The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 8, July 1904 - April, 1905 Page: 244
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas Historical Association Quarterly.
terms of the decree. It must also be remembered that the dele-
gate from Texas to the constituent congress was opposed to the
union with Coahuila, as he informed his constituents, and con-
sented only in consideration of that proviso or reservation to Texas
of its rights.
The interpretation, so condemned by some, which the conven-
tion gave to this decree of May 7, is very natural. According to
this interpretation the decree gave Texas the right to organize as
a state by act of the general congress without having to obtain the
approbation of three-fourth of the other states; otherwise it would
have been no more than a ridiculous concession, granting only the
privilege of petitioning the general congress without previous per-
mission of that number of states; they, as the people of any part
whatever of the republic, would have had that privilege, or it may
be that right, without the necessity of a special decree.
But it is objected that, by the constitution sanctioned October
4, 1824, subsequent to the decree of May 7, this decree was nullified,
and that, in order to be admitted as a state, Texas was subjected to
the conditions and formalities of paragraph 7, article 50 of the con-
stitution. The convention thought that the constitution sanc-
tioned the establishment of the state of Coahuila and Texas, leav-
ing in force all the particular guarantees conceded by previous
special laws; since it can not be supposed that when the constitu-
tion was sanctioned, as a solemn guarantee of acquired rights, it
would at once operate to destroy that right which Texas had ob-
tained through a law drawn up by the same constituent legisla-
tors. The constitution did not change the provisional character
that the law of May 7 gave to the union of Coahuila and Texas,
especially since Texas consented to the union in confidence that
the law asserted its temporary character.
The convention likewise thought that paragraph 7 of article 50
applied to the states whose territory had not previously been di-
vided, such as Mexico, for example, or to those that were com-
posed of two or more ancient provinces whose union was not
merely provisional, such as Sonora and Sinaloa, to divide which
the aforesaid paragraph 7 must be observed. But, in order to
separate Texas from Coahuila, this is not necessary; since evi-
dently it was the intention of the constituent congress that by
right each should preserve its separate unity, their names being
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association, Volume 8, July 1904 - April, 1905, periodical, 1905; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101033/m1/251/: accessed October 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.