Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states
That would be one heck of a way to Gerrymander the Senate.
That said, some obvious candidate names would be North Texas, East Texas, West Texas, and South Texas. We already have West Virginia and South Carolina, so there's precedent for this mode of naming.
I can't find a map, but I am told that the five states were pre-defined. The one in the center was shaped like the current Texas, just smaller. The United Methodist Church split up the state into five districts, which match the pre-defined states.
Yes, though Tennessee was formed for North Carolina, and Kentucky from Virginia; the former was a county originally. So who knows what the smaller bits may choose to call themselves.
The resolution did include two unique provisions: first, it said that up to four additional states could be created from Texas' territory, with the consent of the State of Texas. (more wikipedia).
I assume the pieces would be Red Texas, Yellow Texas, Green Texas, Blue Texas, and Black Texas, and they would be allowed to reform into a super-state in the case of giant alien attack.(Oklahoma would be the sword.)
Among my poly friends in the UK, there is a naming convention: one's own Simon or David is called "Simon" or "David", and one uses nicknames for other people's Simons and Davids. (I believe one person was concurrently involved with two Davids and a Simon for a time, which caused much consternation.) Using this naming convention, I think each of the states would call itself Texas and would have nicknames for the other four: Big Tex, Little Tex, East Tex, Those Fucking Hippies in Austin, etc.
I believe one person was concurrently involved with two Davids and a Simon for a time, which caused much consternation.
For a long time I tended to date women named Mary, which given my lack of memory was quite handy. Some CBC broadcaster or other mentioned only dating men with the same given name so he didn't have to worry about shouting the wrong name (and he was considering switching to guys named Jesus).
In the case you mention above, may I suggest the use of insulin-shock inducing pet names?
I know at one time at least, a bigger question holding the state together was "Who would get the Alamo?" I'm not so sure it's still so important. On the other hand, who would get the oil fields would be a bigger question.
The nice thing about Delay's gerrymandering is that it puts Sugar Land and his 22nd Congressional District clearly on the Mexican side of the new border.
Regarding Prussia, it's a little hard to regard, isn't it.
> Lose a third of your territory to Russia in the Napoleonic wars?
Several times in the grand strategy game Victoria: Revolutions I've played out the 1836-to-1936 timeframe as the United Kingdom and managed to weasel my way into the Texas-Mexico war going at the start of the game, and end up with Texas a British colony. This is so wonderfully impossible that I cherish it. I just haven't figured out any way to give Texas to Canada afterwards.
(The game does not quite adequately model how tetchy the United States got when the British Empire did anything in that hemisphere, but I do try to butter up Washington early and often and lavishly.)
There has a theory that this has already happened, and the states are Texas proper, New Mexico (east of the Rio Grande), Colorado (same), Kansas (western part) and Oklahoma (panhandle). The original Texas panhandle stuck as far north as Wyoming, but who cares.
Turtledove, in that "what if secession had happened" alt history series, called the bit that the US recaptured "Houston" IIRC, but beyond that I've no idea. It should definitely happen though, I'm a fan of large units subdividing.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:16 pm (UTC)http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp
Also from that link:
That would be one heck of a way to Gerrymander the Senate.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:38 pm (UTC)I can't find a map, but I am told that the five states were pre-defined. The one in the center was shaped like the current Texas, just smaller. The United Methodist Church split up the state into five districts, which match the pre-defined states.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 08:01 pm (UTC)Texans have long (and selective) memories.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:33 pm (UTC)The 5th
Date: 2009-04-17 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:21 pm (UTC)(Why, yes, it _is_ all about us.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:23 pm (UTC)We'd never approve of splitting us up.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:41 pm (UTC)(That one would definitely correspond to West Texas.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 01:00 pm (UTC)::offers internets:: They are yours.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 11:44 pm (UTC)because I live thereso it can have angsty forbidden romance with the quasi-evil Green Not!Texas of Juarez.no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:01 pm (UTC)(This is probably only funny to New Yorkers.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:45 pm (UTC)Which would make Louisiana Nathan's.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 10:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:38 pm (UTC)The Popular People's Front of Texas and the People's Popular Front of Texas?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:17 pm (UTC)For a long time I tended to date women named Mary, which given my lack of memory was quite handy. Some CBC broadcaster or other mentioned only dating men with the same given name so he didn't have to worry about shouting the wrong name (and he was considering switching to guys named Jesus).
In the case you mention above, may I suggest the use of insulin-shock inducing pet names?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:33 pm (UTC)I believe those are outlawed in the UK.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 07:41 pm (UTC)Once you got rid of Tom DeLay, you'd want him back?
"or (better yet) Prussia."
Lose a third of your territory to Russia in the Napoleonic wars?
William Hyde
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 08:23 pm (UTC)Regarding Prussia, it's a little hard to regard, isn't it.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 02:22 am (UTC)Ah, as in Lotharingia.
William Hyde
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 04:53 am (UTC)> Lose a third of your territory to Russia in the Napoleonic wars?
Several times in the grand strategy game Victoria: Revolutions I've played out the 1836-to-1936 timeframe as the United Kingdom and managed to weasel my way into the Texas-Mexico war going at the start of the game, and end up with Texas a British colony. This is so wonderfully impossible that I cherish it. I just haven't figured out any way to give Texas to Canada afterwards.
(The game does not quite adequately model how tetchy the United States got when the British Empire did anything in that hemisphere, but I do try to butter up Washington early and often and lavishly.)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-16 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 07:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-18 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 03:10 am (UTC)