Last week, we discussed the political implications of Texas choosing to secede from the Union, something which -- as is apparently unknown to its governor Rick Perry -- it has no more and no less right to do than any of the other 49 states.
What Texas could choose to do, however, is to divide itself up into as many as five states, a privilege given to it as a condition of its annexation to the Union in 1845. What would Texas look like if it chose to do this? Would dividing a large, red state into five smaller, reddish states benefit Republicans in the Senate? In the Electoral College?
The answers are not so clear. But first things first, we need to come up with a logical way to divde Texas into five parts.
The principal challenge we encounter is that Texas' population is not distributed very evenly throughout the state. Texas has about 24 million people; divided into five equal shares, that would translate into roughly 4.8 million persons per entity. The Dallas-Fort Worth area alone, however, has more than 6 million people, while the Houston metro is at almost 6 million. When dividing Texas' population, therefore, we either have to cleave up these metro areas or accept the fact that the new states will have somewhat unequal populations. I choose to take the latter course, figuring that the good folks of Dallas and Houston probably wouldn't take kindly to having their friends, neighbors, and places of work split up across state lines.
My solution, then, which we already teased at the top of the article, would look roughly like this:
This is a map -- adapted from the New York Times -- of county-by-county results for Texas' presidential vote in 2008. I have divided Texas into five states along county boundaries, each of these new states would have a somewhat unique set of political and demographic characteristics.
New Texas
Capital: Austin
Other Cities: San Antonio, College Station, Killeen
Population (2008 Estimate): 4,254,922 (about as many as Kentucky)
Congressional Districts: 6
Electoral Votes: 8
Area: 24,784 square miles (9% of former Texas territory, about as large as West Virginia)
Demographics: 39% Hispanic, 8% Black, 3% Asian
Economic: 37% college degree (adults 25+); 15% below poverty line
2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): McCain 771,777 (50.2%), Obama 764,695 (49.8%)
Technically speaking, Texas does not have the right to divide itself up into five new states. Rather, it can spawn as many as four new states; whatever is left over would be called 'Texas', although for clarity I refer to this region as 'New Texas'. This portion of the state gets to keep the Texas moniker because it contains the current state capital, Austin, and because it is in the middle of Texas' present territory. However, it would actually the smallest, area-wise, of the five 'new' states, at about 25,000 square miles.
New Texas would, however, be a swing state, its eight electoral votes in play as Democrats fought to turn out enough votes in Austin and the Hispanic portions of San Antonio to fend off a heavy Republican advantage in the suburban and rural portions of Hill Country. In 2008, Democrats would have lost that battle by the slimmest of margins, with Obama being defeated by McCain by around 7,000 votes, although the advantage could easily have shifted from one party to the other depending on how exactly New Texas' boundaries were drawn.
Trinity
Capital: Dallas
Other Cities: Fort Worth, Arlington, Longview, Tyler, Texarkana
Population (2008 Estimate): 7,549,968 (about as many as Virginia)
Congressional Districts: 10 (would increase to 11 following 2010 reallocation)
Electoral Votes: 12 (would increase to 13 following 2010 reallocation)
Area: 30,648 square miles (12% of former Texas territory, about as large as South Carolina)
Demographics: 24% Hispanic, 14% Black, 4% Asian
Economic: 35% college degree (adults 25+); 13% below poverty line
2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): McCain 1,504,106 (57.6%), Obama 1,107,558 (42.4%)
This region's name, Trinity, is a sort of triple entendre, referring to the Trinity River that flows through much of the region, to the 'trinity' of cities (Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington) that make up the DFW metroplex, and as an homage of sorts to the region's undoubtedly fairly high numbers of religious voters. Trinity would be the wealthiest of the new states of Texas. It would also contain a relatively large African-American population.
Democrats, however, would have little chance of competing for its 12 electoral votes, at least in the near term. Although Barack Obama won Dallas County on November 4th, it was literally the only county that he won in the region, and overall the region would be a point or two redder than the current state of Texas is as a whole. Democrats might have a opportunity, however, at picking up one of its two Senate seats -- they currently hold about one-third of the senate seats in states where they are at roughly this degree of partisan disadvantage (think Arkansas or South Dakota).
Gulfland
Capital: Houston
Other Cities: Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Baytown, Galveston
Population (2008 Estimate): 7,494,089 (about as many as Virginia)
Congressional Districts: 10 (would increase to 11 following 2010 reallocation)
Electoral Votes: 12 (would increase to 13 following 2010 reallocation)
Area: 36,547 square miles (14% of former Texas territory, about as large as Indiana)
Demographics: 32% Hispanic, 16% Black, 5% Asian
Economic: 32% college degree (adults 25+); 16% below poverty line
2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): McCain 1,350,322 (56.1%), Obama 1,058,446 (43.9%)
This somewhat unusually-shaped state, which looks a bit like West Virginia rotated 90 degrees, would contain the Houston metroplex, while then meandering to include nearly the entirety of Texas' Gulf Coast, from the Louisiana border up to (but not including) Texas' southermost reaches in Cameron County. Gulfland's economy would likely be heavily dependant on offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
However, there are a few things for Democrats to like about Gulfland -- it would be a majority-minority state (although barely) and Barack Obama won Houston's Harris County in November (also barely). Gulfland might be incrementally more competitive than Trinity, although very likely only for the Senate and not the Presidency, as Democrats have been gradually losing ground in this part of the country.
Plainland
Capital: Lubbock
Other Cities: Amarillo, Waco, Abeline, Wichita Falls, Odessa, Midland, San Angelo
Population (2008 Estimate): 2,500,681 (about as many as Nevada)
Congressional Districts: 3 (would increase to 4 following 2010 reallocation)
Electoral Votes: 5 (would increase to 6 following 2010 reallocation)
Area: 106,853 square miles (41% of former Texas territory, about as large as Colorado)
Demographics: 27% Hispanic, 6% Black, 1% Asian
Economic: 29% college degree (adults 25+); 17% below poverty line
2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): McCain 656,934 (74.0%), Obama 229,949 (26.0%)
I have drawn Plainland's boundaries as generously as possible to extend beyond the Texas panhandle to include mid-size cities like Waco and Wichita Falls. Nevertheless, while containing more than 40 percent of Texas' former territory, Plainland would have barely more than 2.5 million people. It would also be an exceptionally conservative state -- quite possibly the most conservative in the country, as John McCain defeated Barack Obama here by nearly 3:1 last November. Five electoral votes, two Senators and three congressmen would be all but certain for the Republicans.
El Norte
Capital: El Paso
Other Cities: McAllen, Brownsville, Laredo
Population (2008 Estimate): 2,527,314 (about as many as Nevada)
Congressional Districts: 3 (would increase to 4 following 2010 reallocation)
Electoral Votes: 5 (would increase to 6 following 2010 reallocation)
Area: 63,083 square miles (24% of former Texas territory, about as large as Wisconsin)
Demographics: 85% Hispanic, 1% Black, 1% Asian
Economic: 22% college degree (adults 25+); 33% below poverty line
2008 Vote (Excludes third parties): Obama 360,516 (65.9%), McCain 186,609 (34.1%)
To our final region we give the ironic name El Norte -- ironic because, although 'El Norte' is the Spanish term for 'The North', this would actually be Texas' southermost (and westernmost) region. But it would be impossible to define El Norte by anything other than through reference to its Hispanic culture and its proximity to Mexico, as about 85 percent of its residents have Hispanic ancestry. El Norte would also be the poorest state in the Union, with one-third of its residents living below the poverty line.
Electorally speaking, El Norte wouldn't be highly competitive -- Democrats would win Presidential and Congressional elections going away, until and unless the GOP found some better way to reach out to Latino voters. It might, however, become a focal point for Republican angst about immigration, bilingualism, the welfare state, and other issues.
Net Effects on Balance of Power
Texas currently holds 34 electoral votes, 32 for its Representatives and two for its Senators. These electoral votes have been won by Republicans every year since 1980 and look to be relatively safely in the Republican column for at least the next two elections, although a Southern or Hispanic Democrat might have a chance at them in play given an excellent overall year for the party.
If Texas were divided into five states, its number of senators would increase from two to ten, and its number of electoral votes from 34 to 42. This would seem at first glance to benefit Republicans, but it actually might not if the state were divided along the lines I have suggested. This is because, if Democrats merely won El Norte (5 electoral votes), which they would be almost assured of doing, they would give up a net of 32 electoral votes to the Republicans (37 less 5), which is slightly better than the 34-vote gain that Republicans get by winning Texas currently. If Democrats also turned out enough voters in Austin to win New Texas (8 electoral votes), moreover, this would really put the Republicans at a disadvantage, as they'd then gain a net of just 16 votes (29 less 13) from Texas' former territories.
Texas will gain additional electoral votes -- probably four although possibly just three -- from the re-apportionment following the 2010 Census. Those additional electoral votes would be awarded, in order, to Trinity (giving it 13 electoral votes rather than 12), Gulfland (likewise), El Norte (6 rather than 5) and Plainland (ditto); New Texas would have some ways to go before picking up a 9th electoral vote.
The disposition of four of the ten Senate seats from the new states of Texas would be foregone conclusions; Republicans would win the two seats in Plainland, and Democrats would win two from El Norte. The senate seats in New Texas would most likely be split, while on average the Democrats would stand to pick off one of the four Senate seats between Trinity and Gulfland. This would give them a total of 4 seats to the Republicans' 6, a net loss of two seats that is no worse than the 2-0 disadvantage they are operating from currently. However, the shift in the senatorial balance of power would be slightly unfavorable to the Democrats overall, as the eight new senators created would increase the number of votes required to break a filibuster to 65, leaving the Democrats two votes short of a filibuster-proof majority, even if they managed to add four senators from the region. In addition, it is not out of the question that Democrats will gain Kay Bailey Hutchison's seat in the status quo if and when she decides to run for governor in 2010.
The effects on representation to the House would be relatively unchanged. Texas would neither gain nor lose House seats if it split itself five ways, although many Congressional District boundaries would need to be redrawn, which might benefit Democrats in the very near term as the 2003 redistricting plan was quite unfavorable to them.
Of course, one could easily draw Texas' new boundaries in any number of ways other than how I've drawn them. For example, if one wanted to create five states of roughly equal population, Fort Worth and Arlington could be split from Dallas and given to Plainland, while everything to the immediate west of Houston's city center (meaning suburbs like Sugar Land and Bellaire, as well as Gulf Coast cities like Corpus Christi) could be adjoined to El Norte. This would make El Norte somewhat competitive for Republicans, although Democrats would still probably be favored and the Republicans would be putting more electoral votes at risk. The net effects on the other new states would be relatively minor, although Democrats might become incrementally more competitive in Gulfland.
Overall, dividing Texas into five states would probably slightly hurt Democrats in the Senate while slightly helping them in the Electoral College. That's not much of a rationale for Republicans -- or anyone, really -- to mess with it.
4.24.2009
Messing with Texas
@ 7:07 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
141 comments
Very interesting analysis, Nate.
Texas could actually do better by gerrmandering 3 or 4 solidly Red states rather than 4 Red and 1 blue.
Whether Texas still has the right to divide itself up is a subject of controversy. First, it already entered the Union, and did so as 1 state. Second, it withdrew from the Union (or tried to) and upon its "readmission" as a state after the rebellion, the terms of its "readmission" no longer included the right to divide itself up.
Of course, the latter issue is very murky as there is a Supreme Court case dealing with the payment of bonds that says Texas didn't have the right to withdraw from the Union -- and didn't! What that does to Congress' readmission statute is anyone's guess.
One thing you forget in your analysis of democrats and republicans in Texas is the bond that Texans share. So the real advantage would not be to the D or R but to Texas. I would expect a voting block in terms of legislation in the house and senate that would be difficult to shake.
"while everything to the immediate west of Houston's city center (meaning suburbs like Sugar Land and Bellaire, as well as Gulf Coast cities like Corpus Christi) could be adjoined to El Norte."
One small geographical correction here. While Bellaire is west of the center of Houston, it is completely surrounded by Houston. (Houston, weirdly enough, has a bunch of tiny municipalities that are wholly inside its boundaries.) So there is no way to give Bellaire to El Norte without also giving part of Houston itself to El Norte.
I can't imagine why Texas would ever want to do this. The partisan advantage, as Nate pointed out, is not that great either way, and from a cultural perspective, it does nothing but hurt Texas, as it would immediately stop being Texas and would thereafter be nothing but a cluster of not-so-special Western states. I mean, the people from down there have so much invested in being from Texas, and if you take that away, they'd have to figure out something else to put on their bumper stickers. Not going to happen.
The linked snopes articles says that the Constitution actually allows for any state to do this, provided approval by Congress. At any rate, this post was fascinating and I'd be interested in seeing this kind of analysis done for other big states like New York and especially California.
California is particularly interesting because with a population larger than Canada (36 million Californians vs 33 million Canadians) it could easily be broken into ten or more small to mid-sized states.
Slicing up the state could be a last-ditch effort to prevent a wholesale flip down the line. I believe Texas is expected to become a white minority state sometime between 2025 and 2040 - which would make the ENTIRE state a potential toss-up the GOP can't afford to lose. Carving it up does present a firewall that protects a lot of those districts/Electoral votes from Democratic control. I'll agree that it's a political impossibility - but another unacceptable Republican outcome would be forfeiting the entire state - because no GOP candidate can get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue WITHOUT the Lone Star State.
Yay, a big shout out to my hometown of Arlington, Texas on 538. Nice.
Texas is already de facto a minority state (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165395,00.html), but as we all know that doesn't mean much for the voting booths on Election Day - not yet at least. Barring a successful amnesty offering, I'm seeing Texas go purple in one generation...and I think everyone knows what's next after that.
Nate, as a native of New Texas (Go Spurs!) I found this quite fascinating. Thanks for putting it together!
Please assign the moniker New Texas to some other area than the one containing Austin. The majority American population (as opposed to Texan) wouldn't stand for it.
Fascinating! I love speculation like this.
I would argue that conservative Texas is just fine with splitting a city up into splinters. Which is exactly what the Republicans did during the controversial redistricting a few years back. Austin was split in several different districts, and those districts look ridiculous if you get to peek at them on a map. This was done just to dilute the voting strength of on of the countries bluest counties.
Based on this, any breakup of the state would feature the (slight) majority of conservatives in the state pitching a hissy fit over San Antonio and Austin being allowed to be a state, or over the Valley being allowed to be a state. These would have to be splintered into contrived pro-conservative state boundaries, no matter how obviously disenfranchising they might be when you look at them.
Interesting analysis.
One thing that was not considered is the effect on the disposition of the voters, both within Texas and within the other 49 states.
It seems to me that if this card were played, the GOP would be seen as a party who are throwing a world-class tantrum. It would (and should) piss off any moderate or swing voter in America, and especially in Texas... and it would weaken the GOP's rhetorical resistance to giving statehood and representation to DC.
One impediment to this analysis is the historical context of Texas's readmission to the union in 1870. While it was never made an explicit condition of re-entry, most of the radical Republicans in control of Congress at the time believed that the readmission terms (ratification of the amendments, drawing a new state constitution) specifically nullified the 1845 treaty, thereby abolishing the possibility of splitting into multiple states as envisioned in the treaty.
Also, the treaty does not make clear whether Texas could divide by fiat, or if the Congress would have to approve the new states in the normal manner of statehood. If it is the former, it's not clear whether it would be Constitutional; if it's the latter, it's not clear that it's any more of a right than any other state has under Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution, which already provides that states might subdivide if the Congress and state government both approved.
Still, very nice analysis.
Correction: College Station (Gig 'em Aggies!) wouldn't be in New Texas on that map; Brazos county is included in Gulfland, not New Texas.
WV: amemeryt, like the corners of my mind...
My guess is that most Texans would demand that it be split into 5 states of equal area, not 5 states of equal population. Otherwise they'd be ceding huge swaths of territory to the fewest people. The people of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio aren't likely to agree to that.
brown makes a good point above. Texans would never stand for this. The culture is too focused on being the biggest (Alaska doesn't count). Who wants to live in a state the size of piddling Colorado or Nevada?
Now I could see Texans voting to force out Austin - but they'd insist it should be a protectorate, not a full state of the Union.
Then of course they'd barricade it off from the rest of the good people of Texas (think of it as the West Berlin of the 21st century).
Nate, I think anyone who claims that the current State of Texas has the right to split itself into five pieces misunderstands the original territory of the former Republic of Texas.
In addition to the current State of Texas, territory of the former Republic of Texas is part of the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. See Wikipedia's article on the Texas Annexation for a map.
I think it could be convincingly argued that that division is what the 1845 treaty had in mind, not the breakup of the current State of Texas as you suggest.
Nick
Blue Ohio Blog
I believe that Congress would still retain its power to admit or refuse admission to any states Texas wished to divide itself into. I can't see any other state agreeing to dilute its power in the Senate like that.
As for all this secession talk, I thought we settled this during the Civil War: admission to the United States is an irreversible act.
But what about the economics? Who gets the oil? Would far-from-the-Gulf Plainland have to raise taxes?
Surprising that Gulfland is majority-minority yet 'red'.
This is great analysis! It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next couple of decades as Texas experiences a drastic demographic shift.
However, I think that the Texas state legislature would find a way to gerrymander the boundaries where 1 state would be very blue and the other 4 would at least lean red fairly strongly.
My guess is that most of the major cities in Texas would be splintered among the rural areas to dilute the voting block of Democratic voters.
I had my doubts about this idea, until I realized it would keep the state quarter coin program going another year.
Splitting up any state is almost bound to be bad for its majority party Electoral College wise so long as the "Senatorial electoral votes" aren't that proportionally significant. It doesn't matter how you split up say, California, there would be bound to be at least one state more Republican than California is now. It's also very likely that any state's majority party would be helped in the Senate, because all other things being equal you have a population favouring your party having its representation multiplied.
As an experiment, try combining existing states to see if you can achieve the opposite effects. For the electoral college, the best I can see is adding solid blue or solid red states together reduces their Senatorial EC vote, but otherwise creates no difference. Combining politically different states is usually good for the leading party across those states. Add some contiguous states to Florida and the new state shifts quite far from the tipping point, effectively removing a realistic electoral option for Democrats. On the other hand, those individual states could almost certainly expect to have a greater than 2 seat margin in the Senate, while the new state could not by definition.
That being said, this kind of stuff is interesting, keep at it!
Great analysis, Nate.
My only change would be to give El Norte Corpus Christi and the coast south of that, and move the capitol to Laredo -- yes El Paso is bigger, but Laredo is more central and is situated on I-35 making it more accessible to the capitals of New Texas and Trinity.
I'm with Nick D. on this one -- Texas may have already used up it's "we get to split into multiple states" card since it has already, you know, split up into multiple states. It's not at all obvious that they got to do this more than once (seems open to abuse...)
Interesting analysis.
TX will not seceed nor will it spawn 4 additional Texas-like states.
This is all just GOP hot air. Nothing less, and nothing more.
I live in New Texas. I presume Nate knows this, but in national elections, New Texas' vote would be more Democratic than it was as part of the State of Texas. During the 2008 election, most of the organization was focused on calls and bus trips to swing states. As the swing state New Texas, a well-funded and enthusiastic Democratic wing would be putting its efforts on the local vote in presidential and senate elections.
Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution, which already provides that states might subdivide if the Congress and state government both approved.
No. Article IV says "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state". Congress can't give them permission, regardless of any 1845 annexation legislation, unless they manage to take part of a neighbor like Oklahoma with them. (Pay attention to the semicolon.)
Which is another reason why Tom Delay's no constitutional scholar.
Another factor that would need to be added into this whole thing is what kind of population migration would we see if this was actually going to happen. I love Texas, but if it left the union I'm gone, as would be most everyone I know. Millions of people would leave the state. This mass exodus would likely decimate the state (new Republic). Are there any numbers on who would stay?
Interesting analysis, Nate. However, I think like everyone else I'd give this a <1% chance of coming to fruition. I agree that in the not too distant future, Texas's 34 EV's will be in play for the Dems.
PS Great appearance on Baseball Tonight last night. I hope you become a regular on that show.
I agree this is unlikely to happen, but who cares? It's a fun "counterfactual".
I would've liked to see more analysis of the practical political implications of this, though. Had this map existed in 2008, I figure New Texas would be ground zero for OfA's turnout machine and Obama would've taken it. McCain might've even given up on it, depending on how the media markets were (another thing it would be interesting to explore). Obama would've heavily contested Gulfland; I think McCain might've won in the end, but it would've drained time and money, thus endangering close states like GA, MT, and even AZ.
Benjamin:
You only posted part of article 4, section 3. Here's the entire thing:
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.
This is actually how Virginia's split was legally done: the government at Charlestown was recognized as the "true" government of Virginia, and they consented to split.
Or... we could just give it back to Mexico.
I'm okay with giving it back to Mexico.
I doubt that if this did happen, that Texas would split in anything like the way Nate has drawn up.
Texas would be gerrymandered to the greatest political benefit to Republicans, no matter how many cities were split along state lines.
I am a bit surprised at which of the new states would get the possible fourth new electoral vote after 2010. It is "New Texas" that has been growing rapidly (something like 700,000 or more added in the Austin and San Antonio area alone; and even Killeen and College Station are growing moderately); "Plainland," by contrast, has been a source of steady outmigration since the 1960s.
Thanks so much Nate. Ever since the "secession" story broke I've been eagerly awaiting your breakdown on the Texas split. This should make for some fun mental calisthenics at the water cooler.
Interesting analysis. I've actually always wondered whether we could combine some small states as classified by both population and area, effectively reducing the effect small states have on the electoral college. For example, all of New England could be combined into 1 state and still have fewer people than Texas does today. Another would be amalgamating some of the plains states (ND, SD, Nebraska, etc.) that also share similar characteristics.
I have to agree with gbennett12 above — Austin has been the second fastest-growing city in the nation for a while now, behind only Las Vegas, and current projections are that this will only continue. Austin's metro area population has tripled since 1980.
Regarding the new state of "El Norte," at first I assumed that the reason you named it as such was because its Southern border is formed by the Rio Grande, known more formally as the Rio Grande del Norte in Mexico (obviously from Mexico's perspective this is a Northern river, and I know "el norte" was the common shorthand term for it circa the Mexican War in the late 1840s, probably it still is today but I'm not sure). Maybe you had that in mind and forgot to mention it but if not your naming was even more apt than you realized!
This is fun and all, but can we stop talking about it now? It's politically useful (probably) for Governor Perry to stir the pot with respect to secession/breaking up Texas, but none of this shit is ever, ever going to happen for at least a dozen or so reasons. As such there's really no point in gaming out scenarios or fantasizing about giving Texas back to Mexico (I think they'd rather have California since we stole that too, but that probably isn't in the cards either).
"As for all this secession talk, I thought we settled this during the Civil War: admission to the United States is an irreversible act."
Actually, it wasn't settled by the Civil War, but it was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving, of course, Texas. Take a gander at Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868).
John:
Texas vs. White certainly settled the issue of whether a state could secede against the wishes of the rest of the union. It can't.
But it left open the question of whether peaceable separation --- something like Congress agreeing to let a state go and that state's legislature voting to go --- was legitimate.
Honestly, it's hard to imagine that the Constitution would stand in the way if something like a supermajority wihtin a state wanted to leave, and a supermajority of the rest of the country would consent. At that point, even if somehow it was ruled unconstitutional, an amendment could just be passed to get it done.
Ironically the reverse of the Texas State Seal includes the phrase "Texas One and Indivisible."
Matt,
Would it be possible to kick them out? Like, even if the majority of them don't want to leave, could we evict them?
Statler:
No, not as I understand Texas vs. White; the union is indivisible by force. No one can walk away alone; no one can be forced out. Congress can always expel Members by 2/3 vote, but that might become Constitutionally dubious if it was used to deny a state representation. And even if they were denied representation, the citizens of the state could probably not be denied the benefits of being an American.
No Statler, that wouldn't be possible, but I have to assume you are not being serious, since what you are proposing is stripping millions of Americans of their citizenship simply because Texas annoys you. So like I said I assume you are just joking.
Matt-
I don't disagree and the decision itself envisions just this. As the majority said: "[t]he union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Geoff,
The fact that you had to post something nervously saying, "I do hope you're joking" shows how unbelievably over-serious people are taking this whole thing.
Listen, secession is something from 150 years ago. It didn't work then, when the South was an economic powerhouse and the US didn't maintain a standing army or command much of an arsenal. A real civil war happening today would last about as long as Waco did. The US military budget today is more than 10 times the size of the next largest military spender worldwide. We maintain a massive peacetime arsenal and standing army. Albeit, we already have two other wars we're struggling with at the moment, just remember that one of those two is hugely unpopular and we could very easily pull everyone out of there and send them to Texas with little to no public opposition.
I live in the Deep South, and I assure you that most people in the urban areas at least do not favor secession even jokingly. In the rural areas, you do have the crazier fuckers out there, but you have to cross the line into completely batshit to think you're little hunting club with whatever weapons you've picked up at a gun show can take on the US Army. The Iraqis and Afghans have been embroiled in real life warfare for as long as anyone can remember-they hand their infant children unloaded guns to play with so they'll get used to the feel of one in their hands. They are far more hardcore than your Blue Collar Comedy crowd that's 200 lbs overweight and thinks an NRA membership makes you a badass. Real warfare is not like a football game.
Which is probably the problem here. Most of us-in an ideal world, all of us-will never see an actual battlefield in our lifetimes. The impression we have of war comes from movies and TV. So when Sean Hannity says war is good for the economy, he's thinking about the kind of war that takes place on a movie set with fake blood and special effects. So of course he can find an audience that will support that.
If any of the people that currently advocate for civil war actually had to go into real combat against the US military, the image I want you to carry in your mind of that would look like this" Emergency liposuction by bayonet"
And it would be over in days if not hours. A blip on the radar everyone would forget in another 15 years. I guarantee you nobody under 40 would know what it was in another 50 years. "Do you remember the second civil war?" "No, what was that?"
So relax, not only am I joking, so is anyone else that isn't so drunk on oxycontin that they'd be prepared to face a real GI for the last few seconds of their material existence.
If they'd even send int he GI's. They might just send in the predator drones instead. You don't even get to fire a bullet at the Union army before you turn into a grease stain on the pavement. They killed you with an unmanned aircraft. Poof.
So no, don't take it seriously. On any side of the debate. For now, this is just a bunch of old rivals throwing mudballs at each other to let off a little steam. Governor Parry says 'secede!', and I say, "get out!", and thats as far as it'll ever really go.
Nate -
I think the mid-term effects of such a decision would be even more interesting. Splitting into 5 states would result in huge population migrations.
Has anyone tried to do this for the entire country? Restate the country by more representative geographic/cultural similarities.
Fun Gedankenexperiment.
My read of the statute Snopes links to and the Constitution is that Texas can only be split up with Congress' consent.
As a side note, if Texas seceded, it would be awfully amusing to see if right-wingers would complain about illegal immigration from Texas.
My guess is that most Texans would demand that it be split into 5 states of equal area, not 5 states of equal population.Then you've got the Iraq problem-- distribution of resources. Who gets the oil? Who gets the water? What would tax revenue for each of the five states look like, and would there be balance in the sources of that revenue (I.E would any of the five new states tend to be economically driven by one particular thing, thus encouraging them to adopt a different tax structure than Texas currently does)?
Nate's analysis of how to split up the states is based on nothing other than political considerations. It's quite likely that would be most of the consideration if somehow this actually happened. But we would possibly end up with state boundaries that don't objectively make a lot of sense.
@ Statler,
So I was right, you were joking. Even I didn't realize I had posted "nervously" so I must say it's quite perceptive of you to have noticed that.
What's funny though is that Matt responded to your post seriously, which contributes to making this into one of the more crackpot threads on 538 (from an outsider's perspective).
Not sure what the point of the rest of your post was, but as I already said earlier on this thread there is no way in hell this secession/splitting into five states things is ever going to happen. Your reference to the Civil War and the current military budget are not really relevant, because Texas is never going to vote to secede. In the end I guess we agree about that.
I almost died when "Governor Goodhair," as Molly Ivans semi-affectionately called him, made this classic mistake. Texas did NOT retain the right to secede, and I'm wondering if the Gov failed 6th grade when we are all subjected to a year of Texas history.
Interesting how you divide up the place. Within Texas, regions tend to be divided by geography - proximity to rivers, the Balcones escarpment, etc. Corpus Christi, for example, is definitely considered part of the area you call "El Norte," and at a minimum, the counties to the south of there are part of that area. Indeed, if you look at a map, there is a border patrol stop in Falfurrias, which is roughly an hour from the border due north. The area south of a Corpus/Laredo line is semi-arid scrub to desert-like conditions, and is definitely all one piece.
Really, the speed with which the area you call "El Norte" would return to being essentially Mexico would surprise outside observers. The nearest big city to McAllen, Harlingen, and Brownsville is Monterrey. The economy of the border area is inexorably tied across the river on both sides. Given the political/security vacuum in Mexico right now, you would be dooming a lot of people to some serious insecurity.
Assayist-
http://www.tjc.com/38states/
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/17550
"welcome to the great state of Alamo, please enjoy your stay"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Nations_of_North_America
Texas is split into three (Mexamerica, the Breadbasket, and Dixie) in this scheme.
There's probably some more I'm forgetting.
We shouldn't be so fast to think Republicans would be wise to create one super-Democratic state and four Republican ones. Although they'd gain a net of two additional Senators on average, this could only be accomplished by adding population (and thus house seats and electoral votes) for solidly blue El Norte. Thus any action the Repubs would take to increase their Senate advantage would harm future Presidential candidates in the electoral college.
Small point of correction- College Station is a city located in Brazos County, which is part of your Gulfland theoretical state, not New Texas.
"I believe Texas is expected to become a white minority state sometime between 2025 and 2040 - which would make the ENTIRE state a potential toss-up the GOP can't afford to lose."
Texas about 2-3 years ago became the second major state (after California) to become "minority-majority." It is a major crisis for the GOP in the state, which has already seen Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo and the Valley cities lost to the party. The main thrust of Republicans in the State Legislature this session has been voter suppression legislation, particularly an Indiana-style mandatory voter-ID bill. All this is delaying tactics, to try to push back the ocean for another couple of election cycles.
Governor Goodhair's comments about secession may be a source of anguish or hilarity for you, depending on how you feel about the state, but they had nothing to do with reality; he faces a very difficult road to winning another term, and his best bet to winning the Republican primary over the much more popular Kay Hutchison (Perry won last time around with 39% of the vote in a four-way match) is to solidify every last crumb of votes among the most radical and loony right-wingers (as in 2006 he solidified the basest of the base by signing the anti-gay marriage amendment in a right-wing church).
Geoff,
Well, when you think about it, you shouldn't take anything you read on the internet seriously.
All internet threads on any topic are completely pointless. And as far as being an outsider goes, don't you think everybody except for Nate, Sean, and their fellow columnists are outsiders here? I'd say we all have an outsider's perspective, even though its not your own.
So, this thread has as much purpose as any other internet thread. Don't get so emotional about forum posts. You got prickly there over whether I thought you were nervous or not. Why? Do you give a damn what I think about you? Buddy, we're never gonna meet in real life, and you could be anybody-even a 13 year old kid-for all I know. So what does it matter? Why get all worked up over a forum post?
If "all internet threads on any topic are completely pointless," then you sure waste a lot of time (and words) here, Statler. Actually I find a lot of the comment threads at 538 informative and worthwhile, but this one not so much, which is what I've been saying from the outset.
By "outsider" I meant people who don't frequent 538 - that should have been obvious - so while we are all "outsiders" in another sense it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My point is that the whole "will Texas secede?" meme is stupid, and in spending so much time debating it here we are also being stupid and this thread would look ridiculous to many. Sorry if that opinion annoys you - it's just what I think.
And just to be clear, no, I don't care what you think of me (where does that come from? because I made a sarcastic comment about your claim that I had posted "nervously"?), no I'm not 13 (my age is the inverse of that number), and no I'm not "worked up" or "prickly" over a forum post. I'm afraid you're reading far too much into the situation as the real explanation is more simple - I just think your two earlier posts were dumb. Sorry if that opinion annoys you - it's just what I think.
But, again, we do agree that Texas will not divide itself and not leave the United States, so let's "accentuate the positive!" in our "completely pointless" tete a tete and leave it at that.
Although the SCotUS qualified its pronouncement of a ban on secession with the words "except...through consent of the States," the Constitution does not seem to contemplate such an action and provides no process for any state to leave the union. And this opinion doesn't really establish precedent, since separation from the union by consent of the States was not at issue in the case.
john.cormac - I didn't mean to imply that a war establishes legal precedent, as I suspect you know. The fact is that Texas v. White was decided in 1868 at the very beginning of Reconstruction by a court largely appointed by Abraham Lincoln and in the context of a recent bloody Civil War over just this issue of secession. To look at this precedent without its historical context is disingenuous; it is as much a product of the Civil War as the burning of Atlanta. Like it or not, the constitution is not a sterile document; it has always been interpreted according to historical and political context. Had the War not ended as it did there would have been no Texas v. White. It was the War that decided the issue; the Supreme Court merely wrote it down.
Just think how much cheaper would it be to invade "Texas" for its oil than ANY Mideast nation.
Why are we discussing this and not the fact that Mr. Tedisco has just conceded?
Besides West Virginia breaking off from Virginia, Maine was admitted as a state on March 15, 1820. It formerly was part of Massachusetts. Massachusetts agreed to the split, and Congress agreed to admit Maine as a new state.
I'm especially aware of WV and Maine, since if they hadn't split from their former state and been admitted after Indiana, the only state admitted after Indiana was admitted in 1816 that would have a smaller geographic area would have been Hawaii.
As to the borders of a divided, multi-state Texas, Congress would have to vote on admission. If Congress, especially a Democratically-controlled Congress, didn't like the way the proposed states' borders were drawn, I'm sure it would be a lot more difficult to get a passage of the admission legislation through.
If the GOOPers controlled the Senate, I'm sure the Dems would seriously consider a filibuster, especially if a significant portion of the Texas population spoke out against the proposed boundaries (unless Reid were the Dems' leader, of course).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Usage carp: a thing cannot be somewhat unique any more than a person can be somewhat dead.
DNC video reminds Michael Steele what he said about NY-20. It's a total gloat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR1ahMkUJk0
Mike in Trollyland strikes again, with yet another overusage of the same old, tired joke. This toothless old hound insists on overusing his catchphrase, "GOOPER" as often as possible. And while the rest of the country has moved on from what was mildly amusing the first 5 hundred times we heard it, his head is still stuck in the past. Old trolls can never move on.
Really interesting post.
Statler,
I invite you to continue to make asinine comments towards and about me.
By doing so, the only person whose reputation will suffer is yours, not mine. The decline in people's perception of your reputation will come from other posters, not me, as my opinion of your reputation reached 0% some time ago, and there is almost no probability that it will go above 0.0001% any time soon, if ever.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Richard-
I'm not sure what your point is. I think by definition, the application of Texas v. White in any future context would also be during a time of unrest. It's hard to imagine someone suggesting secession and not having the discussion be heated or controversial. To argue that the Civil War really settled the question is like saying that the American Revolution and post-revolution experience under the Articles of Confederation really settled a lot of the issues in the Constitution but that the framers merely put the results on paper. The document still says what it says. The Supreme Court's opinions still mean what they mean. There is no "it was a tumultuous time" exception to stare decisis.
More to the point, Lincoln nominated five justices to the Supreme Court during his time as President. Three of them were in the majority in the case (CJ Chase, Field, and Davis), two in dissent (Swayne and Miller). Not exactly stacked to achieve a reactionary result.
One important benefit to Texas has been overlooked: if they draw the boundaries judiciously, they could have the top four spots in the Execution Derby!
Yee haw!
wv: nestimf: Boy howdy, thet DeLay cin be one nesti MF!
If Texas seceded, would a Civil War-type invasion really be a good idea? It is hard to imagine regular Americans feeling anything beyond being impolitely shunned.
Statler:
I completely disagree that it would be easy for the U.S. to crush a secession rebellion in an individual state.
The American civil war included both an institution that the majority of Americans had come to believe was deeply morally wrong AND a secession movement pursued by people who had lost an election. It was clear to most in the north that the south was ditching the rules of the game to protect an obnoxious institution.
Now, imagine instead a modern state asking to leave the union simply because they believe they could do better on their own. Not over a morally debatable issue; not after losing an election. Just a statewide referendum that got, say, 85% of the vote. They promise peaceful and harmonious relations with the U.S., both economically and millitarily. They just want to be on their own.
It is almost impossible to imagine that the rest of the country's citizens would stand for a military occupation of such a state. Would it even be thinkable that a majority of Americans would support military action to keep California in the union, if it meant night after night of television in which American troops were shooting people in L.A.?
Of course I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but without a moral cause and/or a perception that a state is tossing the chessboard over, I doubt we could muster the public support to defeat a secession movement in an individual state that was simply preaching peace, harmony, but separation.
matt
As a proud resident of Plainland, I would like to point out that "Abeline" should be "Abilene."
Also, this potential state would likely be, one day, one of the wealthiest in the nation due to its enormous natural resources, namely oil and wind.
Texas should be reclaimed by Mexico. For those who just remember the Alamo. A group of terrorists decided to use violence and armed conflict against their Government (Mexico) and claim their independence.
One could argue that the Texans are the illegal aliens in the US.
If Texas wants to make the case to separate from the US, I hope Mexico goes to the UN and international court to make a legal claim to the land known as Texas. It would serve those arrogant bastards right.
MfM's comment about Maine's admission to the Union surprised me, because Maine isn't contiguous with Massachusetts, and wasn't in 1820. However, according to Wikipedia he's absolutely right, with the interesting addendum that the reason Congress agreed to the change was that it was one half of the Missouri Compromise.
Here's the relevant quote from Wikipedia (from article "Maine"):
Because it was physically separated from the rest of Massachusetts and was growing in population at a rapid rate, Maine became the 23rd state on March 15, 1820 through the Missouri Compromise. This compromise allowed admitting both Maine and Missouri (in 1821) into the union while keeping a balance between slave and free states.[13]
Well, there's a huge difference between California and Texas. For one thing, California would probably not try to leave the Union-they're more inclined to try to solve problems than jump ship.
The other thing has to o with the large number of taxpayer-financed projects in Texas. Much of their economy is partly due to the taxes I pid to help them develop. That stimulus package, for example, the NASA base or another, as well as the military bases that employ so many Texans. That's partly my property, as it is for every US citizen. If Texas were to leave and take that property with them, that would be theft.
Further, the SCOTUS has ruled that leaving requires more than a referendum, it also requires the consent of the rest of the Union. Unlike Canada, where Quebec was made a province without Quebecois approval, Texas asked to become a state. That means they voluntarily joined a federation with the other states, understanding fully that there were privileges and responsibilities to be fulfilled. We have territories like Puerto Rico and the Marianas Islands that do not enjoy the benefits of statehood, and an argument for them being allowed to leave without broader US approval could be made based on the fact that nobody asked them if they wanted to be in the US or not, and they lack Congressional representation while still having to pay taxes and live according to US laws drafted by a Congress they are not allowed to vote in.
Hell, you could probably make a good argument for DC leaving the Union based on that. Wouldn't that make the GOP shit bricks?
As for the states, they did join voluntarily, every one of them, and doing so comes with the understanding that once you do so, it is very difficult to leave. You have obligations to your fellow states at that point that cannot be annulled without their consent.
And yes, Texas would be reduced to ashes within a few days of secession by the US Army. I assure you, the Romans showed far greater mercy to Carthage than we will to Austin.
Statler?
Drinking again?
The other thing has to o with? What is 'o with'???
due to the taxes I pid? "[P]id" is short for what???
Then there are all the dangling participles in your screed, improper punctuation, etc., etc.
I was under the impression that you thought you were so much smarter than the rest of us that you were PERFECT, and that's why you can't stand it when someone asks you to consider another opinion. I may have to continue to devalue even further anything you post here.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
This is all really just an academic exercise anyway. There's a pretty strong vein of machismo in Texan culture, perhaps an inheritance of their Spanish and Mexican heritage and the Wild West. It's almost expected that Governor Parry would issue threats like that, much in the same way that it's fully expected that Achmedinijad will say something antisemitic whenever a camera is trained on him or that Netanyahu will say something nasty about Arabs. You can sort of predict it.
However, I rather doubt there will be any follow-up. Only 13% of Texans even say they want it, and of those, most would change their minds if it looked like it would actually happen very quickly.
Alot of guys will issue threats they have no intention of fulfilling to make themselves look tougher than they actually are. These are the guys that would tell you to show up in the parking lot after school when you were a kid, and mysteriously were never there at the appointed time. It's particularly comical when these guys are heavily overweight (as many Texans are), older, or simply out of shape because they smoke too much, eat shitty food and haven't worked out since they had to take PE. Picture one of these idiots armed with some little thing they got at a gun show trying to face down a fully armored and armed US Army soldier, who's 22 years old, built like a tank, and just got back from Iraq. I assure you, there will not be enough left of the idiot to bury, and it will be over with instantly. Say what you will about the wars and the people that ordered them or planned them; we have the finest military in the world, and only the most ignorant would dare to take one of our boys on. Whatever forces Governor Parry thinks he can marshal in the time he would have to do so would be pathetic compared to the fighting men that serve this country.
The last sound the Governor would hear would be the sound of the bugler playing the Degüello. After that, silence.
Yeah, I think now that you've had two main-page articles about this, it would only be fair (as well as VERY pertinent) to at least mention just how unpopular the idea of secession is amongst the general population in Texas. I suspect that support for dividing Texas up into smaller states would be in the single digits.
I know some in this state (and especially in government) do things that are perfectly open to ridicule, and rightly so. But by not mentioning these facts in your articles about speculative secession, it seems to me like an unfair (and, more importantly, inaccurate) portrait of Texan public opinion is being propagated: that we're a state dominated by the reactionary fringe when the opposite is actually true.
This is about Rick Perry trying to solidify the support of the far right behind him before Kay Bailey Hutchison can truly enter the picture, not a pander to the general population of Texas. I have a feeling that this quote is going to come back to bite him HARD in the coming campaign, which is likely to get very dirty.
Just thought it would have been worth at least a brief mention.
Nate: you assigned the counties on the western edge of the Metroplex to Plainland. The DFW MSA includes Wise and Parker Counties, which are on the eastern edge of Plainland; the CSA also has Hood, Somervell, and Palo Pinto Counties. Since the metro area is growing rapidly, you might want to draw the border one county to the west of these just to make sure there's not much cross-state commuting.
Neglected analysis: Consequences of state division on football recruiting. Not insignificant.
Prospero, if he's trying to draw support by saying these things, that implies that these things will draw him support.
Which implies that these ideas are supported by a significant number of Texans. If they were opposed by a significant number, they would cost him support, not build it.
Perhaps this exposes a certain sentiment among Texans that you fear would appear unsavory if acknowledged publicly?
A reasonable assertion. It does look unsavory, as does Texas.
Run him out of office if you really want to save face.
And then, just when you thought the situation couldn't possibly get any weirder, there was the governor of the state of Texas - Rick "Good Hair" Perry - telling a rally of screaming nincompoops that the Lone Star State had the constitutional right to secede from the union.
NOTE TO THE GOVERNOR:
You just might want to rethink this one, pardner. Between you and me and the lamp post, there are a whole heck of a lot of people out there (who don't live in Texas) who believe that your state's secession would be a perfectly nifty idea. It's a movement of opinion that is growing by the hour. Let me explain something to you Governor Perry; yours is the state that gave us Molly Ivins, Bill Moyers, Kinky Freidman (not to mention the Texas Jew Boys), Jim Hightower and the Barras family of Port Arthur (my first cousins on my mother's side). We kindly thank you for that. But you're also the state that gave us George W. Bush, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, Karl Rove - and you. My advice? Don't go there. Don't even think about going there. Believe me, Governor, many of us would be blissfully content to give that state back to Mexico. As someone much wiser than I once opined, "Be careful what you wish for."
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
You could look at a similar analysis of California as well...see this weeks Economist. Maybe this is a quid-pro-quo for a Texas break up?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13528065&source=hptextfeature
Texas would never split like this. You should talk to an Anthropologist or Urban Planner before trying even a theorhetical subdivision. It's much more likely to only split into four states with three of them having coastal access and two of them having border crossings. There is too much value in having those things for them to be overlooked and ceded to a single substate. El Paso would go with the largest chunk of 'plainsland' giving it a border crossing with the rest of 'plainsland' being given to the urban substates giving them farmland access.
You think in purely political terms but to do this you'd have to do urban/suburban/rural planning and that is not your baliwick so reach out to someone who thinks like a planner before wasting time with this kind of analysis.
Several commenters have mentioned the prerogative of the Congress in any scenario. It's important to keep that in mind. Congress admits States to the Union, States don't just 'enter.' (Of all the States, I'd think Texans would understand that better than most...)
Nate, you may want to check out Daniel Elazar's work on federalism. One important factor that he includes is the 'bargained' nature of sub-federal entities. That is, a truly federal system is constituted by States that had to negotiate their boundaries among one another. It is this 'original sovereignty' that leads to federalism.
The result is often irrational but necessitated by circumstances, Ã la the U.S. Senate.
I still say "Plainsland", or whatever part would include the NW portion of Texas, really needs to be named "West Oklahoma". :P
Now, would you please divide up California? Talk about a state that is really not a state! And, it's not the traditional northern / southern California split. You've got at least five states between coastal SoCal, the Imperial Valley, the Central Valley, the SF Bay Area, the Sierra Nevada, and the far north.
Dwight,
Why not just have Okla. annex that part?
You know, the real problem with this theory is that the former Republic of Texas has ALREADY been divided into five states: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado.
Take a look for yourself. Here's a map of the former Republic of Texas:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/texas/pictures/republic-texas-map-1500.jpg
The Republic didn't last nearly as long as the ProvinceReunite Mexico!You bastards hate the USA so much you wanna secede, huh? Let's see how long you last being overrun by drug lords before you beg the US to take you back.
We might just say no, too.
New Texas should just be called Austin. I personally think you all should just ignore Rick Perry. That's what I do.
El Paso has nothing in common with the lower Rio Grande. Put far west Texas in it's own state and/or let it join New Mexico.
The Economist article about splitting California is ignorant. Los Angeles draws many commuters from Orange County and the Inland Empire; every reasonable split should keep them together. The politics are less different than you think - Orange County is getting more Democratic with Hispanic immigration; Los Angeles County is more Democratic, but it also voted narrowly for Prop 8. Conversely, the SF Bay Area extends further inland than the article implies, covering rural commuter towns in Napa Valley, where people nonetheless vote strictly Democratic.
Many have poo-pooed the splits that Nate devised because of 'metro areas being split' or 'cross-state commuting' or other such reasons.
I dare say that some of you forget that such situations already exist:
Chicago is in Illinois, but there is a lot of 'cross-state commuting' by people from Indiana and some from Wisconsin.
The Washington, DC metro area is in three jurisdictions:
DC
Virginia
Maryland
There is a LOT of cross-state commuting between the three jurisdictions. One only has to see the traffic patterns on the American Legion Bridge, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (both between Maryland and Virginia), and the 14th Street, Roosevelt, Chain and Key Bridges from Virginia into the District to see the cross-state commuting. Also, the commuting from Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Frederick and Anne Arundel Counties into the District (by various routes) and into Virginia. Add in the commuters from southern Maryland counties, and you've got hundreds of thousands of commuters who cross jurisdictional lines each day to travel between work and home.
Don't forget New York City, drawing in commuters from Connecticut and New Jersey.
Don't forget Philadelphia, drawing in commuters from Delaware.
Louisville, Kentucky has many commuters from Indiana who work in the city, crossing the Ohio River (thus the state line) to get to and from work.
Cincinnati, Ohio has many commuters who cross the Ohio River from Kentucky to get to and from work.
Crossing a state boundary on a daily basis to get to and from work is normal for millions of people.
Fort Wayne, Indiana draws many daily commuters from north west Ohio.
South Bend, Indiana draws many daily commuters from southern Michigan.
St. Louis, Missouri draws many daily commuters from south western Illinois.
The Quad cities area of norther Illinois and eastern Iowa? The same thing.
Wheeling, West Virginia draws workers from Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Boston, Massachusetts? From Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Other metropolitan areas with lots of cross-jurisdictional commuting include
Providence, Rhode Island
Albany, New York
Baltimore, Maryland
Charlotte, North Carolina
Savannah, Georgia
Evansville, Indiana
Tallahassee, Florida
Wilmington, Delaware
Mobile, Alabama
Memphis, Tennessee
The Twin Cities in Minnesota
Grand Forks and Fargo, North Dakota
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Omaha, Nebraska
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Shreveport, Louisiana
El Paso, Texas
You should get the picture by now that it is NOT an uncommon and isolated occurrence for people to cross state lines to get between work and home.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Nice. Suppose I should get a shirt that says "Fuck Y'all, I'm from NEW Texas"
Oh Good Lord. As a native born Texan I find this an interesting debate but generally likely to be unpopular by those of us who actually live here. First off we like the fact that our state is as large as it is. It's a mater of pride that we have most forms of geography within our bounds. we don't have to go out of state to see mountains or prairies or deserts or marshlands or forests. We have it all here. Plus there is our cultural identity. We have a history spotted and messy though it may be. Finally we need each other. With the problems we have spilling over from the drug cartels in Mexico, separating would only make the problem worse.
On a side note, I don't think El Norte would be a good name. I'm going to school in Kingsville, which is not far form Corpus and down here for the most part we refer to that region of Texas as The Valley.
Also Rick Perry is an idiot.
jas-themadtexan said...
Oh Good Lord. As a native born Texan I find this an interesting debate but generally likely to be unpopular by those of us who actually live here.
Seems that an equal number of GOOPers in Tex-Ass think Perry has a good idea about secession as think that Perry is nuts. (Research 2000 poll. Question: Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?
Party ID...US...Ind...Not Sure
Republicans 48 48 4)
Since the GOOPers control most of the elected offices at the state level, I think that neutralizes a lot of the popular will that you speak of that is counter to the secessionist talk.
But since secession is off the table (is Perry THAT stupid? And what does it say about those people of Tex-Ass who support him?), and because many of the GOOPers think they can gerrymander the state into more power by dividing the state into multiple states, it's a valid discussion of what those states might look like.
If the people of Tex-Ass don't want all this discussion about their state going on, why not send a message to Governor Good Hair by getting rid of him through the ballot box next year, and then the new governor repudiate his and Delay's vision of Tex-Ass being 'different' than the rest of the US, but at the same time telling everyone who doesn't agree with each and every point they spout, that the person who isn't in agreement is 'UnAmvrican'?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
MiM: yes, there's cross-state commuting now. But if you want to redraw state boundaries, it would be logical to avoid such a situation. When you collect the entire area in one state, it's easier to engage in garden variety urban planning. With multiple states, you get political fragmentation. For instance, in New York, there are three separate agencies overseeing transportation - the New Jersey Transit, the NY-based MTA, and the joint NY- and NJ-based Port Authority. Each runs its own assortment of buses, toll roads, and rail lines, and none ever cooperates with the others.
Maybe you can take a look at other states and how they could be hypothetically broken up to better match their regions. Take Indiana for instance, you have the North which is more tied to Ohio/Michigan/Illinois, Central Indiana, and Southern Indiana. All very different regions and different focus. I wonder how it would change electoral politics across the country.
Woof, that's a heavy analysis.
It would really create a mess in the US senate, because it would add 8 senate seats and raise the "magic number" for cloture even higher.
Can you do a version of this for New York?
What if New York City + Long Island (Naasau and Suffolk Counties)split and created a new state? Or rather forced the North to create a new state by "kicking them out" and keeping the name New York.
Many NYC residents vacation in Sullivan, Orange, Ulster, Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester (which may as well be a part of Bronx anyway) lets toss those in too!
NYC can finally be rid of Albany and their shenanigans!
Paul Angelone,
Native Hoosiers formerly considered US 40 the dividing line between Northern Indiana and Southern Indiana. The de facto dividing line is now considered I-70.
All of Indiana north of Indy is very closely tied to Detroit (motor vehicles, transportation and manufacturing) and Chicago (agricultural [livestock and futures markets especially]). Southern Indiana is more tied to mineral extraction (coal especially) and limestone.
Indy is more of a toss up, but most consider it more akin to Northern Indiana than southern because of the large manufacturing base that formerly was in Indy. Being host of the Indy 500 doesn't hurt either.
If Indiana split, my reason to oppose it would be that the better University (IU) would not be in the part of the state I called home, and the totally boring Pur-who?, located in the northern part of the state, would be the de facto state university for North Indiana (for lack of a better name of the state).
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Statler N Waldorf
The question of public support for secession in Texas is nothing new. We've seen a number of polls on the issue, and the percentage of Texans who support secession is ALWAYS marginal.
Even the pro-secession websites admit as much. This is a settled question.
So please, don't try to tell me what my motivation is. I am IN NO WAY worried that a critical number of my fellow Texans support secession simply because I know better, and you would have as well if you had taken a few seconds to briefly research the question.
What bothers me are the people who use the fringe 10-15% of Texans (those who may support secession) to paint the ENTIRE STATE with a broad brush.
The simple fact that speaking of Texas as some monolith infested with far-right extremists is misleading at best, outright dishonest at worst.
In no way was I or am I accusing Nate or anyone else at this site of doing this, I just thought, as I mentioned above, that the pertinent statistics on the low level of support for moves like this would be worth at least a mention.
I know a lot of you guys are personally invested in ridiculing Texans for ideological reasons. The point is not to fall into the same trap of ignorant provincialism that the "socialist state of california" or "taxachussetts" jerks have.
Such Balkanization is afoot!
I've always thought state borders were a little silly. People move, and differences erupt as time passes and areas formerly similar grow apart. Western Washington and Oregon have more in common than the eastern parts of their state. Northwest Indiana has more in common with Chicago than Indianapolis. Northern Virginia is more like DC than anything from Stafford County southward.
We treat borders as if the cultures contained within them were so strongly distinct for all time. New York's North Country is more like Southern Quebec than it is NYC. Oddly, Buffalo and Rochester are very much like NYC, and yet nothing like the Finger Lakes. How exactly would you redraw the border to connect Monroe and Erie Counties to NYC?
Should you hive off northern New jersey and join it to NYC? Would Western Mass and Albany make more sense to you?
At one time, Northern Maine was distinctly American and not at all like British North America. Now, New Brunswickers marry Downstate Mainers more often than Dowsntaters marry Bostonians, although Maine and Boston used to be parts of the same state.
Gary is more like Chicago, but Chicago'll never own that fact. New Jersey is more like NYC than the NYCers would care to admit. Vancouver, BC is more like Seattle than it is Toronto or Montreal. Seattle is more like SF than Centralia and Chehalis.
Oklahoma City is kinda like Dallas, not much like Tulsa.
How can we gerrymander these state lines to accommodate these things? The states would be shaped all weird. You'd have enclaves and exclaves. Nobody would be able to tell which state they were in at any one point as they drove down the road, because they would pass in and out of areas with similarity and difference culturally.
The state lines are all bullshit, anyway. They're mostly based on geographical boundaries, which made sense before anybody lived there. So what if Pullman is more like Moscow, or if Hammond is more like Joliet?
We shouldn't be this homogeneous anyway. When liberals and conservatives live in purely conservative or purely liberal areas, how can you hold a dialogue?
I'm reminded of this lady I slept in a cot next to at a Red Cross shelter during the hurricanes a few years back. She was a volunteer from New York, and she and I agreed on alot of issues. The sheriff of the town we were staying in dropped by to donate some food and blankets gratis of the local townspeople. He was a right-wing conservative, as hard right as you can get without being completely crazy. And he was nice to us. He tried to talk about politics, and she shut him down, "Oh no! I have my beliefs and they,re not subject to negotiation or compromise! Don't even try it." I decided to talk with him about the stuff she didn't want to. And while we were very, very different in our outlook, we found common ground on some issues, and he pointed out the holes in my arguments that I thought were watertight, and I did the same for him. At the start of the convo, we both thought the other was nuts.
At the end, we both thought the other was an American. And that's what really mattered.
It,s amazing how you bond with someone so not like you when you,re waiting out a storm together.
Sheriff, if you're out there, I thank you. We may never see eye to eye politically, but at least we looked each other in the eye, which proves neither of us is blind.
Oh, and your wife is an amazing cook. Tell her I said thanks for the cookies she baked for everybody.
Prospero,
Hey, I didn't paint your state with a broad brush- your Governor did!
BrooklynKnight: you're not the first disaffected Downstater who's proposed splitting away from Upstate. If that happens, I doubt the boundaries will be as you say they should be. Dutchess, Putnam, and Orange Counties are quite conservative, and may not want to be in an ultra-liberal state; they'll pay a higher than fair share of taxes in Upstate, but the overall tax level will probably be lower.
On the other hand, the only reason to keep New Jersey as it is, instead of give the northern half to New York and the southern half to Pennsylvania, is to allow smug New Yorkers to keep making Jersey jokes.
Heh. Believe me, I'm already pissed enough at "hairdo" Perry.
The thing you have to understand is that this was a pander to Republican primary voters, who tend to be older and more conservative than even run-of-the-mill Texas Republicans.
These guys are the FAR right, and they're who Perry needs to beat out Kay Bailey Hutchison.
That's what this was all about. This is how Perry keeps getting reelected: far-right Texas Republicans fall for these dog and pony shows he puts on over and over and over again.
If only Texas Democrats could get their act together enough to mount a serious challenge...
Thing is, if you,re pandering to the extremes, aren't you alienating the middle?
Assuming a normal distribution, the extremes are always fewer in number than the moderates. The definition of a radical is someone on the outer fringe, who does not represent the majority, and rather represents a very small minority of public opinion.
As such, appealing tot he radical fringe should be a losing strategy, if doing so in turn alienates the middle.
Take the Equal Marriage issue. Mike calls me a radical because I favor Equal Marriage, and he believes the majority of the electorate does not. Since we're 4:46, he may be correct. I intend to change that, and thankfully, the momentum os on my side, so maybe soon we'll have it closer to 50:0. At which point, he will be the radical and I will be the normal one.
Unless Governor Parry thinks a) the majority of Texans will tolerate secession talk if not endorse it or b) the majority of Texans want secession and will not openly admit it, then his is a losing bet. I kinda doubt he doesn't realize this, so at least he thinks he is correct in his assumptions about where the electorate is, and does not see himself or his speech as radical.
So either he's crazy or you're lying. I guess we'll find out on Election Day who's right about Texans.
So Nate, have you reserved fivefortysix.com yet?
Statler N Waldorf
Look, you admitted YOURSELF above that only 13% of Texans support secession. Are you now disavowing your own statements JUST for the sake of being argumentative!?
WTH?
I explained to you EXACTLY why Perry is making this appeal to the far right. You did nothing whatsoever to refute my argument. So what, exactly, is your problem?
I completely agree that this stance will hurt Perry and Texas Republicans as a whole in the long run. They're becoming increasingly radicalized in a state that is becoming a lighter shade of red every year, and this WILL have consequences.
The reason he can get away with it in the short term is simple: the Democrats and the moderates are too disorganized to mount an offensive of the massive scale needed to pry the Republicans out.
Why? Because the Republicans have a stranglehold on the government in Texas. This was the model Karl Rove used when he discussed a "permanent Republican majority". They used every dirty trick in the book to make it as difficult as possible for Democrats to regain power even if a plurality of the general (rather than the voting) public chose them over the Republicans. Most people have heard about the gerrymandering, but few outside the state are aware of the gargantuan scope of this effort over the past few decades.
Because of this, Texas Democrats aren't even running a candidate in the 2010 guberatorial race. It will be a three-way Republican battle. And THAT is why Perry can get away with the extremist rhetoric in the short term.
He's not crazy. I'm not lying. You're just wrong.
Statler: you can't really draw borders based on character anymore. The most similar city to New York in terms of economic profile, position in the world, etc., is London. Somehow I don't see an independent New York-London country.
What you can do is draw based on economic integration, and some form of agreement on how to engage in politics. This doesn't have to be about complete agreement - even basic notions about tax rates, like those in New York and Texas, can help. Otherwise you get polarization and California-style gridlock.
Prospero,
Wait... they're not even running a candidate? The race is still a year out, and they've already given up?
Wow, that seriously sucks, and I'm really sorry to hear that. Come move east. Louisiana's fucked up too, but New Orleans is okay. Our Democrats like to fight and don't roll over so easily. Hell, it took a force of nature to topple us, and one of the biggest in recorded history at that. Come east and help us rebuild a Democratic majority in Louisiana. The food's better here, anyway.
Listen honey, I've found that politicians are kinda like boyfriends. The best ones will always be there to back you up in a fight, even if it means they,re gonna get hurt doing it. If those Texas Democrats won't fight for you, come on over here, and we'll fight for ya. I may be brandishing a high heeled show, but I can fuck some Republican ass up with that high heeled shoe, honey doll. If Texas won't defend you, come on over here and help me defend New Orleans.
Defend New Orleans
Yeah, the Texas Dems are focusing on the Senate, this year. They're pouring all of their resources into that race.
As annoying as Perry is, the Texas governor is mostly a figurehead. The state is run by the lieutenant governor and the comptroller's office along with the legislature.
It's frustrating as hell to me that they're not even contesting the governorship next year, but I do understand prioritization and limited resources in a state where the government mechanisms themselves are hostile to you.
Well, I never thought I'd find a state machine more hostile than Jindal and Vitter. Why isn't the DNC offering to help you? Surely they can pick up the tab for your Senate run so you can devote your resources to the gubernatorial race.
At least make an effort,run somebody, even if you know they'll lose. You've got to get out there and draw some blood, you hear me? Who,s the strongest Democrat you have over there right now? Can you get them to climb into the ring?
You can be sure that if there turned out to be any mathematical way to gerrymander 5 red states & 10 GOP senators out of the lone star, that's exactly what would go down.
Even if each state looked like a pretzel or octopus on the map.
Prospero said...
What bothers me are the people who use the fringe 10-15% of Texans (those who may support secession) to paint the ENTIRE STATE with a broad brush.
Prospero? Research 2000's poll shows 48% of Republicans in Tex-Ass would support secession.
So let's call those 48% of Republican Tex-Ass dwellers the 'fringe 10-15%'.
The only conclusion I can draw between your statement and the Research 2000 poll is that Republicans are 20-30% of the population of Tex-Ass?
The Democratic Party in Tex-Ass is in VERY poor shape if that is the case.
Actually, I think the supporters of Tex-Ass secession are about 35-40% of Tex-Ass Republicans (who are probably about 40% of the electorate), and about 15% of the non-Republicans (Independents, the truly right-wing fringe, Libertarians, the mentally deranged, etc.) in Tex-Ass - total of about 25-30% of the total population in the state - support secession.
Over a period of several decades, I've lived around and worked with many people who formerly were from Tex-Ass - either born there and moved away (at least temporarily), or lived and worked there for a number of years. Many have stated that the mood for secession in Tex-Ass is much greater than most realize, and has been for decades. Not for the usual reasons one would think (Civil War nostalgia, integration, 'conservative values', etc.), but a purely psychological "Tex-Ass is better than you" attitude that permeates the thought process so much most don't even realize it.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
P.S., And why do I call it Tex-Ass? I was told by several former residents of Tex-Ass that the 'Tex-Ass first, and if we can't be first, let's secede' crowd is REAL sensitive to that pronunciation. Apparently, it's like the proverbial red towel to the bull - forget everything else, KILL KILL KILL. Good tool for distraction. They get so irritated by the pronunciation they can't even think about rebutting the argument.
Alon Levy said...
yes, there's cross-state commuting now. But if you want to redraw state boundaries, it would be logical to avoid such a situation.
This is one case where I can at least partially agree with some right-wingers - muddled and pointy-headed 'logic'.
When boundaries are drawn, logic for some is illogic for others. For instance, when the state lines for Missouri were drawn, straight lines were originally drawn for the Northern, Western and Southern state lines. Politics entered for the 'Boot Heel' in the south-east corner, and practicalities (and profit) entered for the north-west corner of the state - the practicality was following the Missouri River, and the profit was the person who had political influence AND owned large land holdings in that area, and wanted to make a profit from selling 'Missouri land' rather than lower potentially profitable "Kansas land'.
When you collect the entire area in one state, it's easier to engage in garden variety urban planning. With multiple states, you get political fragmentation. For instance, in New York, there are three separate agencies overseeing transportation - the New Jersey Transit, the NY-based MTA, and the joint NY- and NJ-based Port Authority. Each runs its own assortment of buses, toll roads, and rail lines, and none ever cooperates with the others.
Cry me a river about the three (only THREE?) agencies that have adjacent/overlapping jurisdictions. Happens anywhere you have multiple jurisdictions within a short distance from one another.
For instance, in the DC Metro area, you have Park Service police with certain jurisdiction in DC, in Maryland, and in Virginia.
Travel from the White House to Baltimore using the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, and you are initially on streets patrolled by the DC police as you go north east on New York Avenue. Cross the DC-MD state line, and the Parkway is patrolled by Maryland state police. At the intersection with Route 50, US Park police patrol the roadway to the intersection with Maryland Rte 175, where the roadway is again patrolled by the Maryland State Police. This continues to the city line of Baltimore, where the patrol is taken over by the Baltimore City police.
DC police, Maryland State Police, US Park Police, back to Maryland State Police, then Baltimore City Police - total distance? About 40 miles.
The total number of police departments in DC and the metro area?
Dozens.
Not only do you have the Metropolitan Police Department (DC police), you also have the Maryland and Virginia state police. Add in the city and county police units (Montgomery, Prince George's, Anne Arundel, Howard, Frederick and Charles to name the closest counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William Counties in Virginia), plus the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax City, Manassas, Fairfax and Manassas Park. Then add in the local police departments in the cities and towns in Maryland, and the non-independent cities in Virginia.
Now add in the US Park Police, United States Capital Police (police force on Capital Hill), Armed Forces Retirement Home Police, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Naval District Washington Police, Supreme Court of the United States Police, United States Pentagon Police, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Federal Protective Service, Smithsonian Institution Office of Protection Services, Executive Protection Service, Secret Service and the various law enforcement agencies on the various Cabinet Departments, among others. We also can't forget the separate police departments for National and Dulles Airports. Add in the Amtrak police department.
Then you have the police force for Washington's Metro system (subway and buses).
In some places in DC and immediate surrounding area, you can stand in one spot and be in one law enforcement agency's jurisdiction, move 10 feet and be in another law enforcement agency's jurisdiction, move another 10 feet and be in a completely different law enforcement agency's jurisdiction, move another 10 feet (you get the picture).
The Metro system? Maryland, Virginia and the District must agree on everything - Maryland from Annapolis and Virginia from Richmond. In addition, all the participating counties (Montgomery, Prince George's, Arlington, and Fairfax Counties, and Alexandria (independent city) have a say and must also agree. Add in the Federal Government to the mix.
Then there are oddities like the Woodrow Wilson Bridge - owned by the Federal Government; draw-bridge and provision of electricity is the responsibility of the District; law enforcement patrol is provided by Maryland; routine maintenance is provided by Virginia.
If the President travels to Andrews Air Force base by auto, he might start traveling on streets patrolled by the Secret Service and/or Executive Protective Service, then on streets by the Metropolitan Police Department. Then travel on the Suitland Parkway (patrolled by US Park Police). On reaching the gates of Andrews, the jurisdiction again changes to the Air Force. And if the President doesn't travel on the Suitland Parkway, he will travel on streets and roadways patrolled by the Maryland State Police and/or Prince George's County Police. Total distance? Less than 15 miles.
Maintenance of those streets the President traveled to Andrews AFB? By the District government; Federal Park Service; state of Maryland and/or Prince George's County.
Want to build a building in or around DC? You might have to get permission and approval of plans from the local jurisdiction, plus the Architect of the Capital and/or the National Capital Planning Commission and/or the Federal Aviation Commission and/or US Park Service and/or EPA and/or the Chesapeake Bay Commission and/or Metro, etc., etc., etc.
Don't give me the New York and New Jersey departments running travel facilities that don't talk to each other as an example - that's peanuts in the DC area.
How to solve it? Sit down and hammer out an agreement. If there's a need, eventually it will happen. If there's no real need, or lack of political will-power, it won't happen.
So is it no need, or lack of political will in the example you gave? It's one or the other. Otherwise, they would hammer out an agreement and work together.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Prospero said...
What bothers me are the people who use the fringe 10-15% of Texans (those who may support secession) to paint the ENTIRE STATE with a broad brush.
That represents 2.5 to 4 million people. When the "fringe" is one in ten people that has a serious impact on the tone of the population as a whole.
P.S. Mike, could you please grow-ass up.
A meaningless distinction
Presumably, any state could be broken up in similar fashion to this notional division of Texas, in that Congress could vote to carve a new territory from a state, then promte the territory to a new state, a la West Virginia. I don't see why you couldn't have a "remix" either, with pieces parts drawn from many states recombined into new states. Such a mechanism may be how we'll get rid of the small state Senatorial and EC advantage, since we would just need a majority, and not supermajorities that the small states could block.
But if that's the case, then Texas is not at all a special case, a state with any special "right" to split itself into five or fifty new states. I assume that this treaty under which the sovereign state of Texas was admitted as a state of the Union did not create a right to split that Texas could implement without at least enabling legislation from the same Congress, requiring the same Congressional majority, that other states would need to do similar splits or remixes. Unless that assumption is wrong, then Texas differs not at all in this matter from other states, except insofar as Texas is a state of mind.
MiM: So is it no need, or lack of political will in the example you gave? It's one or the other.It's not exactly either - lack of political will is closer, though. Most people just can't imagine the New Jersey Transit and MTA as anything but separate agencies. This leads to inefficiencies in operation. Far from trivial, these inefficiencies have clogged Penn Station, prompting New Jersey to spend $7 billion's worth of stimulus money on a new station plus tunnels that it could have gotten for $2 billion.
I had a hunch the jurisdictional problems in Washington were worse, but I wasn't sure. But that just underscores my point that many problems in US urban planning could be mitigated if you collected metro areas into single states. The reason New York's problems aren't so big is that Manhattan is located in the same state as most of its bedroom communities.
Of course it's just an academic debate, but within the academic debate, there's room for economic and political logic.
Dwight:
"That represents 2.5 to 4 million people. When the "fringe" is one in ten people that has a serious impact on the tone of the population as a whole."
Heh, show me a state where 1 in 10 people aren't part of SOME fringe ideology.
Seriously, it's not like Texas is by any means alone. Hell, we're a lot more liberal than a lot of midwest states, now. Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the deep south states just to name a few.
And then there's Alaska...
As for the Research 2000 poll Mr. Juvenile brought up: the sample size was 600 likely voters, for some reason. It was not even a poll of the general public.
There are SEVERAL relatively current polls of the general public on this issue, which you only have to Google "Texas secession poll" to find. NONE of them show support for secession above 18%. None.
Again: some people have fallen into the same sort of petty provincial mindset that the "KKKalifornia" morons have. There's nothing I can do about that, and there's nothing I can say that won't result in them throwing reasoned debate out the window so they can vent their juvenile frustrations.
Texas cannot unilaterally sub-divide itself into new states without permission of the Congress, as detailed in Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution. Article 4 also has the "supremacy clause" which would have the Constitution trump any state constitution where there was a conflict.
Brian Ragle said...
Texas cannot unilaterally sub-divide
Well, except that the rsolution admitting Texas to the Union says that Texas can subdivide - and that was passed by Congress, so arguably Congress has already agreed per Art. 4 of the US Const. Or maybe that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. I don't know.
Anyway, the reality is that the Republic of Texas has already been divided into five states: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado. So the whole question seems moot.
"No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State...without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."
The Congress did not grant pre-active consent to something the Texas constitution claimed it could do. There are lots of things which variously conflict between state and Federal constitutions. However, when they are put to the test, the Fed trumps the states.
Brian Rangle
"Annexation then became an issue in the presidential election of 1844; James K. Polk, who favored annexation, was elected. Tyler, feeling the need of haste if British designs were to be circumvented, suggested that annexation be accomplished by a joint resolution offering Texas statehood on certain conditions, the acceptance of which by Texas would complete the merger. The United States Congress passed the annexation resolution on February 28, 1845, and Andrew Jackson Donelson proceeded to Texas to urge acceptance of the offer."
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/mga2.html
Congress did indeed grant consent because the US wanted to get their hands on Texas before the Brits or Mexicans could. It has nothing to do with the Texas Constitution, but with the terms of annexation.
The question of whether or not the original agreement is binding today I really have no idea about, though.
But the reality is that this would never, EVER happen anyway. This is exclusively an intellectual exercise.
The initial agreement for Texas would no longer apply anyway because Texas was one of the Confederate states - the only agreement that would have relevance is the one that allowed Texas back into the Union after the Civil War.
Nate, this just is not a possibility. It's an interesting analysis, but it's not possible for Texas to do this.
Ever.
Haha, I love it. Very interesting and fun article. However, as a resident of the Austin in New Texas, I would like to request that you extend Gulfland's territory to include College Station...
This article was informative and meticulously researched, but I have to find fault in the lack of creativity demonstrated in the state names. Gulfland and Plainland will not do. Let's put a little Texas history and geography to use.
You're on the right track with Trinity. Lots of states and countries take their names from rivers. I'd stick with that precedent in renaming El Norte after the Rio Grande (or Rio Bravo) and changing Gulfland to Brazoria. The Brazos River bisects and forms part of the eastern border of Gulfland. Any river originally named the Brazos del Dios deserves its own state. As for Plainland, the state more or less shares a boundary with the geographic feauture known as the Llano Estacado, or Staked Plain. As for New Texas, it should revert to Waterloo, the original name of Austin before it was renamed to honor the founding empresario of Texas. What better name to signal the end of Texas than Waterloo?
To recap, the 5 states of former Texas would be:
Trinity
Rio Grande
Brazoria
Waterloo
Llano (Estacado)
I'm a little curious about what effect this might have on other forms of voting patterns. Right now, Texas is a very safe red state, and everyone knows it. This means that voting might be effectively suppressed in much of Texas. If we divided Texas into blocks, than suddenly a lot of these regions would be a lot more competitive, and might bring out Democrats who previously didn't vote because there was no point.
"the only agreement that would have relevance is the one that allowed Texas back into the Union after the Civil War."
You say that, but I think we would need to look at the terms of the resolution readmitting Texas. Just saying it trumps the 1845 resolution does not make it so.
So here it is:
Whereas the people of Texas have framed and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of Texas elected under said constitution has ratified the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these several acts in good faith is a condition precedent to the representation of the State in Congress: Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the said State of Texas is entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States: Provided, That before any member of the legislature of said State shall take or resume his seat, or any officer of said State shall enter upon the duties of his office he shall take and subscribe and file in the office of the secretary of State of Texas, for permanent preservation, an oath or affirmation in the form following: "I, ____ ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterward engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, so help me God"; or under the pains and penalties of perjury (as the case may be); or such person shall, in like manner, take, subscribe. and file the following oath or affirmation: "I, ____ ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have, by act of Congress of the United States, been relieved from the disabilities imposed upon me by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so help me God"; or under the pains and penalties of perjury (as the case may be); which oaths or affirmations shall be taken before, and certified by, any officer lawfully authorized to administer oaths.
And any person who shall knowingly swear or affirm falsely in taking either of such oaths or affirmations, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and shall be punished therefor by imprisonment not less than one year, and not more than ten years, and shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars, and not more than ten thousand dollars.
And in all trials for any violation of this act, the certificate of the taking of either of said oaths or affirmations, with proof of the signature of the party accused shall be taken and held as conclusive evidence that such oath or affirmation was regularly and lawfully administered by competent authority:
And provided further, That every such person who shall neglect for the period of thirty days next after the passage of this act to take, subscribe, and file such oath or affirmation as aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to all intents and purposes to have vacated his office:
And provided further, That the State of Texas is admitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union upon the following fundamental conditions:
First. That the constitution of Texas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: Provided, That any alteration of said constitution, prospective in its effects, may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters.
Second. That it shall never be lawful for the said State to deprive any citizen of the United States on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the right to hold office under the constitution and laws of said State, or upon any such ground to require of him any other qualifications for office than such as are required of all other citizens.
Third. That the constitution of Texas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the constitution of said State.
Approved March 30, 1870.
As you can see, the 1870 resolution says nothing about the 1845 resolution. You can argue that the secession somehow nullifies the 1845 resolution, but do you have any case or statute that supports that conclusion? I think the US Supreme Court could rule either way, depending on their opinions.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
Post a Comment