Texas Admission Statute

[Paul Finkelman]

It seems to me that the secesion question remains settled by Grant v. Lee
(Appomattox Court House, Va., 1865) and that is it far too late in the game to
attempt to force the nation to allow it subdivided without support of
Congress.  I think there may be some parallels with the Hawaii annexation,
involving ownershp of property in that state.  Are there other issues of
"promises" at the time of statehood which have not been fulfilled and might
raise similar issues?


--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East Fourth Place
Tulsa, OK  74104

918-631-3706
Fax 918-631-2194

E-mail:  paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu



Sanford Levinson wrote:

> Mike Paulsen writes:
>
> >2.  Is it possible that this enactment is just a (non-binding) pledge
> >that Congress will consent, in the future, to the carving up of
> >Texas, if that is what the Legislature of Texas, and the legislatures
> >of the new states (call em "Baby Lone Stars"), also desire....
> >
> >3.  Can Congress at time T1 "consent" in advance to a division yet
> >to occur.  Does "consent" have to be contemporaneous?  If not,
> >maybe the "Texas Treaty" doesn't give Texas any right that any
> >other state wouldn't also have, under the Constitution?
> >
>
> These are clearly the right questions.  Let me rephrase them slightly:  Is
> it possible that the Lone Star Republic negotiators were completely
> snookered, that the admission statute/treaty has no real semantic bite to
> it, though they may have mistkenly thought otherwise?  But assume that
> Texas, in the sway of public choice theorists, decides to try to quintuple
> "its" political power in the Senate by creating four new states, the
> capitals of which are San Antonio, Houston, El Paso, and Lubbock, and
> Congress, also captured by public choice buffs who are upset at the idea of
> 8 new senators from these new entities, says, "we don't think so..."  Could
> Texas then legitimately vote to secede from a Union that is patently acting
> in bad faith with regard to the expected meaning (at least on the part of
> the Lone Star negotiators) and, therefore, breaching the compact of
> admission?  (This also relates to the discussion of Puerto Rico; i.e., if
> Puerto Rico tries to become a state, and is rejected, then would it have a
> legal right to withdraw from its relationship with the US and become
> independent?)