PC: Division of Texas in 1849

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²), Apr 16, 2019 at 5:01 PM.

  1. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    Premise: Lewis Cass wins the presidential election in 1848, preventing the OTL Compromise of 1850 from ever materialising. Instead, he supports the concept of Popular Sovereignty, which, through pressure from pro-slavery elements in the Democratic Party, eventually leads to Texas being reorganised and split into four slave states in 1849, as being legally provided for in the OTL Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States on 1 March 1845. The joint resolution allowed for four additional states, but in this scenario, there will be only three additional states.

    texas_division_(coloured).png

    The four states on the map above are West Texas (orange), East Texas (green), New Mexico (purple), and Jefferson (blue).

    My question now is: Do you see any issues with the premise in general or the division as it's laid out in the map?
     
    Odinson and CtrlAltHistory like this.
  2. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    And a slightly different version, with New Mexico extending a bit more to the north.

    texas_division_(coloured_v2).png

    Some feedback would really be appreciated.
     
  3. fyrdhammer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Population seems like a stumbling block in this particular partition - Texas only had two congressional districts before the 1860 census. I’d hazard a guess that not all those climates are going to be equally suitable for plantation based slavery either.
     
  4. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    The Mesilla Valley of New Mexico could work for agriculture.


    I can't see there being more than three slave states carved out of Texas.
    • Texas east of the Colorado (or Brazos)
    • Texas west of the Colorado (or Brazos)
    • New Mexico, meaning the lands from the Rio Grande to Lubbock/Amarillo I suppose.
     
  5. fyrdhammer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Bear in mind that if the populations in these states are too low it's going to leave them vulnerable to free soiler land rushes.
     
  6. Jackson Lennock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Assuming that whatever alternative compromise of 1850 of TTL happens includes the continued existence of 36-30,

    Here we can see 4 states carved out of the Texas Republic (plus a little extra from Indian Country).

    East Texas
    West Texas
    New Mexico
    Cimarron

    I based the Cimarron boundary off of the 1890 division of Oklahoma. Odds are a different line would have been used, but you get the point.

    upload_2019-4-17_13-0-13.png
     
  7. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    Fair point. In this scenario, at least West Texas and East Texas seem to be having a population high enough to support statehood. New Mexico does so only to a lesser extent, while Jefferson has hardly any non-native population at this point. Therefore, while West Texas and East Texas could be admitted to the Union as states, it seems to be more reasonable to have New Mexico and Jefferson be created as territories instead. And regarding the suitability of plantation agriculture, I suppose that the mollisols of southern New Mexico could serve as a sufficiently fertile soil for cotton.

    Due to its fertility, the Mesilla Valley could be a good region for agriculture, yes. But perhaps not so much for plantation-based slavery, as it's right at the border to Mexico. It would create a Mexico in His Head situation, where slaves would constantly attempt to flee by crossing the Rio Grande to Mexico.

    That's actually what I had in mind for Jefferson, which would quickly become a focal point for conflict.

    I thought for quite a while about whether or not to keep the 36°30′ provision of the Missouri Compromise, but ultimately decided that the concept of Popular Sovereignty would quickly do away with it in this scenario.
     
  8. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    Following your input, here is a modified version for the division of Texas.

    texas_division_(coloured_v3).png

    There are now the states of New Mexico (purple), West Texas (orange), East Texas (green) and the territory of Jefferson (blue).

    I shifted most of the eastern border of New Mexico slightly to the west from the meridian 102°20' west to the meridian 103° west, and the eastern border of the panhandle of West Texas one degree to the east from the meridian 101° west to the meridian 100° west.

    Thoughts, comments?
     
  9. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    The population is too big an issue. Or rather, too small. Especially for this era, when Texas had fewer residents than Maine, New Jersey or Iowa.

    To this day, Texas has the right to divide itself into as many as five different states. The issue is, however, that when it was most feasible (pre-1900) Texas didn't have enough residents, and by the time it did (post-1900) dividing states had fallen far from fashion.
     
  10. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    The population was fairly small around the time of this scenario, but IOTL was expected to and indeed did grow rapidly in the years after.

    Texas in 1850 had a population of roughly 200,000, but tripled to over 600,000 only ten years later in 1860. And that excludes most of the areas that are part of Texas (or rather, its successor states) in this scenario.
     
  11. dmg86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    The issue is the population now not in 1860.
     
  12. Queen Edward II³-(IV+II²) Trigger-Happy Beerbarian

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Location:
    Großherzogtum Ruhrgebiet
    Even in 1850, the respective populations of at least West Texas and East Texas are sufficient to support the case for statehood. Besides that, the reasons for statehood in this scenario are a lot more ideological than demographical.