How would native Texans divide Texas? (Dallas, San Antonio: to move, eat, areas)

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by solytaire

Everything about Houston & Beaumont reflect the Gulf Coast, and sometimes even the Cajun, temperment of other Gulf Coast states far moreso than an East Texas ambience. Therefore I labeled them part of Gulf Coast Texas.

That's a cool idea, actually. Maybe a Bayou state encompassing the SE coastal region of TX all the way through coastal Lousiana, including New Orleans.

If that seems weird to anyone, think of it like California --- Houston is Los Angeles, and New Orleans is San Francisco. The parallels are apropos.

Originally Posted by solytaire

I agree with TexReb, that if you go to Marshall, Longview, or Caddo Lake one afternoon, you'd be extremely hardpressed to find any resemblance to Arkansas, much-less Oklahoma.

Yes, I've already ceded that point to TexReb. I've traveled and camped in the ArkLaTex region and I've spent time at Caddo Lake and other nature reserves in the region. I'd like to call attention to the fact that the commonly used term "ArkLaTex" doesn't include Oklahoma. So I'm in total agreement about that. The Red River provides the perfect natural boundary for a zonal transition. On the other hand, parts of NE Texas are very similar to NW Louisiana, so perhaps we need to create a Gulf/Bayou state that includes everything from Victoria through New Orleans, and directly north of that would be a new state that is centered around Nacogdoches and Shreveport. Louisiana would thereby be eliminated, a political plus for the USA.

[solytaire]

And West Texas is essentially New Mexico and East Texas is virtually Louisiana...where are we going with all of this?

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

That's a cool idea, actually. Maybe a Bayou state encompassing the SE coastal region of TX all the way through coastal Lousiana, including New Orleans.

If that seems weird to anyone, think of it like California --- Houston is Los Angeles, and New Orleans is San Francisco. The parallels are apropos.

Yes, I've already ceded that point to TexReb. I've traveled and camped in the ArkLaTex region and I've spent time at Caddo Lake and other nature reserves in the region. I'd like to call attention to the fact that the commonly used term "ArkLaTex" doesn't include Oklahoma. So I'm in total agreement about that. The Red River provides the perfect natural boundary for a zonal transition. On the other hand, parts of NE Texas are very similar to NW Louisiana, so perhaps we need to create a Gulf/Bayou state that includes everything from Victoria through New Orleans, and directly north of that would be a new state that is centered around Nacogdoches and Shreveport. Louisiana would thereby be eliminated, a political plus for the USA.

I am actually in total concordance with the idea of making one far reaching lower Gulf Coast state of Texas, Louisiana, and even Mississippi. That would resolve a lot of conflict here...lol

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by solytaire

And West Texas is essentially New Mexico and East Texas is virtually Louisiana...where are we going with all of this?

Good question. I think where we're going is "wherever you want" because this is a thread about imaginary changes in political boundaries and there's no threat to the state of Texas coming from our imaginations.

But I agree with your hypotheticals: far-west Texas is New Mexico, and far east Texas is Louisiana. I've traveled a lot in this state and I believe that it makes more sense to have smaller states of relatively equal size rather than keeping the nation-sized state of Texas, with all its diversity, as one state. Don't fear my opinions. There is a zero percent chance that any of our various ideas would ever become reality. We're just playing.

Have fun with it. What would you imagine for Texas? If you think it should remain exactly as it is, then say it. That's the game we're playing --- make up your own state. It's kind of like little girls playing with dolls and dressing them up in different outfits. It has nothing to do with reality.

[solytaire]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

Good question. I think where we're going is "wherever you want" because this is a thread about imaginary changes in political boundaries and there's no threat to the state of Texas coming from our imaginations.

But I agree with your hypotheticals: far-west Texas is New Mexico, and far east Texas is Louisiana. I've traveled a lot in this state and I believe that it makes more sense to have smaller states of relatively equal size rather than keeping the nation-sized state of Texas, with all its diversity, as one state. Don't fear my opinions. There is a zero percent chance that any of our various ideas would ever become reality. We're just playing.

Have fun with it. What would you imagine for Texas? If you think it should remain exactly as it is, then say it. That's the game we're playing --- make up your own state. It's kind of like little girls playing with dolls and dressing them up in different outfits. It has nothing to do with reality.

Not to be rude or anything but no one fears your opinion. If anything, I (speaking only for myself here) respect it. I was merely responding to the accumulation of posts stating "South Texas is Mexico" and "North Texas is Oklahoma" and so forth (which by my count, makes only two seperate states as opposed to the minimum requisite of 3 for the purposes of this thread). Therefore I added the East and West Texas equivalents to make four different states.

This point isn't worth belaboring..but Im certainly going to do so...lol...To my knowledge no one was questioning whether this thread was a real Texas congressional hearing on redistricting the state. I was simply wondering why such statements continued to come forth as they are to my knowledge, conventional wisdom. My question was, once again: "where are we going with all of this?" meaning, what is the reason for saying that South Texas is Mexico, and North Texas is Oklahoma; should the two be annexed to become parts of Mexico and Oklahoma respectively? If yes, please elaborate why so; as parts of both South Texas and North Texas would, I presume, be staunchly opposed to such divisions.

[Lucidus]

Just to be a little different, I recommend this division. It divides Texas based on Rivers mostly and gives each new state access to the sea.



The new states would be:

1. Rio Grande - Capital centrally located in Del Rio.

2. Nueces - Capital could either be San Angelo or San Antonio, probably San Antonio.

3. Brazos - Capital at Abilene or its half of Austin, I would go with Abilene.

4. Trinity - Capital at Ft. Worth or Waco.

5. Neches - Capitol at Tyler, Go Tyler!

One major advantage of this map is that it splits Dallas and Ft. Worth into separates states so Ft. Worth won't feel like it is living in Dallas's shadow.

One problem is that it divides Austin into separate states. Thats just insult to injury, not only will Austin no longer be the capital of the best state in the U.S. but it will be part of two states, capital of neither, lol.

Of course this map is a farce but at least its more original than the normal break ups of North, South, East, West, etc.

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by solytaire

Not to be rude or anything but no one fears your opinion.

That's good news, not rude at all! I'm only dangerous to myself.

Originally Posted by Lucidus

Just to be a little different, I recommend this division. It divides Texas based on Rivers mostly and gives each new state access to the sea.

Intriguing, but culturally implausible.

It makes more sense to use watersheds as regions, where the rivers would be in the midst of a new state as opposed to being the boundaries. Given that cities are almost always built along waterways, this would prevent the problem you noted about dividing Austin (for example) into different states.

Tom Delay was successful at dividing Austin into 4 congressional districts in order to dilute the liberal voting habits of Austinites. Things didn't turn out quite as "red" as Delay had hoped, but he did achieve a minor victory in his gerrymandering of the city.

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by TheHarvester

Intriguing, but culturally implausible.

It makes more sense to use watersheds as regions, where the rivers would be in the midst of a new state as opposed to being the boundaries. Given that cities are almost always built along waterways, this would prevent the problem you noted about dividing Austin (for example) into different states.

I actually wanted to use watersheds instead of rivers but it was hard to find good usable maps, so chalk it up to laziness. But I agree that would be a better way to go.

[SA Greed]

I thought this thread was labeled how would "Native Texans" seperate the state? I would venture that some people responding are not originally from here...

[TheHarvester]

Originally Posted by SA Greed

I would venture that some people responding are not originally from here...

So you want that most of us should shut up? Texas, like California, is one of those states that has a high percentage of non-natives, especially among the educated population that participates in forums like this one.

I think this thread might be DOA if you restricted it to people who were born in Texas. But you can make any rule you want, this is an imaginary world and that's the fun of it!