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.
2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit:
First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution therof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six.
Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owning to said Republic of Texas; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.
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 the said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And as such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted to the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking permission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime) shall be prohibited.
3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgement and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,
Be it Resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extant and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.
Approved, March 1, 1845.
Yeah, if Austin and San Antonio were in seperate states thet’d both be blue for sure.
Florida is now a blue state.
would have to do some serious gerrymandering to make sure all five new states were conservative
I’d settle for four conservative states and one “moderate” one. Conservatives would just have to make sure that ALL the eight Senators from those states were in the mode of Ted Cruz and not David Dewhurst types.
But thanks for giving me a few moments of pleasant fantasy.
South Yexas would seed itself to Mexico, so this probably wouldn’t be a good idea. However, West Texas, where oil is king, would be as rich as Saudi Arabia.
“Id settle for four conservative states and one moderate one.”
I guess the “moderate” one could be called Beanerfornia and incorporate all the area just north of the Rio Grande for the first 100yards! They could hire Raul Grijalva from Tucson to be their “Jeffe.”
With the red carpet rolled out to any Californian that wants to come, Texas will be solid blue in 10 years.
The plural of “Cruz” is “Cruzes.”
Referring directly to the language of the joint resolution, he said, “If we invoke it, the United States Senate would kick us out ... because they’re not going to allow 10 (sic) new Texas senators into the Senate. That’s how you secede.”
Also, did readmission after the Civil War change the terms?
do it. do it now. we’re fighting a holding action against the federal gov’t. anything that slows them down is good.
I was taught this in Jr. High in Texas. They told us, the lines were already drawn...they showed us maps.
I think this is true.
True..some major gerrymandering needs to be done.
Texas west of the Panhandle and the Pecos is definitely Dem...and anything south of San Antonio is Dem. The large Mex-American populations vote almost exclusively Dem
It would be trivial to carve Texas into three solidly conservative states, a “swing state” and a liberal state. A touch of gerrymandering in the division could probably make it four conservative states and one liberal state, but two of the conservative states would be a little wobbly and depending on future trends might turn into swing states.
SCOTUS would not allow it.
It doesn’t need to be true in the Supreme Court, just in the courts in Texas and the hearts of its citizens.
Exactly. Why bother with greater representation when you can keep Texas whole.
We’ll secede first.
As in Las Cruces (NM).
Didn’t you read any of this???
Texas 1, Texas 2, Texas 3 and Texas 4 each get 2.
They can have it.
Since when can the SCOTUS nullify an international treaty ratified by Congress?
Says the new states would be ENTITLED to be states of the United States.
Seems like the Texas legislature could designate one of the four new states to be independent and sovereign. A real free trade zone, a place where wealthy patriots could move and set up businesses unencumbered by the socialists in DC.
Texas will be solid blue in 10 years.”
No more than 5, particularly if they can’t get rid of Strauss. Old Joe just loves to appoint Democrats as Chairmen of some of the most influential committees.
On top of that, the Texas Federation of Republican Women is having their annual Belles & Boots Ball in April and the keynote speaker is none other than Dewhurst. Running for Lt. Gov. in 2014 is Jerry Patterson, current Land Commissioner, who is pushing increased guest worker permits as part of his campaign. Running for Land Commissioner is none other than Jeb Bush’s son, George P, whose mother is from Mexico.
Houston is a sanctuary city with a gay Democrat mayor and Democrat Chief of Police, Dallas and San Antonio are also sanctuary cities and Austin is becoming very blue. Conservatives live in the outer areas but there just aren’t enough of us to counter the huge population centers.
If Bush, Patterson and Strauss are running the show after the 2014 election, we’re toast and it won’t matter who is Governor.
Roberts will say it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement, or something. Facts don’t matter, words don’t matter, the will of the elite is all that matters.
Cut loose the Southernmost state; "Rio Grande Del Norte", it's a lost cause. The dem's gain one state, the rep's gain three.
If you split up Texas into 5 different states geographically, you’d get an 8-2 to 6-4 split. in the US senate delegation. At 6-4, that would only be a net of +2 Republican. That’s what we have now with just one state.
In non-presidential years it's competitive for Republicans. We picked up 2 congressional districts there in 2010 and held 1 of them in 2012. Blake Farenthold won TX-27 in 2010 and nobody in Ausin or Washington thought anyone could beat Solomon Ortiz in a district drawn in 2002 to be safe for him.
I could see that map producing a 2-8 split favoring DemocRATS in the Senate.
Be nice if you had to prove your political position before moving to a state and the state could deny your move.
So if a man’s name is Mouse, his children are Mice?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.