# Texas into 5 States? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 30, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723 "2003-01-30T21:30:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/1 "2003-01-30T21:30:05Z")
I just did a search, and we have discussed this several times. But always as a subcontext, and never with what I think is a definitive answer. Now, in 1845 Texas was admitted, and in the resolution admitting it, it seems like it retained the right to split into 5 states (and also seccede from the Union?). However, the US Constitution would overrule such a “resolution”, and it makes clear that a State cannot do so unilaterally. Also, Texas left the Union, and then was readmitted (Civil war, remember?). When it was re-admited, the right to split did not seem to be re-given. So dopers? What is the right answer? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/2 "2003-01-30T21:34:33Z")
The union never recognized the conferate states’ leaving. The states did not get re-admitted. ---
**Author:** ![syncrolecyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@syncrolecyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/syncrolecyne)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/3 "2003-01-30T22:16:26Z")
Here’s an article from a site which has everything you would ever want to know about Texas. [http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/DD/mqd1.html](http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/DD/mqd1.html) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/4 "2003-01-30T22:43:14Z")
It is interesting, but it fails to answer the question- does Texas still have the right to unilaterally (ie wthout approval from the US Congress, as provided for in the US Constitution) split into five states? And, bup- the article mentions Texas being “re-admitted” a couple of times. The Union seems to have taken a somewhat inconsistant stand on whether or not the Confederates States did, de facto if not de jure- leave the Union. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/5 "2003-01-30T23:19:59Z")
Texas **never** had the right to unilaterally split into 5 states. The act of admission stated that it could do so in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, which require Congressional approval. The wording was included in the act of admission as a statement of “legislative intent”, so that if a future Congress had to consider an application for division it would be clear that the Congress of 1845 recognized that this might be appropriate at a later date. The issue became largely moot when Texas was scaled down in size (yes, it could have been _bigger_!) as part of the Compromise of 1850. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/6 "2003-01-31T04:20:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > **Texas never had the right to unilaterally split into 5 states. The act of admission stated that it could do so in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, which require Congressional approval. The wording was included in the act of admission as a statement of “legislative intent”, so that if a future Congress had to consider an application for division it would be clear that the Congress of 1845 recognized that this might be appropriate at a later date.** Actually, the provision for dividing Texas into five states appears only in the act annexing Texas, not the act admitting it to statehood: > [@](#): > > Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union. > > 1. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: . . . . Third – New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. > > 2. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then, > > Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: . . . . Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States (28th Cong., 2d Sess., Mar. 1, 1845), [http://castor.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html](http://castor.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html). The Joint Resolution for the Admission of the State of Texas into the Union (29th Cong., 1st Sess., Dec. 29, 1845), [http://castor.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/dec1845.html](http://castor.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/dec1845.html), provided only: > [@](#): > > Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Texas shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever. > > Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That until the representatives in Congress shall be apportioned according to an actual enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States, the State of Texas shall be entitled to choose two representatives. But **jklann** is essentially correct. Whatever right the prospective state of Texas may have enjoyed of organizing itself into multiple states, it did not exercise that right, and entered the Union as a single indivisible state. Organizing new states out of Texas today would require an act of Congress as well as the consent of the Texas Legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/7 "2003-01-31T18:01:37Z")
Some things to keep in mind about this ever-popular “division of Texas” issue: 1. The Republic of Texas, during its nine years of existence, claimed all territory between the Rio Grande and the pre-Mexican War boundary between the United States and Mexico. This is an enormous swath of territory including much of what is now New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado. The boundary had never been surveyed, nor agreed to by Mexico, and much of the territory still belonged to American Indians. 2. In March 1845 Congress annexed this territory to the United States, together with an “enabling act” allowing it to organize itself into a state. Everybody recognized that creating such an enormous state might cause problems: a. Pro-slavery forces realized that, by creating an enormous slave state, they would be hurting their chances for creating more slave states later. b. Anti-slavery forces recognized that part of the Texas claim probably lay north of the 36.5-degree line of the Missouri compromise, meaning that its inclusion in Texas would extend slavery north of the line. c. And just as a matter of simple governance, after this territory was settled, mamaging it all as one giant state might probe problematic. Rather than resolve these issues in 1845, Congress just passed the “enabling act” to annex and admit Texas as a whole, but added the proviso about later division into as many as four more states. The phrase “shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution” causes confusion here. It sounds binding. But remember, no Congress can bind a future Congress. Rather, the words should be viewed as a statement of “legislative intent” for the **guidance** of a future Congress which might have to consider the issue. In other words, if the Congress of 1855 were considering an application for division, they could look at the wording of the resolution of annexation and see at once that the Congress of 1845 didn’t regard the Republic of Texas as an inviolate whole and recognized that division might one day be appropriate. As it happend, Congress stripped Texas down to its present boundaries in return for a cash settlement as part of the Compromise of 1850. So, in effect, the original Republic of Texas **did** divide into more states; but they were remanded to territorial status first and agglomerated with other land won in the Mexican War. As a non-binding statement of legislative intent, however, the language of 1845 remains in effect. It wouldn’t carry much weight today–if the remainder of Texas _did_ seek to divide into two or more states today, I doubt that anybody would much care what Congress thought under the very different circumstances of 1845. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/8 "2003-01-31T18:18:36Z")
As an aside… Wouldn’t ANY state have the right to subdivide? The federal government was all over it with West Virginia during the civil war. So couldn’t say, California just suddenly break into two and have a ‘North CA’ and ‘South CA’ provided it was approved by congress and each had their own state governments and representatives? ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/9 "2003-01-31T18:58:25Z")
It has been done twice before. Maine used to be part of Massachussetts, and West Virginia used to be part of Virginia. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/10 "2003-01-31T19:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\*So couldn’t say, California just suddenly break into two and have a ‘North CA’ and ‘South CA’ provided it was approved by congress and each had their own state governments and representatives? \*\* Yes. The Constitution (art. IV, sec. 3) provides that “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.” **mbh** has identified the two instances where Congress and a state legislature have consented to the partition of an existing state (although the partition of West Virginia makes an interesting story: the Virginia Legislature that “consented” to the partition of West Virginia was a pro-Union rump that the Federal government recognized in order to keep open a railroad vital to the Northern economy and the Union war effort). **jklann** ’s story about the rule of the Compromise of 1850 led me to a link that tells this story: > [@](#): > > By 1850, New Mexicans had ratified a proposed state constitution, one which defined boundaries well within territory claimed by Texas, Governor Bell convened the Texas Legislature to enforce the state’s claim, President Millard Fillmore threatened to resist any such claim with military force, and a series of bills were offered in the Congress in an effort to resolve the problem. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri would have had Texas cede all land west of 102° longitude and north of the Red River, divide Texas into two states, and pay $15 million for the lost territory. Senator John Bell of Tennessee would have had Texas split into three states. Yet another proposal would have drawn a straight line from El Paso to the point where the 100th meridian meets the Red River, in exchange for an unspecified payment. > > The bill proposed by Senator James A. Pearce of Maryland offered $10 million in 5% U.S. bonds in exchange for ceding to the national government 67 million acres of land north and west of a boundary beginning at the 100th meridian where it intersects the parallel of 36°30’, then running west along that parallel to the 103d meridian, south to the 32d parallel, and from that point west to the Rio Grande. At least half of the $10 million payment would be dedicated to retiring the public debt of the Republic of Texas. > > The Boundary Act also provided "That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained in the 3rd article of the 2nd section of the “Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,” approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter be formed out of the State of Texas, or otherwise. > > Texas voters accepted the proposal with a three to one majority, and Governor Bell signed the act on November 25, 1850. See [http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/earlystate/boundary.html](http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/earlystate/boundary.html). ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/11 "2003-01-31T23:53:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance \* > \*\*So couldn’t say, California just suddenly break into two and have a ‘North CA’ and ‘South CA’ provided it was approved by congress and each had their own state governments and representatives? \*\* You would first need the approval of the existing legislature in Sacramento, representing the entire state. Congress could then agree and pass an “enabling act” laying out the boundary and the transition mechanics (electing new constitutional conventions, dividing state assets, and so forth). After the new state(s) was ready, a final act of admission would bring it into existence and terminate California’s sovereignty over the detached area. Interesting link, **brian** –I hadn’t realized the language about dividing Texas was re-endorsed in the Boundary Act of 1850. So it represents the “legislative intent” of at least two Congresses, not just one! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/12 "2003-02-04T21:54:16Z")
So- to restate. Texas has no special “RIGHT” to be split into 5 (or any other number of States. They can petition Congress, like any othe State, even Rhode Island. However, that Congress, in 1845, gave notice of “legislative intent”, which may or not have been superceded by the Compromise of 1850, or the Civil war. Thus, there is no “right”. However, Congress should take the “legislative intent” into consideration IF Texas does petition. And I am sure they will argue long & hard whether that intent has been superceded. But it is not legally binding. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-into-5-states/151723/13 "2003-02-04T22:33:35Z")
Right, except that: (1) Per **brian** ’s link, the Compromise of 1850 definitely _did not_ supersede the language of 1845; rather, it re-enforced it. (2) The attempted secession of Texas in 1861 and its readmission to representation in Congress in 1870 had no _direct_ bearing on prospects for later division. Any non-binding statement of legislative intent will lose relevance over time. Since slavery at least _partly_ motivated the language of 1845 and 1850 concerning future division, the abolition of slavery perhaps prompted a greater than usual “loss of relevance” here. But the language of 1845 and 1850 is still on the statute books, and in the unlikely event that the politicians in Austin decide at some future time that they’d like to cut their state in two, I’m sure it will be cited and debated in Congress. But, again, it will not be binding.