Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:33:10 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
From: Samuel Lubell <lubell at cais.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

At 12:26 PM 4/6/02 -0500, lee gilliland wrote:
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Samuel Lubell <lubell at cais.com>
>Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
>To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
>Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:22:36 -0500
>
>At 10:40 AM 4/3/02 -0500, Strong, Lee wrote:
> >	Ah, yes, one of my favorite bits of US trivia.  Any state can
> >subdivide with the consent of Congress, but Texas is the only case where
> >Congress gave its approval in advance.  A 1970s mainstream novel had Texas
> >subdividing in order to increase its political power in the Senate.  And
>one
> >of the oddest master's theses that I ever read listed the various
>proposals
> >to subdivide Texas as of 1923 complete with maps and proposed names.  "The
> >chair recognizes the lady from the great state of Zavala, followed by the
> >gentlemen from Jacinto, Jefferson and Lincoln."
> >
>I find it difficult to imagine a subdivided Texas using the name Lincoln
>for one of its states.  I could see Crockett or Houston or some other Texas
>hero but I doubt Lincoln is popular that far into the South.
>
>Actually, I doubt Kentucky would allow Texas to spirit Crockett away from
>them.
>
Ah, but the beauty of the system is that if Texas decides to split,
Kentucky (or any other in Congess) couldn't stop them.  Actually,
considering how close the last election was, it would have been real
interesting if right before the election, Texas had split into four states
and demanding their proper representation in the Electorial College.