U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-01-2007, 03:38 PM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5027

Advertisements

This topic is one that appeared in the U.S. forum, and was so interesting (in my opinion), I thought I would ask fellow, native, Texans what they think on the matter.

The original post asked which states would or should most likely be divided? I answered as follows:
*******
VERY interesting thread topic!

Adhering to the criterion originally put forth (most likely or should), I'd say either Florida or California, into northern and southern in each case ... and both because of radically different and changing demographics over the years involving immigration (largely illegal in the latter case).

If it is permissible to depart from that particular rule, however, and just "explore and comment" a bit, (and since it WAS mentioned among the OP's original examples) I'd like to say a bit about my native state of Texas in that regard.

In fact, Texas is the only state which actually DOES have the right, according to the original annexation agreement with the United States, to divide itself into no fewer than three and no more than five states. Of course, like BlueSkies and NC Native alluded to, the chances it will ever be done are three: Slim, chinaman, and none! LOL Still, it IS something that historically interested Texans will discuss among themselves just for the hell of it. In fact, if it hasnt been done already, this might be a good thread for the Texas segment by itself! LOL

As a relevant aside here, even though someone living in Tyler in East Texas has much more in common culturally with someone in Meridian, Mississippi than they do with a fellow Texan in El Paso out at the extreme western tip, there is STILL that common bond of Texas history and pride that would make both object.
*********************

Me again! LOL Soooo, IF Texas were ever to be divided into seperate states (which again, is, by gawd, OUR right! LOL), how do y'all think it should be done? Ground rules for the discussion are to stick to what is supposed to be allowable. That is, no few than three, but no more than five. When you do, make clear (at least as much as possible), boundaries and etc. For instance, if East Texas is to be a seperate state, make fairly clear what is meant by East Texas.

I'll give my own in a bit. But for now, y'all go ahead and take a shot at it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2007, 05:21 PM
 
Location: The Big D
14,874 posts, read 23,534,806 times
Reputation: 5787
Hmm, interesting. I've always known that we Texans had this right and every now and then it will get brought up but never actually considered. I don't know what boundries exactly I would put in place but from my own knowledge of each region of the vast state I can pretty well say that no matter how it COULD be done there would be 2-3 "states" that would be left a little "poor". Maybe not just monetary but population wise also. Say you were to cut the panhandle portion off as one state and the far extreme West Texas area as another and the Rio Grande Valley a third you would be left w/ 3 states that population wise would be very sparse. Many are home to towns and counties that also benefit heavily from Robinhood so the welfare of these areas would suffer greatly. Then you have to look at how the states representation would be changed when it comes to our national government. Would these new states loose a great amount of representation along w/ funding? Then the all important squabble would insue, which new state would keep the name "Texas"? I think we would have WW III on our hands. You are correct though that residents in East Texas have more in common w/ folks in Mississippi than they do those in far West Texas just as those up in the panhandle have more in common w/ their fellow ranchers in western Oklahoma and Kansas and eastern New Mexico. It would almost make more sense for Texas the 1 state to realign and take in all of Oklahoma and then be broken up w/ the panhandle of Ok going w/ the panhandle of Texas. Then the eastern half of Oklahoma being taken in w/ North Central Texas as another state.

As you said though, the chances of this happening are slim to none
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2007, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Western Bexar County
3,823 posts, read 9,969,136 times
Reputation: 1786
Here is another twist to dividing Texas into different states. How about merging counties? Although Texas is big, IMO, there are way too many counties. This would probably be more cost effective and less destabilizing.
Attached Thumbnails
How would native Texans divide Texas?-txcnty.gif  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2007, 07:33 PM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5027
Quote:
Originally Posted by momof2dfw View Post
Hmm, interesting. I've always known that we Texans had this right and every now and then it will get brought up but never actually considered. I don't know what boundries exactly I would put in place but from my own knowledge of each region of the vast state I can pretty well say that no matter how it COULD be done there would be 2-3 "states" that would be left a little "poor". Maybe not just monetary but population wise also. Say you were to cut the panhandle portion off as one state and the far extreme West Texas area as another and the Rio Grande Valley a third you would be left w/ 3 states that population wise would be very sparse. Many are home to towns and counties that also benefit heavily from Robinhood so the welfare of these areas would suffer greatly. Then you have to look at how the states representation would be changed when it comes to our national government. Would these new states loose a great amount of representation along w/ funding? Then the all important squabble would insue, which new state would keep the name "Texas"? I think we would have WW III on our hands. You are correct though that residents in East Texas have more in common w/ folks in Mississippi than they do those in far West Texas just as those up in the panhandle have more in common w/ their fellow ranchers in western Oklahoma and Kansas and eastern New Mexico. It would almost make more sense for Texas the 1 state to realign and take in all of Oklahoma and then be broken up w/ the panhandle of Ok going w/ the panhandle of Texas. Then the eastern half of Oklahoma being taken in w/ North Central Texas as another state.

As you said though, the chances of this happening are slim to none
LOL I like your take on it all, momo.

Actually though, assuming (which in this case is the ABOSOLUTE make an ASS-U-ME instance) the question of which would keep the name Texas would be a bit, IMO, a given that ALL would. Just like West Virginia and Virginia. There would be East Texas. West Texas. South Texas, etc. Don't you think?

As to the original question though, I think East Texas would be the easiest to agree on so far as being its ownself. And I would probably draw the boundaries somewhere between Dallas and Tyler and run it down on a north/south axis to square off just above Houston (probably somewhere between Huntsville and Houston).

The other "easy" one, I think, would be "trans-pecos" Texas (i.e. the El Paso area).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2007, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Texas
3,494 posts, read 9,635,806 times
Reputation: 1268
all i can say is South Texas is really North Mexico..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2007, 11:35 PM
 
Location: #
9,606 posts, read 9,559,252 times
Reputation: 6157
I would divide it like this....Houston is Atlanta but safer, Dallas is stereotypical Texas, San Antonio is Monterrey and Austin is New York. El Paso is old Mexico and West Texas is where the steers live. South Texas needs to be given back to Mexico. Draw lines on your map accordingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2007, 09:06 AM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5027
After considering it, I am thinking along these lines (no pun intended! LOL):

East Texas (capital - Tyler) As described above, on a north=south axis somewhere between Dallas and Tyler, maybe around Greenville, running down to square off between Huntsville and Houston

South Texas (capital - San Antonio) This region would also extend west to take in the trans-peco region of Texas since both are really, anymore, either part of Mexico or the true SW ala' New Mexico and Arizona, culturally.

West Texas (capital - Lubbock) The eastern boundary would begin around and include Abilene. It would take in the Panhandle, and South Plains and extend south to stop at the trans-pecos extension

North Texas (capital - Dallas) -- west of East Texas and east of West Texas, would include Wichita Falls and the southern boundary to stop somewhere around Waco

Central Texas (capital - Austin). The rest of Texas, and reach over to include Houston because I don't know where else to put Houston! It is not really East Texas, but it isn't South Texas either! LOL

ANOTHER issue here concerns The Alamo. San Antonio belongs to South Texas, but I am afraid that region might eventually either secede from the U.S. and/or get annexed by Mexico and we would lose it. Perhaps negotiations with Mexico would stipulate that it be considered to have, what is the word I am looking for, extra-territorial status...? LOL

As to which region of the United States each of these new states of Texas would belong to? East Texas would undeniably be in the South. Not only the South, but the Deep South. Central and North Texas too would be in the South, although not Deep South. South Texas (assuming Mexico doesn't get it), definitely belongs in the true Southwest along with New Mexico and Arizona. West Texas is the hard one. On the surface it wouldn't seem so, as the topography of the land screams West or Southwest. However, it was settled orginally by westward moving settlers from the Southern states and in many important ways, Southern culture dominates (Baptist church, political conservatism, speech, etc). And perhaps even more importantly, according to sociological surveys, most residents of West Texas consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners (although not to the degree of those in the eastern half of the state). On the other hand, there is a large hispanic population, and it is a land of wide-open spaces, ranches and cattle which are more associated with the West than the South.

Anyway, what is y'alls take on all this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2007, 09:46 AM
Status: "Ain't it great to be alive on City-Data?" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
36,567 posts, read 19,540,123 times
Reputation: 21643
Talking Jacinto, Fredonia, Utopia......

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
After considering it, I am thinking along these lines (no pun intended! LOL):

East Texas (capital - Tyler) As described above, on a north=south axis somewhere between Dallas and Tyler, maybe around Greenville, running down to square off between Huntsville and Houston

South Texas (capital - San Antonio) This region would also extend west to take in the trans-peco region of Texas since both are really, anymore, either part of Mexico or the true SW ala' New Mexico and Arizona, culturally.

West Texas (capital - Lubbock) The eastern boundary would begin around and include Abilene. It would take in the Panhandle, and South Plains and extend south to stop at the trans-pecos extension

North Texas (capital - Dallas) -- west of East Texas and east of West Texas, would include Wichita Falls and the southern boundary to stop somewhere around Waco

Central Texas (capital - Austin). The rest of Texas, and reach over to include Houston because I don't know where else to put Houston! It is not really East Texas, but it isn't South Texas either! LOL

ANOTHER issue here concerns The Alamo. San Antonio belongs to South Texas, but I am afraid that region might eventually either secede from the U.S. and/or get annexed by Mexico and we would lose it. Perhaps negotiations with Mexico would stipulate that it be considered to have, what is the word I am looking for, extra-territorial status...? LOL

As to which region of the United States each of these new states of Texas would belong to? East Texas would undeniably be in the South. Not only the South, but the Deep South. Central and North Texas too would be in the South, although not Deep South. South Texas (assuming Mexico doesn't get it), definitely belongs in the true Southwest along with New Mexico and Arizona. West Texas is the hard one. On the surface it wouldn't seem so, as the topography of the land screams West or Southwest. However, it was settled orginally by westward moving settlers from the Southern states and in many important ways, Southern culture dominates (Baptist church, political conservatism, speech, etc). And perhaps even more importantly, according to sociological surveys, most residents of West Texas consider themselves to live in the South and be Southerners (although not to the degree of those in the eastern half of the state). On the other hand, there is a large hispanic population, and it is a land of wide-open spaces, ranches and cattle which are more associated with the West than the South.

Anyway, what is y'alls take on all this?
Technically, Houston and the Golden Triangle are in Southeast Texas. Maybe you can make that area into a state and call it Jacinto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2007, 09:49 AM
Status: "Semi-retired. On and off line interchangeably" (set 3 days ago)
 
9,820 posts, read 11,161,735 times
Reputation: 5027
Quote:
Originally Posted by case44 View Post
Technically, Houston and the Golden Triangle are in Southeast Texas. Maybe you can make that area into a state and call it Jacinto.
Good one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2007, 09:50 AM
Status: "Ain't it great to be alive on City-Data?" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
36,567 posts, read 19,540,123 times
Reputation: 21643
Default A Whole Other Country

Well, gang, I guess we've added new meaning to Texas being like a whole other country, haven't we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top