Five Texases?
- Thread starter jenny1994
- Start date
San Antonio and Austin, two of the top five cities in Texas, and this was before Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth were big.
The answer to the question of why you would want to divide Texas, is because one party (in the post-Civil War case, the Republicans) thinks it can get an advantage by manipulating additional Senators. Advanced Gerrymandering.
EDIT: Additionally, as for how "small" Jefferson is, it's actually larger than New Jersey. Texas is quite large.
I thought the same thing. However, the wording of the proposal says that it would be created between those two rivers (and doesn't explain how to cap off the northern border), so I can only assume that's what they wanted. That said, that's the heart of Texas and for much of our history, that's where most of the population has lived.
Right, that area contains San Antonio and half of modern day Austin. The City of Austin itself at the time would actually have been on the other side of the river, within the State of Texas.
Thande
Donor
Ahh of course I forgot the Republicans could rely on southern votes due to Reconstruction at this point. I never thought of Texas as being one of those states though.
The whole "Texas can divide itself into 5 states" is a bit of an urban legend. Yes, the Texas accession treaty said the territory could be divided into "four more states" but this was conditional on the approval of the state legislature and such new territories were merely, quote, "entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."
In other words, Texas couldn't just choose to divide itself unilaterally; it would likely need congressional approval to admit those states. Nobody at the time asserted otherwise. The provision is therefore totally superfluous. Under the Constitution, states already have the power to divide themselves or modify their territory, but it's subject to federal approval.
A couple other examples of Texas division came during the Compromise of 1850. Texas' boundaries weren't yet defined, and there were numerous competing proposals, including one to split the state in two. See this Wikipedia page for a depiction of various proposals. (The "Bell" proposal called for admission of a second slave state out of territory comprising Southern and Western Texas as well as OTL Eastern New Mexico.)
In other words, Texas couldn't just choose to divide itself unilaterally; it would likely need congressional approval to admit those states. Nobody at the time asserted otherwise. The provision is therefore totally superfluous. Under the Constitution, states already have the power to divide themselves or modify their territory, but it's subject to federal approval.
A couple other examples of Texas division came during the Compromise of 1850. Texas' boundaries weren't yet defined, and there were numerous competing proposals, including one to split the state in two. See this Wikipedia page for a depiction of various proposals. (The "Bell" proposal called for admission of a second slave state out of territory comprising Southern and Western Texas as well as OTL Eastern New Mexico.)
Nate Silver did a nice piece on one possible division of Texas: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/messing-with-texas.html
Hmmm ...
The City of San Antonio, as its Very Own STATE ...
Well, that Sounds about Right!
Hmmm ...
The City of San Antonio, as its Very Own STATE ...
Well, that Sounds about Right!
Maybe it would be called the State of Alamo.
@CaliBoy1990: Yes! I'm from Arlington.Okay.
Scary little timeline that a guy by the handle of Jared finished writing about a couple years back, about a U.S. gone mad with imperialistic fervor after the premature death of President Jefferson in 1809. Trust me, it can get downright nasty at times.
@The Kiat: Your right, the world probably couldn't handle 5 Texases.
LOL.
Highlander
Banned
I frequently use it in my maps. I think often times it is more aesthetically pleasing.