> Apparently, when Texas rejoined the Union, it did so under treaty. 
> This treaty allowed for Texas, on its own, to split in to several
> pieces...it was unclear whether it was four or five.  Apparently, Texas
> can do this without the consent or approval of Congress; and,
> apparently, it can do it without even notifying Congress until after
> the fact.

Another example of the sloppy instruction at government controlled
schools.
The treat of annexation for Texas, which did indeed include a provision
as you indicated, was rejected by the U.S. Senate. After the 1844
election, but before the new president took office, the president
called a joint session of congress and rammed through a joint
resolution.

That resolution was approved by majority vote (not the 2/3 required by
a treaty), and Texas was admitted as a state, following action by the
Republic of Texas legislature later. That joint resolution has no
provisions for splitting into smaller states.

Texas vs White (U.S. Supreme Court 1868) has a painstakingly crafted
history in its opening remarks about the entry of Texas into the union.

Interesting side bar - the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty partly on
the grounds that there is no authority in the U.S. Constitution for the
U.S. to annex foreign nations, which of course Texas was at the time.

Sorry, that argument has no merit.

---------------------------------------------- 
Wesley Walker Burnett
Texas Constitution 2000 - It's About Freedom 
www.tcrf.com 
(806) 495-4135