Oh, and in regards to the Michigan’s Upper Peninsula statehood movement: not likely. The UP is very sparsely populated. I’d be suprised if it has more people than Wyoming.
The “State of Superior” movement wasn’t only the U.P… It also included 11 (I think) counties from Wisconsin. Not that those counties are heavily populated either.
Paul Johnson is, I am afraid, becoming increasingly mad. His latest column in The Spectator suggests that the cure to all the world’s woes is teaching children to draw. No, really, it does.
Some of the more …er… colourful characters on the right of British politics and journalism occasionally suggest joining NAFTA, adopting the US dollar as the currency of the UK or going all-out to become a State of the Union. When they do so, I am not sure that it is intended as a serious proposal but as a satirical point about the European Union.
There has been at least one Bill introduced in Parliament to require any referendum on the UK joining the euro to include provision for voters to express a preference for the US dollar instead, and one Bill to provide for a refrendum on joining NAFTA. Needless to say, neither of them got anywhere.
You’re almost correct. Part of Texas became parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. The western and southern borders of the Republic of Texas was the Rio Grande River. It starts in what is now Colorado and passes south through what is now New Mexico to El Paso. At no time does the river go into Arizona or Utah, which are each wholly west of the Continental Divide. Rivers do not, by definition cross the Continental Divide. Also, the border extended from the Rio Grande’s source north to thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes north, which is in what is now Wyoming. I think the eastern and northern boundaries were concurrent with the Louisiana Purchase, which had been made more than forty years before.
There is a map here.
**
Maybe. You see, that land was surrendered because Texas had an outstanding debt of $10,000,000 (which is one reason why they wanted to join the Union in the first place! :D). To pay off that debt, Texas gave up almost a third of its territory in exchange for hard currency. IOW, they sold it to the U.S. That land was one piece and was not divided into the states we have now until much, much later. (New Mexico did not become a state until 1912; the current boundaries of Texas were defined in 1850. The new territory did try to become a state in 1850, but was turned down, as explained here.)
What I’m trying to say here is that the agreement could be interpreted your way, or one could claim it still applies to Texas as it exists today because those new states were created from Federal territory long after Texas joined. Since no petition to divide the state has ever gone very far, Congress has never actually considered whether that part of the agreement is still in force. It’s academic, for now.
UP is about 330,000 from the '90 census. Marquette the biggest city is around 21,000
VIVE LE LABRADOR LIBRE!
Ummm, you are correct in only half of this matter.
There are two issues here in regard to Texas. First is the issue of whether Texas retains a right to secede from the Union. Here, you are correct. The Union victory in the Civil War, and the later Texas v. White decision, for all intents and purposes settled this question.
The second issue, however, is whether Texas retains the right to subdivide into five states total. According to the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States approved by Congress on March 1, 1845, this is, in fact, true. The pertinent phrase in the resolution is:
“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 said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.”
A call to exercise this option occurred as recent as the 1920s in West Texas, as told here:
"In 1916 a push began in West Texas to establish a branch of Texas A&M College in the western two-thirds of the state. A bill to establish such a college was introduced to the 36th Legislature in 1917. The bill passed both houses and was signed by Governor James E. Furgeson. The governor announced that a selection committee had sited the new college in Abilene, and that city immediately began a celebration.
But rancor spread in West Texas about how the site committee had operated. The first act of new Governor W.P. Hobby the next year was to repeal the law establishing the state college in Abilene.
New legislation to establish the college was introduced in 1921 and passed both houses but Governor Pat Neff vetoed the legislation, even in light of thousands of telegrams urging its signing. The governor cited hard times in West Texas.
Reaction to the veto in West Texas was strong and angry. Newspapers from Ft. Worth to El Paso called for quick action – even the secession of West Texas – to show the governor that West Texas meant business."
Of course, I don’t know if this went any further than a few editorials in some newspapers or if there was a true movement to secede from the state and form a new state of West Texas. Apparently the threat was enough, however, to lead to the state to create Texas Tech Univerisity in Lubbock in 1923.
So while you are right about the first issue, Texas secession, you are definitely wrong about the second.
Since someone else already resurected this old thread, I would like to throw my 2c in 
I would say the breakup of Canada is a certainty. Far from it. Quebec has always wanted its own language and culture, and already has it. I don’t think we are at any more of a risk of a breakup now than 100 years ago. The two referendums that Quebec had specified that they were to retain “ties” (read business, currency, the infrastucture bought and paid for by the rest of Canada/businesses, and the good stuff etc… but none of the bad, like debt) to the rest of Canada. The rest of the nation hasn’t even come close to agreeing to those terms if it were to happen, so my guess is that it won’t. Quebec truly couldn’t make it on its on and I don’t think the US would want to help it. The US is a traditional ally of Ottawa and I see no reason why that would change.
NWT - Sell it off to the highest bidder? There is an amazing potential for resources there. I don’t think anyone would want to “sell” it.
Ontario - Would starve and/or run up a massive debt on its own. To dependent on the western provinces. As is Quebec.
I gather a lot of your post is in jest and not serious, but I believe (hope) that it is never going to be a serious question anyhow.