Division of Texas after the Civil War

Lyly

According to the Handbook of Texas, there have been numerous proposals to divide the state. Most weren't seriously considered, except shortly after the Civil War.

Based on the descriptions, I put together maps of 4 different proposals.

texasdivisionproposal18.png

This proposal was introduced in the Texas Constitutional Convention in 1866, providing for the creation of the State of East Texas in addition to Texas selling part of western Texas to the US. It was met with criticism, and countered with another proposal that led to both proposals being pretty much ignored.

texasdivisionpeasepropo.png

Later in the same Constitutional Convention, Elisha Pease proposed that a much larger chunk of western Texas be sold to the US, but the rest of Texas stay together. The proposal later evolved in committee to dividing Texas into North, East, South, and West Texas and was subsequently further complicated and dropped.

texasdivisionproposal18.png

In 1869, this proposal, which would have formed the State of Lincoln in western and southern Texas (keep in mind, this was before Texas was readmitted to the Union, so lots of "carpetbagger" influence existed). The plan never left committee.

texasdivisionproposal18.png

In 1870, another proposal for parts of Texas to be made Territories, to be admitted as States as according to Reconstruction plans. This proposal was, like all the others, voted down and was the late seriously considered plan to be considered until 1914.

texasdivisionproposal19.png

In 1914, after complaints from West Texas over the lack of state-level government attention, as well as debates over senate reapportionment. This proposal was heavily supported for only a short while and the issue died out pretty quickly. It was the last seriously considered division of Texas.


My personal favorites are the Lincoln and Matagorda/Jefferson proposals. I think their respective states today would be the most interesting of all the proposals. Anyone think it could have been possible for any of these to happen during or after Reconstruction?
 

lothaw

I can tell you right now, partitioning the state and naming one of the territories Lincoln, immediately after the Civil War would not have gone over well.

To be honest, the only scenario I can feasabily see the partitioning of Texas is pre-Civil War, to maintain the slave-free state balance.
 

SilverPhantom2

Agreed, you'll never be able to split Texas up while Reconstruction is still going on. So it'd have to be Pre-Civil War to maintain slave/free balance, or post-1914 as your scenario with "we're not represented."

Keep in mind that more states means more senators and more electoral strength. The North already gave the Southern states more electoral votes with the 14th Amendment declaring all freedmen citizens. If Texas was split, it'd mean 2 or 4 more votes for the South.
 

Douglas

Splitting up Texas during Reconstruction seems like it would be most likely, seeing as it was dominated by a party that would have been ok seeing the state split.

I like the 1869 proposal best, myself, simply for the (relatively) tiny state of Jefferson.
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
lothaw said:
I can tell you right now, partitioning the state and naming one of the territories Lincoln, immediately after the Civil War would not have gone over well.

To be honest, the only scenario I can feasabily see the partitioning of Texas is pre-Civil War, to maintain the slave-free state balance.
Click to expand...

Not with the population in what stays Texas. But within the proposed state of Lincoln, it'd be quite popular. Most of the population was pro Union, the German Americans of the Hill Country and the Tejanos of the Rio Grande valley. Unfortunately there's no feasible way to include the other pro Union region, the northeast.

The state of Lincoln would today be much like New Mexico in its voting. The most interesting part would be where the new Texas capital would be. Dallas at this time is a collection of left-leaning small communities, some of them actual proto-socialist experiments in communal land owning. It doesn't become the banker's town it is today until the 1920s. So probably Houston.

Or am I correct in reading the map as showing Austin as divided? So it stays the capital of both states?
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
LylyCSM2 said:
According to the Handbook of Texas, there have been numerous proposals to divide the state. Most weren't seriously considered, except shortly after the Civil War....

My personal favorites are the Lincoln and Matagorda/Jefferson proposals. I think their respective states today would be the most interesting of all the proposals. Anyone think it could have been possible for any of these to happen during or after Reconstruction?
Click to expand...

West Texas had long wanted to not be part of Texas. Keep in mind it'd never been part of the "Republic" of Texas except in the wishful thinking of some. The insurgents didn't actually control hardly anything west of San Antonio, after all. The Pecos region had to be brought into Texas by the threat of force, the TX governor saying he'd send Texas militia there. The region wanted to be part of New Mexico, to which it historically had stronger ties.

Did the site say the motives for the proposed smaller Jefferson region to be separated out? That region doesn't seem today very distinct from the area around it.
 

Lyly

AmIndHistoryAuthor said:
The state of Lincoln would today be much like New Mexico in its voting. The most interesting part would be where the new Texas capital would be. Dallas at this time is a collection of left-leaning small communities, some of them actual proto-socialist experiments in communal land owning. It doesn't become the banker's town it is today until the 1920s. So probably Houston.

Or am I correct in reading the map as showing Austin as divided? So it stays the capital of both states?
Click to expand...
The center of Austin lies just east of the border in most of these proposals, with part of the city lying across the border. You're correct that at this time Dallas is not even remotely a major city, so the new capital would likely be Houston. For Lincoln, it's likely to be San Antonio or something in the vicinity of Victoria.

AmIndHistoryAuthor said:
Did the site say the motives for the proposed smaller Jefferson region to be separated out? That region doesn't seem today very distinct from the area around it.
Click to expand...
No, it only summed up the proposal itself, and wasn't perfectly clear about how it was to be delineated. To quote: "On February 25, 1870, the Howard Bill ... called for two territories, Jefferson east of the San Antonio River, and Matagorda west of the Colorado. The remaining portion of the state should retain the name Texas." I assume the given map is what is intended. Though it is a rather small area, at this time a significant part of Texas' population lived within that territory, being the heart of colonial Texas.
 
Last edited:

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
LylyCSM2 said:
The center of Austin lies just east of the border in most of these proposals, with part of the city lying across the border. You're correct that at this time Dallas is not even remotely a major city, so the new capital would likely be Houston. For Lincoln, it's likely to be San Antonio or something in the vicinity of Victoria.
Click to expand...

I'd always thought it likely that, in a southern part of the state splitting off from Texas POD, they'd likely try to use the Alamo itself as part of the capital complex. Too small to be THE capital building, but it'd likely be a place used symbolically for bill signings, etc. Be a nice change from IOTL when it was a tourist trap until recently across the street from Woolworth's. (Later replaced by Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Seriously...)

The state of Lincoln would be quite different in its history from Texas:

Reconstruction may make Lincoln the only southern state where it succeeds in protecting Black civil rights. IOTL there was not that much slavery in S Texas, San Antonio even had a Black political boss running the local machine in the 20s, and it desegregated fairly quietly and quickly in the 50s.

No Texas Rangers killing Mexicans at random. No Ballad of Gregorio Cortes, no Plan of San Diego.

Perhaps the Comanches try to play off one state govt vs another, maybe leading to a Comanche rez in Lincoln along the Pecos.

The state of Lincoln would be solidly Democratic voting from the New Deal on, including to today.
 

Lyly

AmIndHistoryAuthor said:
I'd always thought it likely that, in a southern part of the state splitting off from Texas POD, they'd likely try to use the Alamo itself as part of the capital complex. Too small to be THE capital building, but it'd likely be a place used symbolically for bill signings, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't think the capital complex would include the Alamo, but I can certainly see it being a place of symbolic bill signing in some instances. Probably more along the lines of a national monument though.

AmIndHistoryAuthor said:
Be a nice change from IOTL when it was a tourist trap until recently across the street from Woolworth's. (Later replaced by Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Seriously...)
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Alamo's recent history really is rather sad. I'm glad they've picked up the ball with the place as an actual historical interest recently.

AmIndHistoryAuthor said:
The state of Lincoln would be quite different in its history from Texas:

Reconstruction may make Lincoln the only southern state where it succeeds in protecting Black civil rights. IOTL there was not that much slavery in S Texas, San Antonio even had a Black political boss running the local machine in the 20s, and it desegregated fairly quietly and quickly in the 50s.

No Texas Rangers killing Mexicans at random. No Ballad of Gregorio Cortes, no Plan of San Diego.

Perhaps the Comanches try to play off one state govt vs another, maybe leading to a Comanche rez in Lincoln along the Pecos.

The state of Lincoln would be solidly Democratic voting from the New Deal on, including to today.
Click to expand...
I think you'd probably be right on most of those counts, ignoring butterflies anyway.
That said, given Murphey's Law, you'd probably end up with something worse off than today, with extreme reactionary movements against Mexicans and immigrants in general, if not in Lincoln itself, possibly in Texas proper.
 

KineticBots

Those are some pretty cool maps. Where did you find them? I need a blank one for my TL!

Personally, I like the 1866 proposal - splitting it in half and selling some to the goverment. The division of Texas... I really think the best time is pre-ACW, unfortunately.

Regards,

Kineticbots
 

AmIndHistoryAuthor

Banned
LylyCSM2 said:
I think you'd probably be right on most of those counts, ignoring butterflies anyway.
That said, given Murphey's Law, you'd probably end up with something worse off than today, with extreme reactionary movements against Mexicans and immigrants in general, if not in Lincoln itself, possibly in Texas proper.
Click to expand...

Within what stays Texas, yes, with the most reactionary part of the state group and the least reactionary part going their own way.

Don't misunderstand me, it's not all going to be roses and fairies and singing Kum Bay Yah in Lincoln. But IOTL, most of the Klan is in northeast TX, not in the south and west.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/vek2_print.html

Many of the political machines in S TX were actually run by Latinos. In Lincoln, the actual majority of the population will be either Mexican or German. Racists and Redeemers will have an uphill battle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top