Five States Of Texas

[Ashikaga]

The Texas Constitution says that Texas can be divided into five different state because of its vast size, if the people wanted to. But I read yesterday that that would never happen because there would be too much fighting over which new states would get the Alamo, the Dallas Cowboys, and the Houston Texans.

[TJones]

Do you have a link ? Where did you read the New Texas Constitution?

[gnu]

Do you have a link ? Where did you read the New Texas Constitution?

I believe the provision is in whatever treaty or document was used to annex Texas into the United States in 1845. Not in the Texas Constitution.

[SamHouston]

To lend a little academia to the conversation, here are my thoughts.

The provision allowing for Texas to be split into five states was in the original annexation agreement in 1845 ("The Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State", if you will). It is also claimed that this treaty allowed Texas to lawfully secede, but this is false.

Moreover, the issue of forming five states is governed by Article IV, Section 3 of the "Old" US Constitution,

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress"

Finally, if I recall, the treaty that contained all of these special exceptions was for the first admission into the Union. Texas re-entered in 1865 under very different terms.

[nmainguy]

As a native Texan, my knowledge seems to go along with SamHouston on this one except for the "old" Constitution. There's only ever been one.

However, if it ever came down to who would get the Texans...I'm placing my bets on Idaho.

Edited January 20, 2006 by nmainguy

[mike1]

To lend a little academia to the conversation, here are my thoughts.

The provision allowing for Texas to be split into five states was in the original annexation agreement in 1845 ("The Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State", if you will). It is also claimed that this treaty allowed Texas to lawfully secede, but this is false.

Moreover, the issue of forming five states is governed by Article IV, Section 3 of the "Old" US Constitution,

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress"

Finally, if I recall, the treaty that contained all of these special exceptions was for the first admission into the Union. Texas re-entered in 1865 under very different terms.

A little away from the topic but related to your post, and since you seem to have some knowledge on this subject... Do you know how it came about that West Virginia separated from Virginia? I know that it was related divisions among the counties of the state over secession during the Civil War and all, but did they follow the process that was set out in Art. IV, Sec. III? It seems like it would have been difficult to obtain the consent of the Virginia state legislature at the time.

[Ashikaga]

A little away from the topic but related to your post, and since you seem to have some knowledge on this subject... Do you know how it came about that West Virginia separated from Virginia? I know that it was related divisions among the counties of the state over secession during the Civil War and all, but did they follow the process that was set out in Art. IV, Sec. III? It seems like it would have been difficult to obtain the consent of the Virginia state legislature at the time.

In Lincoln's view, Virginia's permission wasn't needed because he didn't recognize its government in Richmond as legitimate. Western Virginia mostly consisted of "plain mountain" folks whose interests were different from the rich plantation owners of the eastern Virginia tidewater region. They were just part of the many people who said that the War Between the States was "A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight".

[RedScare]

"A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight".

Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?

[Houston19514]

Hmm. Why does that sound familiar?

Maybe because the same tired line has been used regarding every war in history? ;-)

Edited January 20, 2006 by Houston19514

[mike1]

In Lincoln's view, Virginia's permission wasn't needed because he didn't recognize its government in Richmond as legitimate. Western Virginia mostly consisted of "plain mountain" folks whose interests were different from the rich plantation owners of the eastern Virginia tidewater region. They were just part of the many people who said that the War Between the States was "A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight".

Thanks for the info. Just a curious bit of American history that I've always wondered about but never took the opportunity to look up!