Skip

The five states of Texas
April 24, 2009 8:00 PM   Subscribe

Following the recent uproar over Texas and the possibility of its secession (previously), Fivethirtyeight.com puts forward a theoretical division of Texas into five states: Plainland, Trinity, Gulfland, New Texas, and El Norte.
posted by aerotive (52 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
El Norte, which is actually El Sur, might as well be El DMZ.
posted by rokusan at 8:03 PM on April 24, 2009


That's how Nate Silver would divide the state, but obviously the Texas GOP would gerrymander the hell out of it to produce the maximum number of GOP senators and electoral college votes.

And speaking of the EC, unless they could make the divisions perfect, it would make it almost impossible for a republican to win the presidency based on the current rest of the map. The republicans would lose their biggest block of EC votes, but the democrats would keep California and New York.

Of course, things change over time. California used to be a swing state.
posted by delmoi at 8:25 PM on April 24, 2009


"the Texas GOP would gerrymander the hell out of it to produce the maximum number of GOP senators and electoral college votes."

If they seceded, why the hell would they get any electoral college votes?
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 8:34 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Secession would be the threat if they caught resistance about splitting the state.
posted by mrt at 8:38 PM on April 24, 2009


If they seceded, why the hell would they get any electoral college votes?
As the article points out, Texas doesn't really have the right to secede. It does, however, have the right to divide itself into 5 separate states (while still being part of the U.S.).
posted by Bernt Pancreas at 8:39 PM on April 24, 2009


If they seceded, why the hell would they get any electoral college votes?

It seems an obvious point, but in 1995, a majority of Quebeckers who planned to vote Yes for separation thought that they would still be represented in Ottawa by Quebec-elected Members of Parliament.
posted by fatbird at 8:40 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Somehow I can't see them changing Big Tex to Big Trin.
posted by rosswald at 8:47 PM on April 24, 2009


If they seceded, why the hell would they get any electoral college votes?

These are Republicans.

I'd like to point out that this is the party that was created to abolish slavery. They are now the party of traitor-Morons, open racists, theocrats, proud war criminals, and anti-gay bigots. And poop hats.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:52 PM on April 24, 2009 [6 favorites]


The time isn't right for a five state solution, not until the world community sees New Texas commit to peace and renounce its funding of Truck Ballz.
posted by rokusan at 8:57 PM on April 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


I'd like to point out that this is the party that was created to abolish slavery. They are now the party of traitor-Morons, open racists, theocrats, proud war criminals, and anti-gay bigots. And poop hats.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:52 PM on April 24 [+] [!]

This is why I am proud to be a Texan: I'm a liberal, but Im not such a close minded asshole that I can't comprehend the opposing view and can get along with those on the other side of "wedge" issues
posted by rosswald at 8:57 PM on April 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


My recollection of this from my two years of Texas history back in the 1970's was that Texas had the right to split into 5 states. If for some reason, the plan to split was rejected by congress, secession was one of the available options.

I say, good riddance.
posted by michswiss at 8:58 PM on April 24, 2009


According to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, "[n]ew 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."

So, not gonna happen.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:58 PM on April 24, 2009


I'm a liberal, but Im not such a close minded asshole that I can't comprehend the opposing view and can get along with those on the other side of "wedge" issues

this is very interesting please elaborate on what the opposing view on the wedge issues is and how you comprehend it
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 9:02 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


well probably we would need a pretty big wedge to pry texas off the rest of the states. big hammer, too.
posted by wemayfreeze at 9:05 PM on April 24, 2009


I think dirigibleman is onto something here. Every time the republicans are referenced it should be noted that they were founded to abolish slavery.

For example:

The House Republicans, whose original mission was to abolish slavery, recently proposed an alternate budget that extend tax cuts to the wealthy.

The National Republican Party, established to ensure the emancipation of African Americans, recently committed to calling the Democrats socialists as often as possible.

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, whose party was founded with the purpose of ending human bondage and slavery in the United States, recently called for his state to leave the union.

How the mighty have fallen.
posted by zenon at 9:07 PM on April 24, 2009 [12 favorites]


I haven't any hope of finding the cartoon tonight, but Ben Sargent did this decades ago. Black Texas, White Texas,Hispanic Texas, Central Texas.

That "Central Texas" might have been "Hippie Country". Memory is fuzzy.

The names are cute, but "Plainland" would be called "West Texas" even though it isn't. "Trinity" would be called "North Texas" even though it isn't. "Gulf land" would be "South Texas". "New Texas" would be "Central Texas" because we simply must keep the "Texas" name and we haven't much imagination.

What's that? What would "El Norte" be instead? New Mexico. Seriously. Most of Texas forgets it's there - Texas still stops at the Pecos River for a lot of people.
posted by lysdexic at 9:08 PM on April 24, 2009


Here's another irony, the very same people who called us traitors because we criticized George Bush's policies (at least one of which is now known to be a a war crime), these very same people, are now openly advocating treason against the United States of America because their man lost an election.

(And oh yeah, their party's first President fought the most destructive war ever battled on American soil to prevent secession.)
posted by dirigibleman at 9:21 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


It'll never happen. "Don't Mess With Plainland, Trinity, Gulfland, New Texas, and El Norte" won't fit on a license plate.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:28 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry ... recently called for his state to leave the union."

No, in fact, he didn't. He said his state had the right to, and that such a right should be kept in mind by policymakers lest they go too far. He also said that he thought it would be a bad idea to secede, which is a far cry from what you're characterizing him as having said.

I'm not sure if you're a liar, or just illiterate.
posted by jock@law at 9:40 PM on April 24, 2009


Five states wouldn't help me, but I am perfectly fine with the idea of a Texan secession. It feeds nicely into my plans to create a military junta south of the border, which my respect for established nations currently prevents me from fulfilling.

But a new country? That's some conquerable lands. Do the "hearts and minds" things right, get the people on your side, and they'll like you better than the new assholes who've taken charge, and you could build a new Southern Canada; pro-gun, pro-pot, pro-pretty much whatever; just give it a try. We like Jesus too, and we're interested to see how many can really, for serious, follow his teachings...

Yeah, the junta would demand free health care though. It's the only way we could ensure that we could provide medical coverage should we get into a fight while protecting ourselves.
posted by quin at 9:42 PM on April 24, 2009


Talk of Texas secession seems akin to slash fic for politics. It's based on an unreality, it's kind of salacious, and ultimately borne out of some sort of sexual frustration.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:55 PM on April 24, 2009 [8 favorites]


"Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry ... recently called for his state to leave the union."

No, in fact, he didn't.

Okay, more accurate to say that Perry demagogued around with the threat of a potential secession in order to whip up the part of his base that froths at the idea. Better now?
posted by darkstar at 9:57 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry ... recently called for his state to leave the union."

No, in fact, he didn't. He said his state had the right to, and that such a right should be kept in mind by policymakers lest they go too far. He also said that he thought it would be a bad idea to secede, which is a far cry from what you're characterizing him as having said.

Well, let's face it. Texas doesn't really have the right to secede. And it wouldn't happen if we did. More important, it's absurd for the sitting governor of a state to resort to such idiocies simply because things are not going his way . . . and they're not. So a better way of analyzing the statement at the top of my post here would be to say "Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry . . . recently threw an incredibly irresponsible and idiotic toddler tantrum in a pathetic attempt to get anyway to care about his outmoded and insane political beliefs, which served the country so poorly throughout the George W Bush years."
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 10:24 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure if you're a liar, or just illiterate.

Classy as always, jock@law. You're going to be a real credit to your profession if you manage to pass the bar.
posted by dersins at 10:35 PM on April 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


Could we call the five states More Chihuahua, More Coahuila, More Nuevo Leon, More Tamaulipas, and to round things out, Another More Coahuila? And then do the obvious?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:50 PM on April 24, 2009


Obviously the Texan Republicans weren't watching the international news broadcasts very much during the 1990s when Yugoslavia broke up. These things start by sounding funny and ironic... but add some armed militia movements, religious fervor, a touch of racism, and it can quickly turn out very, very bad.
posted by zaelic at 1:53 AM on April 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


Is the voice in your head the same as mine when you see the words "El Norte"?
posted by chillmost at 3:34 AM on April 25, 2009


Following some links around, it appears a source of this novelty idea is the terms of the original treaty admitting Texas as a state. Surely this is made irrelevant by their later secession and re-admission in 1870 under the terms of Reconstruction. For all kinds of good reasons, I'm sure, I can't locate any serious analysis of the implications of this re-admission on this issue.

Anyway, if I'm wrong, then some of these new states also are apparently granted the right to allow or disallow slavery as they see fit.

I feel like I've given this idea my time of day way out of proportion to its seriousness, a common aspect of the one-way-hash arguments currently in vogue with the New Republican Party.
posted by Bokononist at 3:47 AM on April 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is this a good time to discuss my insane braincrush on Nate Silver, and to ask if anyone here has his phone number?
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 4:45 AM on April 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


So the anus of America wants to secede?
Wouldn't that cause digestive problems? Look at the output so far - Tom Delay, crazy creationists, crazy school boards, Ross Perot, the Bushes (immigrated to be nearer the other polyps), ...
And those "patriots" would wilt in skirmishes Mexican drug militias.
If they secede can we relocate Fox News, News Corp America, the Washington Times, the NY Post, the anti gay-marriage folks, the Klan, the Aryans, the anti abortion movement, ... to the new cuntry?
Can we build a "security fence" like Israel to protect America's borders from Texan infiltration?
posted by hooptycritter at 4:49 AM on April 25, 2009


California has often talked about making two states of the one state. Then wiser heads realize that so doing cuts their reps in Congress by half and thus reduces their clout.
posted by Postroad at 5:39 AM on April 25, 2009


then wiser heads realize that so doing cuts their reps in Congress by half and thus reduces their clout.

Yes, my first thought was this would weaken Texas but the trade-off would be they would have 10 Senators instead of 2.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:00 AM on April 25, 2009


Oh this didn't turn into another Texas bashing thread at all!

"anus of america"

Wow.
posted by schwa at 6:52 AM on April 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Why is El Norte in El Southe?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:58 AM on April 25, 2009


I do not like this division -- it leaves New Texas land-locked. Here's how I see it -- if 48% of registered republicans want to secede NOW, fine -- but here's the deal. They can't have the whole state because they don't make up the whole populace. There are 13 million registered voters in Texas. 55% of them voted Republican in the last election. 48% of that group supposedly want to secede. Thats 3,432,000, or 8.33% of the population.

I'm going to be WAAAY generous and offer them the area east of I-45 (excepting all parts of Galveston island) and south of I-20. This gives them, very generously, I might add, an excellent harbor, the shitty side of Houston, some oil production capacity, and just about all of the Piney Woods to hide in & play Davidian Compound, the Military Wargame, as well as Texas A&M University, which will no doubt be up to the task of stocking their new world-class armed forces. They will border Louisiana, so they'll have some kindred neighbors, and we'll still have Corpus Christi, which is due a remodeling, anyway, and is also an excellent harbor.

HANDS OFF THE HILL COUNTRY, MY ACCESS TO MEXICO AND TRANS-PECOS, OR WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A STERN DISCUSSION, MOTHERFUCKERS.

That is my final offer.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:01 AM on April 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


Oops, I had imagined College Station as being on the east of 1-45, in my pre-coffee reverie. I rescind its conclusion, however regretfully.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:04 AM on April 25, 2009


*inclusion*

I'll come in again. After coffee. Edit window!
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:05 AM on April 25, 2009


Why is El Norte in El Southe?

El Norte del Chihuahua, Tamulipas, Coahuila y Nuevo Leon. There are... distant lands... to the south of the known universe, one of which is, according to ancient legend, known as Mexico.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:16 AM on April 25, 2009


I live in El Norte. My enthusiastically Democratic landlady giddily referred to the election maps back in November, "It looks like they dipped the border in blue paint!"

If this division were to happen, I predict a swiftly developing conflict between my glorious state and New Texas over this.
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 7:35 AM on April 25, 2009


Why is El Norte in El Southe?

Or, Nate Silver just likes to mess with... Texans' minds.
posted by faster than a speeding bulette at 7:52 AM on April 25, 2009


No, in fact, he didn't. He said his state had the right to, and that such a right should be kept in mind by policymakers lest they go too far.

A Southern governor from a party with racist policies talks about secession from a government run by a black man and you don't think there's a hidden "call" there?

He also said that he thought it would be a bad idea to secede, which is a far cry from what you're characterizing him as having said.

Well, that was clearly not after-the-fact ass-covering.
posted by DU at 8:56 AM on April 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


in 1995, a majority of Quebeckers who planned to vote Yes for separation thought that they would still be represented in Ottawa by Quebec-elected Members of Parliament.

[slaps forehead]

Good god.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:59 AM on April 25, 2009


Didn't Texas lose the right to split up when it was re-admitted into the Union?
posted by paddbear at 9:06 AM on April 25, 2009


Why is El Norte in El Southe?

"Norte" as in north of the Rio Grande. Or just call it New North East Mexico.

FREE THE SASKATCHEWAN PANHANDLE!!
posted by hangashore at 9:11 AM on April 25, 2009


Just the idea of coming up with names for five new formerly-Texas states puts a huge grin on my face. Oh, my.
posted by sidereal at 9:17 AM on April 25, 2009


California has often talked about making two states of the one state. Then wiser heads realize that so doing cuts their reps in Congress by half and thus reduces their clout.

If the two states' interests were still aligned and they voted together on those issues (which is likely) they would gain two senators, and have more clout in Congress. It's pretty likely that South California would still need water from North California, and North California would still need... um, avocados, so a lot of mutual support would still be required.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:32 AM on April 25, 2009


Texas had the right to split into five states upon its original annexation into the United States in 1845. Its failure to split at that time means that this provision is no longer operative - it expired unused.
posted by thewittyname at 11:32 AM on April 25, 2009


Didn't Texas lose the right to split up when it was re-admitted into the Union?

Re-admitted? It never left; it was just temporarily taken over by a group of rebels who tried, and failed, to leave the Union.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:57 AM on April 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


As someone who grew in San Antonio, went to college in Austin, moved out of state for years, then came back and lived in Galveston before settling in suburban Houston, I can say the map looks like something created by and for people who don't live here.

Splitting up San Antonio and the rest of South Texas among three different states doesn't make any sense; SA may be close to Austin, but they don't have much in common. Corpus, meanwhile, has nothing in common with Houston except for proximity to the Gulf. And if we're splitting things up, El Paso and the rest of the area west of Sonora might as well be a state of it's own, from economic factors, community of interest, and sheer distance from everything else.

Back to the drawing board, please...
posted by Robert Angelo at 2:24 PM on April 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


I know many texans who like to say things like "CO, NM and AZ used to be TX and should be again." and are kinda generally condescending about it. But Santa Fe has been an outpost of humanity for a really long time (in new world terms), so suck it. as for the secession and/or division... The gov. is a fool and now it's public.
posted by MNDZ at 8:26 AM on April 26, 2009


This reminds me of a well-thought-out version of an assignment I had in 7th Grade Texas history. From what I remember of the class, since Texas was an independent country before becoming the state of Texas, it had a special allowance to break up into up to 5 smaller states if it wanted.

It'll never happen, of course. Texas is too much absorbed with itself. Texans (mostly) love Texas too much to change Texas into something else. 'Cept maybe the Republic of Texas.
posted by sleeping bear at 7:30 PM on April 28, 2009


7th Grade Texas history


I had that class in the 70's. The damage is still being undone -- what a load of swill they crammed down our bored-shitless gullets. Texas was stolen from Mexico by a bunch of land-grabbin' grifters because Mexico had no choice, so they thought, but to populate it with Americans or lose it to France. The Americans they chose to populate it with (Steven Austin was the Jim Bob Moffet of his generation) made a calculated move. 1. Infiltrate. 2. Take over by force. 3. Join Union. They didn't really want to be a nation in the first place -- it just sort of went that way. Sam Houston was a megalomaniac who couldn't obey an order to save his life, though neither could most of his "officers." The government of revolutionary Texas pretty much existed in concept only. How they beat Santa Ana? The Mexican army was even stupider that they were, except for Fanin who was a criminally negligent cretin.

Fortunately, in the process of uncovering the truth, I've learned to love Texas history, instead of loathe it.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:21 PM on April 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


« Older Twenty Times a Day   |   KISS Burger Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post