The early history of the thirteen colonies is quite complex. Initial land grants for example gave the Plymouth Council for New England all the land from almost the Southern border of present day Pennsylvania to the tip of Northern Nova Scotia (see File:Masscolony.png - Wikipedia). The land grant went from “Sea to Sea”, so there was no Western boundary. This was quite common with most of the colonies. (Even stranger, this grant actually conflicted with the London Company of Virginia’s grant that was given a few years earlier: File:Wpdms virginia company plymouth council.png - Wikipedia).
Dissenters from Massachusetts were given their own colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut (which was also granted a “sea to sea” land grant). New Hampshire which was founded around the settlement of Portsmouth was also granted its own charter. When New Amsterdam fell, the Dutch land was given to the Duke of York and to William Penn. The Duke of York later gave part of his colony over to several people, and that later became New Jersey.
However, the area North of Portsmouth, New Hampshire never was given a separate colonial status, so remained part of Massachusetts colony. Thus, Maine and Massachusetts were a single state until 1821.
There were several wars between the colonies over land grants, and many of these were settled by Royal arbitration and surveyor teams coming out and attempting to settle border disputes. Vermont was an area claimed by both New Hampshire and New York. Connecticut claimed much of Northern Pennsylvania due to its original sea-to-sea grant. Virginia tried to claim Southern Pennsylvania in a line that was actually North of Philadelphia. Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon were called to settle that boundary dispute.
However, due to the conflicting Sea to Sea grants, much of the Western territories had conflicting claims. After the Proclamation of 1763 that limited colonial settlements to East of the Appalachians, and gave the territory West of the Proclamation line to Quebec, the point was fairly much mute. But, once the colonies gained their independence, and the U.S. boundary was established at the Mississippi river, the various states reasserted their claims.
Much of the early Confederation government period was taken up with settling these conflicting claims and getting the various states to actually give them up and allow them to be turned into national territories which could be turned into new states.
Both my wife’s late mother and iampunha’s girlfriend were from that area. The probable answer is that it was emphatically Southern in attitude – not necessarily meaning Secessionist at the time nor racist – psychologically though not politically it was “Andrew Johnson” country, closely affiliated with neighboring Tennessee – but it was proudly part of the South. West Virginia, in contrast, was largely Unionist and nowhere near as strongly attached to “the South” in terms of regional identity.
Nitpick: it was the Quebec Act of 1774 that granted the territory west of the Proclamation line to Quebec. Quebec as defined by the Proclamation was much smaller.
No, the Senators from seceding states took the position that secession automatically terminated their role in the United States government. When they received word that their state had seceded, they said their goodbyes, left Washington, and rode south–but didn’t resign. In their mind, they had no seat left to resign from.
Seven states seceded during the sitting of the Thirty-Sixth Congress (March 1859-March 1861). As their Senators withdrew, the Senate declared their seats vacant. (You might wonder, why bother, but vacating their seats made it easier for the remaining Senators to establish a quorum.)
Four states seceded during the Thirty-Seventh Congress. By this time the war was on, and the Senate was in a nastier mood, so they expelled the seven Senators involved (excepting Johnson, who remained) on July 11, 1861. With respect to Virginia, they then seated the replacements.
Yes and no. Barbara Mikkelson at Snopes says it’s true, but, as she alludes to, admission of a state Constitutionally requires the consent of Congress. The Joint Resolution annexing Texas, referenced in that article, provides that such states “shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution” – which as noted requires Congressional consent. (The contention of some people that this right was exercised in the creation of parts of states from the territorial claims of the Republic of Texas is pretty much moot – even if true, it says the right has already been exercised in doing something nobody objects to, which differs in no practical way from saying that there is no such right to be exercised.)
Essentially, the Joint Resolution is generally viewed as spelling out, with regard to a friendly foreign power seeking inclusion in the Union, that it would be (a) entitled to statehood on similar terms with other extant states, and (b) entitled to divide itself into additional states on almost precisely the same terms as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution already spells out for other states.
We’ve answered this questions many times here in GQ before, but it never seems to die. The simple answer is no.
At the time of Texas’s admission, the admitting act specified that the Republic of Texas would be admitted as up to five new states, if the legislature and local population so decided. They did not, and were admitted as one singular state. The admitting legilation was fulfilled by this one state, and Texas today only has the same ability to sub-divide as, say, Mississippi does.
There is no more a “right” for Texas to sub-divide than there is a “right” for me to walk into my neighbor’s house. Both things might happen, but certain forms need to be observed. In the case of me and my neighbor, I have to ring her doorbell and ask to come in. In the case of Texas, the state legislature has to vote to divide and then the Congress has to agree – exactly the same procedure that each and every other state in the union would have to follow in order to divide.
Texas has a rather unique need to feel, well, unique and this myth of pre-approved subdivision seems to be perpetuated as part of that uniqueness. Even public school history teachers (who should know better) teach about the supposed pre-approved subdivision.
A case in point was one ancestor of mine. He was either my great or my great-great grandfather. (Will have to go look him up in my family-history stash.) But he was a New Yorker who served as a cotton dealer in Charleston, South Carolina for years before the Civil War. He even wrote a small book laying out all the shipping information for cotton between Charleston and Liverpool in England that was published. An uncle who was big on our family history photocopied me a copy of that one time.
The same uncle, after finishing his research, expressed great relief when he discovered that our ancestor was dealing in cotton and not slaves. I didn’t have the heart to remind him where the cotton was coming from.
I knew a young Thai man who had been a high-school exchange student in West Virginia, and he was gung-ho on the state. Back here in Bangkok, he was studying for his SATs, with an eye to attending university in West Virginia and only West Virginia. No place else in the US would do. He wouldn’t even listen when I suggested there might be some better schools elsewhere in the country.
One of Snopes biggest errors. True, there was a Joint Resolution to that effect, but it’s entirely legally moot. Thus, in effect TX has no more right to split than any other State does.
I think we’re disagreeing over something we agree on, Dr D. Following Barbara, I note that the way in which Texas may split itself into up to five states, according to the Joint Resolution, is “under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.” And “the provisions of the Federal Constitution” call for admission by Act of Congress, provided that a state formed in whole or in part from another state(s) must have the consent of that state(s). In other words, Texas has exactly the same right to divide itself into 2, 3, 4, or 5 states as does Ohio or Idaho, and under the same terms – both state and Congress must consent. It is simply that this was guaranteed to the soon-to-be-defunct Republic of Texas in the joint resolution approving annexation of the Republic as a new state.
That’s true, but *there’s nothing special about Texas. Any State can split in the same way Texas can. *The joint resolution is completely legally moot today. So, in other words we can say “Delaware has the right to split into 873,000 states” and be just as correct as saying “Texas has the right to split into 5 states”.
But couldn’t the argument be made that Congress already gave it’s consent for Texas to do this by approving of the joint resolution?
Of course, I guess that they could remove their approval just as easily, but Texas might have a case that they relied on that Congressional assurance as part of it’s acceptance of statehood.
You could make that argument, but it’s a weak one. One imagines that the “consent of the Congress” required by Article IV Section 3 needs to be a little more specific than a blanket grant that a state can split any way it wants at any future time.
For the record, here is the language from the joint resolution:
I’ve searched the Congressional Globe in vain for debate that might shed some light on what Congress thought it was accomplishing with this bizarre language. The provision at issue was slipped into the joint resolution late in the process, as part of a substitute which made other changes, and it attracted zero debate or commentary. Not one member of either House of Congress deemed it worthwhile to question or explicate this provision in any way.
(In contrast, they filled up page after page with tedious debate over whether Texas should be annexed by treaty or joint resolution, with citations dating back to ancient Rome.)
The language about slavery appears to be a Rorshach test, allowing each side to think it was getting what it wanted. It’s ridiculous and impossible to enforce on either a future Texas legislature or a future Congress.
It’s a hell of a state. Great people and a great place to live. Unfortunately, the political mindset seems to have stopped in 1934. They are still fighting the mine wars and soaking the rich man. So, no rich people would dream of moving there. And the working people don’t have jobs as a result.
Edit to add: West Virginia has the oldest population in the nation. Florida is 2nd. Florida has no income tax and wonderful weather drawing retirees. West Virginia has all of it’s young people leaving for better opportunities elsewhere.
The one thing “special about Texas” is that, as an independent nation prior to admission, it was guaranteed the right, identical to any other state’s, in the joint resolution. Compare this with a hypothetical Joint Resolution addressing the annexation of Canada, following negotiations between the two nations, guaranteeing the provinces immediate statehood, the right to retain bilinguality, to have their official acts prior to union recognized by the Federal government and other states, etc. Though none of this violates Constitutional law and would inhere in their rights as states, having it spelled out in formal Congressional language as guarantees might be something Canada might reasonably seek before accepting annexation. (Supposing, at the hypothetical point this happens, that there is a considerable public sentiment in favor of annxation, which there is presently not, of course.)
This also helps explain the question Freddy raised, of admission by joint resolution vs. by treaty. Under the Constitution, negotiations with friendly foreign powers are the responsibility of the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate; but admission as a state is by resolution of the Congress. The President might accept Texas into the Union, but could not guarantee it statehood as against a hostile Congress. On the other hand, the joint resolution might be regarded by a constitutional purist as unconstitutionally trammelling on Presidential pwoers. Hence th debate.
