Talk:Texas divisionism

Dubious

The bit about Texas being divided by residents into five sections looks like someone's personal interpretation. In particular, in which of these does the Panhandle belong? Our articles specifically say it's not part of North Texas, and none of them say it's part of West Texas (it's certainly not what I think of as West Texas). --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You just need to talk to the residents of Texas. Almost all of them that I've ever spoken with know exactly which region they're in. Now, I've never mapped them and I don't know where the panhandle lies, (though I would say "West Texas") but I'll bet the residents there do. In some cases there's almost a metaphysical "shimmer" when you travel from one to the other. For example, traveling from Austin to San Antonio, you're clearly going from "Cowboy Country" (Central Texas) to "Northern Mexico" (Southern Texas). They're two very different areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlerds (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I live in Texas. This is someone's anecdotal spin on things, not encyclopedic content. Verifiable references needed badly. IN fact, a lot of this article borders on the realm of texas secession - esque conspiracy theory. The lede specifically contradicts one of the sections, claiming that Texas does have the right to break up, whereas there's a section indicating it doesn't. This is just silly. 204.65.34.132 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This article includes a number of questionable statements, editorial comments, and subjective opinion presented as fact. The snarky barb about Texas being on the brink of bankruptcy and a "failed state" for example is very subjective. What do they mean by "failed state"? Somalia, once broken among several warlords was a failed state because the central government failed to exercise control. Texas was never close to that. In fact, they successfully held a nationwide (Texas-wide) referendum on annexation. They had a functioning government and military. The government was in serious financial trouble, but they were never near the status of anarchy which is the literal definition of a "failed state." More likely, the author meant "failed state" in the way the phrase was applied to Colombia in the 90's or the drug corridors in Mexico today. That is, crime was/is out of control and certain organizations are directly challenging the forces of the central and state governments. In 1844 and 1845 Texas did not face those challenges either. I agree with two comments above, this article reads more like a conspiracy theorist dream than a factually based description. As a citizen of Texas who took Texas History (required in 6th grade), I remember hearing something vaguely about Texas being accepted with the option to divide into five states, but that is just rumor and oral tradition. There should be citations and quotes from the treaty of annexation, speeches made before Congress, and notes on the negotiation of the treaty to provide authoritative context to the basic premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.29.211.61 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

5-way division clause was about slavery

Here is the full clause from the Texas Annexation resolution:

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.

The clause was about the western slavery question and North-South Senate parity question, not about division per se, since the Constitution already allows division by permission of the state and Congress. However this and other articles omit this. --JWB (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

In 1915 none of the districts proposed to make up Jefferson included the Texas panhandle

I checked on here weather in 1915(34th Texas congress), the proposed districts for Jefferson state included the Texas panhandle. They did not. This article plainly states it does. I think I can check Texas lrl but I can't figure out how yet. 2600:1702:4E76:A400:E1CA:C183:6EA2:D68E (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm stupid 2600:1702:4E76:A400:E1CA:C183:6EA2:D68E (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Formal request has been received to merge: Jefferson (proposed Southern state) into Texas divisionism; dated: November 2023 Proposer's Rationale: {not stated}. Discuss here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the merging of the article about the southern state of Jefferson to this article. Anonymy365248 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Great Mercian (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support dashiellx (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The Jefferson (proposed Southern state) article is barely a stub and fits well in the context of the Texas divisionism article here, where some of the info is missing. —  AjaxSmack  14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. This is rather short and vague for an article and is essentially a stub. This article should absolutely be merged into the Texas divisionism article. transgerman_ (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Ionly Playz II Absolutely. I cannot believe that is an article. Merge Jefferson into this article.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)