7

The resolution allowing for admission of Texas into the Union states that Texas may split into 5 different states, though it is unclear whether this needs congressional approval.

What I am wondering is why? Why Texas given this right? Why were no other states allowed to do it?

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    Quite interesting question, but your question would be much improved if you could include some reference and research.
    – Rathony
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 15:54
  • @called2voyage - That resolution refers back to a previous resolution of March 1, which did include such language though. Its in point 2, the sentence starting with "Third". It would be an interesting argument if that part of the resolution is still active. You could take the view that the latter resolution totally superceeds the former, or you could take the view that it only carries out some of what was laid down there, but otherwise leaves it all active.
    – T.E.D. ♦
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 18:12
  • @T.E.D. Unless something has happened since the Texlahoma proposal in the early 1900s, it does sound like Texas is still regarded as having the right to divide, though no proposal to do so has been successful.
    – called2voyage
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 18:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8

The slavery issue (at the time, 90% of Texans were neither slaves nor slaveholders) was addressed in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, approved by Congress on 1 March 1845, which included a provision allowing Texas to be sub-divided into up to four more states with slavery being banned in states carved out of Texas territory north of the Missouri Compromise line and left up to popular sovereignty in states formed south of the line: Snopes:Partly true

The full article discusses the implications of the slavery problem in more detail and some of the other controversies surrounding Texas' admission.

There are a couple of points that I infer from my read of the full article.

  1. There were multiple resolutions, most of which were rejected; that means that there was considerable "sausage making" involved in the resolution. Some language was the product of compromises. I'd go so far as to wager that there was more sausage making than logic.

  2. Texas was larger than any other four states; even if that doesn't logically make a difference, it permitted classes of compromises that wouldn't have been possible with smaller states. I infer that they thought a state the size of TX deserved special treatment. (All my friends from TX will support that conclusion).

  3. The slavery issue was addressed far more conclusively by the civil war than by the legislation.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    Also, no justification is given for this statement: "Any real likelihood that Texas might be carved up into additional states was ended when Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, joined the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and was not formally re-admitted to the U.S. until after the 1865 ratification of the 13th amendment which abolished slavery throughout the jurisdiction of the United States."
    – called2voyage
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 19:01
  • (1) Only one state that was larger than any other four states was admitted; I think TX probably deserved special treatment (2) They rejected multiple proposals for admission; the result was more influenced by sausage making than logic (3) I submit that the civil war addressed the slavery issue. All good points, but at least for me, the full article is sufficient to answer the question.
    – MCW ♦
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 19:04
  • 3
    Don't have time to research it myself, but this answer was along the lines of my supposition for the reasoning. Note that the vast majority of the territory of the Republic of Texas was below the compromise line. This would make it ideal for further carving up to balance any future admission of free states above that line. Keeping the balance was the #1 priority of southern politicians at this time.
    – T.E.D. ♦
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 19:40
  • No, thank you for the constructive suggestion.
    – MCW ♦
    Commented Nov 2, 2016 at 19:47

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.