Note the word "claimed." Texas never controlled the territories it
claimed, and its claim to New Mexico was pretty thoroughly rebuffed by the
US Congress, in spite of 2 unsuccessful invasions of NM. The third and so
far last time Texans invaded NM was during the Civil War, and that failed
as well, after a few Confederate victories.
While the territorial extent of the Republic of Texas, controlled or
claimed by Texas do not correspond to the current boundaries, the same
could be said for New Mexico (which originally included Arizona and even
more when it was Nuevo Mexico, a see ref to New Mexico) or several of the
original colonies. There seems to be no weight attached to continuity of
territory, which only makes sense when one is thinking of these geographic
areas as juridisdictions.
If I might muse for a minute, the provisions of AACR2 that have been cited
by others seem to me to make sense only as a means to collocate materials,
certainly not from any notion that jurisdictions are corporate bodies
(which can have earlier and later names). In that case, one wonders why
the extent of a geographic territory is not taken into account. This
situation might have some relation to the proposed revision to RDA which
attempts to collapse the rules for government corporate bodies. There
should be at least one article here for someone with the time and interest
to do some rigorous thinking.
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Adam L. Schiff wrote:
> The difference here is whether the name is the same for both of the
> jurisdictions. The name of the Oregon Territory was Oregon Territory, not
> Oregon. Same with Washington Territory, Idaho Territory, Montana Territory.
> So they are entitled to their own headings according to AACR2/LCRI practice.
> With Texas, I think it's official name was Republic of Texas (see Wikipedia
> article), which means that it's shortform name would be just Texas. So
> according to the LCRI 24.6, one heading gets used.
> Interestingly, the geographic area covered by the Republic of Texas and the
> State of Texas are NOT the same. According to Wikipedia: "Formed as a
> break-away republic from Mexico by the Texas Revolution, the state claimed
> borders that encompassed an area that included all of the present U.S. state
> of Texas, as well as parts of present-day New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
> Colorado, and Wyoming based upon the Treaties of Velasco between the newly
> created Texas Republic and Mexico. ... As part of the Compromise of 1850, in
> return for this assumption of debt ($10,000,000), Texas dropped claims to
> territory, now parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming,
> which Texas had never controlled and which the Federal government had
> captured directly from Mexico early in the Mexican War and governed
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Hank Wilson wrote:
>> I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a heading for the Texas Republic
>> (in whatever form it would be established)
>> is a valid heading to pursue.
>> You clearly have documents published/printed by the government of the
>> Republic. That in itself shows there is a
>> Past practice seems to have been to "fold in" the pre-U.S. statehood
>> governments onto the authority record for the
>> state name itself. The authority record for New York (State) once had a
>> variant form for: New York (Colony).
>> However, it was realized that an authority record for the colony was
>> needed, as there were publications authored by
>> that government. Now there are authority records for both governments.
>> Here at the University of Oregon, we also had many, many bibliographic
>> records with the heading "Oregon" when, in
>> fact, the publications came from the then Oregon Territory (now since
>> I would think you could do the same thing.
>> Hank Wilson
>> Univ. of Oregon
>> Knight Library
>> My opinion
>> On 1/25/2011 12:10 PM, Pat Fowler wrote:
>> I feel like I should know the answer to this question since I
>> catalog at the Texas State Library and
>> Archives Commission, but I am at a loss. We are cataloging a number
>> of documents which originated
>> during the Republic of Texas years (1836-1845). That means there
>> are documents published by the state
>> of Texas and also documents published by the Republic of Texas. The
>> geographic authority heading for
>> Texas includes this tag:
>> 667 Includes old catalog headings: Texas (Province); Texas
>> Please excuse my ignorance, but does that mean there once was a
>> heading Texas (Republic) but it is no
>> longer used? What we are trying to establish is a heading for the
>> Texas Department of State (not the
>> current one for the state of Texas) but one for the Republic of
>> Texas. I see one document in OCLC with
>> this heading:
>> Texas. ?b(Republic) Dept. of State.
>> And there are others:
>> Texas. (Republic) Congress.
>> Texas (Republic). ?bCongress. ?bHouse.
>> Texas (Republic). ?bCongress. ?bSenate.
>> Texas (Republic). ?bWar Dept.
>> There are headings for the Provisional government as well, but that
>> is different from the Republic
>> My question is: How do we differentiate between the Republic and
>> the State?
>> The Department of State for the ?state? and the Department of State
>> for the ?republic?? etc.
>> Thank you for your help.
>> Pat Fowler
>> Patsy D. (Pat) Fowler
>> SirsiDynix Unicorn System Administrator
>> Hosted site: GL3.1.3
>> Head, Cataloging Department
>> Texas State Library and Archives Commission
>> Austin, Texas
>> (The opinions expressed are my own & not necessarily those of my