Splitting the Lone Star State

[Richard]

How about you cut Texas up into 5 States?  That will give the GOP an additional 8 Senators or so, and 8 EVs.  Of course, such a motion would require consent by Congress.  Luckily, Congress granted its consent to Texas's potential subdivision 159 years ago. This made sense, as those had been the terms that Texas, a sovereign nation at the time, had negotiated for entering the Union. One provision of the 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas, passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Tyler, reads as follows:

"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."

[Cashcow]

But then Texas wouldn't look like Texas. And it looks awesome now, wouldn't you agree?

[Alcon]

Actually, it would probably give the Republicans seven. Extreme southern Texas is Democratic.

But I doubt Texas would support that.

[Cashcow]

You know the states would be shaped to minimize the Hispanic influence.

[JohnG]

We would not support that.  Why?  Because it’s Texas.

[Richard]

We would not support that.  Why?  Because it’s Texas.

Yeah I kind of figured that.  You Texans are such a strange breed.  I wish I could live there tho.  Really do.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

How about you cut Texas up into 5 States?  That will give the GOP an additional 8 Senators or so, and 8 EVs.  Of course, such a motion would require consent by Congress.  Luckily, Congress granted its consent to Texas's potential subdivision 159 years ago. This made sense, as those had been the terms that Texas, a sovereign nation at the time, had negotiated for entering the Union. One provision of the 1845 Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas, passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Tyler, reads as follows:

"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."

death to richius!

[Silent Hunter]

Larry Sabato mentioned this during the campaign.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Texas were ever crzy enough to dismember itself, here is what I would recommend.

1) State of Galveston (capital Houston)
In the extreme SE corner, with the Brazos as the western border. and then proceeding from the intersection of 31N and the Brazos to that of 94W and the Sabine on the LA border

2) State of West Texas (capital Lubbock)
The panhandle, consisting of that part of Texas west of 100W and north of 32N.

3) State of Pecos (capital Pecos)
All of Texas west of the Pecos, plus that part of Texas between 30N and 32 N that is west of 100W.

The remaineder of Texas would split along 31 N between
4) State of North Texas (capital Ft. Worth)
and
5) State of South Texas (capital San Antonio)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Texas no longer has that option, since it wasn't provided for when they were re-admitted after the Civil War.

[A18]

Texas no longer has that option, since it wasn't provided for when they were re-admitted after the Civil War.

It doesn't matter. The old law is still in affect.

That said, they shouldn't still have that option. The current Congress should have to vote on any new state.

[??????????]

Texas no longer has that option, since it wasn't provided for when they were re-admitted after the Civil War.

Of course they still have that right as does every single other state to leave the union if the wish.

[A18]

Texas no longer has that option, since it wasn't provided for when they were re-admitted after the Civil War.

Of course they still have that right as does every single other state to leave the union if the wish.

What if the middle of the country wanted to secede from the union?



Isn't that unfair to the states they just split in half?

[David S]

I've heard people from both the left and the right who are so unhappy with the country's direction that they are suggesting that their states secede from the nation. It seems to me that we would all be much happier if we ran the country the way the founders planned, with the states being largely autonomous, and the federal government being mainly responsible for defense. If we did that each state could set its own policies. Democrat states could become socialist if thats what they want.  Republican states could abolish socialist programs. Southern states could have prayer in school if they wanted to.
People who were really unhappy with their state's policies could move to another state more to their liking. There might even be a Libertarian state.

If we did this we could all have what we want without having to force our policies on everyone else. States and local communities would be the center of government rather that the federal government. But we would still have the advantage of being one large country for the purpose of defense. Anyone agree?

[A18]

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, in any country, there will always be people who want to centralize control of society for government experiments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since the war was fought on the basis of the Union being indisolvable, it wasn't the State of Texas being readmitted, but its government being reconstructed.  The State of Texas still has that right of self-division unless it has explictly given it up at some point.

[A18]

If Texas were ever crzy enough to dismember itself, here is what I would recommend.

1) State of Galveston (capital Houston)
In the extreme SE corner, with the Brazos as the western border. and then proceeding from the intersection of 31N and the Brazos to that of 94W and the Sabine on the LA border

2) State of West Texas (capital Lubbock)
The panhandle, consisting of that part of Texas west of 100W and north of 32N.

3) State of Pecos (capital Pecos)
All of Texas west of the Pecos, plus that part of Texas between 30N and 32 N that is west of 100W.

The remaineder of Texas would split along 31 N between
4) State of North Texas (capital Ft. Worth)
and
5) State of South Texas (capital San Antonio)

What would the new Texas and the new states look like?

[muon2]

If Texas were ever crzy enough to dismember itself, here is what I would recommend.

1) State of Galveston (capital Houston)
In the extreme SE corner, with the Brazos as the western border. and then proceeding from the intersection of 31N and the Brazos to that of 94W and the Sabine on the LA border

2) State of West Texas (capital Lubbock)
The panhandle, consisting of that part of Texas west of 100W and north of 32N.

3) State of Pecos (capital Pecos)
All of Texas west of the Pecos, plus that part of Texas between 30N and 32 N that is west of 100W.

The remaineder of Texas would split along 31 N between
4) State of North Texas (capital Ft. Worth)
and
5) State of South Texas (capital San Antonio)

We did a similar exercise as part of a repartition of all 50 states awhile ago on the forum. In TX, I had the following splits by county:

East Texas (2000 pop 6.7 M): Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Chambers, Liberty, Montgomery, Grimes, Waller, Jefferson Orange, Hardin, Newton, Jasper, Tyler, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Angelina, Nacogdoches, Rusk, Panola, Gregg, Harrison, Marion, Cass, Bowie, Red River, Morris, Titus, Franklin, Camp, Upshur, Brazos, Robertson, Madison, Leon, Walker, San Jacinto, Trinity, Houston, Anderson, Cherokee, Henderson, Smith, Van Zandt, Rains, Wood, Hopkins, Delta, Lamar.

Central Texas (2000 pop 7.8 M): Kramer, Bastrop, Hays, Travis, Lee Burleson, Williamson, Milam, Bell, Falls, Limestone, Freestone, Coryell, McLennan, Hill, Navarro, Ellis, Kendall, Gillespie, Blanco, Mason, Llano, Burnett, McCulloch, San Saba, Lampasas, Brons, Mills, Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Hamilton, Hood, Bosque, Somervell, Johnson, fannin, Hunt, Kaufman, Grayson, Collin, Rockwall, Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, Cooke, Montague, Wise, Parker, Clay, Jack, Palo Pinto, Wichita, Archer, Young, Stephens.

Lower Rio Grande (2000 pop 3.6 M): Zapata, Starr, Hidalgo, Cameraon, Willacy, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Kenedy, Duval, Jim Wells, Kleberg, Nueces, McMullen, Live Oak, Kendall, Bexar, Atacosa, Comal, Guadelupe, Wilson, San Patricio, Gonzales, Karnes, DeWitt, Goliad, Bee, Refugio, Calhoun Victoria, Jackson, Matagorda, Wharton, Colorado, Lavaca, Fayette, Austin, Washington.

Upper Rio Grande (2000 pop 1.1 M): Val Verde, Edwards, Real, Kinney, Uvalde, Maverick, Zavala, Dimmit, Webb, LaSalle, Frio, Medina, Bandera, Kerr. In the earlier exercise this was combined with most of NM and south central CO (Pueblo area) for a state of 2.8 M.

West Texas (2000 pop 1.6 M): everything else in TX. In the earlier exercise I compined this with eastern NM and most of OK (except the eastern 1/3)for a state with 3.8 M.

[Alcon]

Why is the Miami metro its own state?

[A18]

What are some natural boundaries in Texas that could be used for dividing it up? Rivers, mountains, whatever?

[muon2]

Why is the Miami metro its own state?

FL needed to split to meet my requirements. Here's the full set of information I used (link).

[Colin]

Why is the Miami metro its own state?

FL needed to split to meet my requirements. Here's the full set of information I used (link).

Alaska would probably suceed from this Ecotopia and become the Republic of Alaska.

[muon2]

Why is the Miami metro its own state?

FL needed to split to meet my requirements. Here's the full set of information I used (link).

Alaska would probably suceed from this Ecotopia and become the Republic of Alaska.

I agree that AK poses some problems in this arrangement. The panhandle, including Juneau is not a bad fit for Ecotopia. You are right, however, in that the great interior of AK is a much better fit for the Empty Quarter. Unfortunately, one would need BC and Yukon in the US in order to divide AK and attach it to states with a meaningful size. My map is a compromise given the limitations placed on the exercise.