John Nance Garner, known to many as “Cactus Jack,” may be most famous for his time as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, but his legacy extends far beyond that. A prominent Texas congressman, Garner was known for his bold ideas and his enduring love for his home state. One of his most audacious proposals was the suggestion that Texas could, and perhaps should, break itself into five distinct states—a notion that has lingered as a fascinating “what-if” in the state’s history.
Garner’s idea wasn’t born from a mere desire for political power. Rather, it was a response to the immense size of Texas and its rapidly growing population. As a legislator and a leader in the House of Representatives, Garner argued that Texas, with its vast landscape and burgeoning cities, deserved far more influence in Washington. His solution was simple: divide Texas into five states, each of which could send its own senators to Congress and gain more representation.
At the time, Garner’s proposal seemed far-fetched. However, it rested on a unique provision in Texas’ admission to the United States in 1845, which granted the state the right to divide itself without requiring the approval of Congress. This clause, included in the joint resolution admitting Texas, set it apart from all other states and made Garner’s suggestion not entirely as wild as it seemed.
The idea of dividing Texas into multiple states wasn’t new, though. In fact, the concept had been debated ever since Texas became a part of the United States. But its roots stretch even further back, to the time before Texas was a state at all.
Texas Before Statehood
Before becoming a state in 1845, Texas had a long and complicated history. In the early 1800s, the land that would become Texas was part of the Spanish Empire. After Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, Texas became a part of Mexico. However, tensions between the Anglo settlers who had moved to Texas and the Mexican government quickly escalated. By 1835, the settlers, led by figures like Sam Houston, declared their independence from Mexico, starting the Texas Revolution.
The rebellion culminated in the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, where Texas forces defeated the Mexican army and captured General Antonio López de Santa Anna. With this victory, the Republic of Texas was born. For the next nine years, Texas existed as a sovereign nation, independent from both Mexico and the United States. It operated with its own government, currency, and military, although it faced ongoing pressure from Mexico to rejoin the country.
Despite its sovereignty, the Republic of Texas struggled to maintain its independence. It was financially unstable, with a large national debt and limited resources. Moreover, the issue of whether to join the United States became a major point of contention. Some Texans, particularly in the east, saw annexation as the best route to economic prosperity and security. Others, particularly in the west, were wary of becoming part of the U.S. for fear of losing their autonomy.
The Texas Annexation and the Four-State Clause
In the early 1840s, as tensions with Mexico remained high, the desire for annexation grew stronger. Eventually, the United States, under President James K. Polk, agreed to admit Texas as a state in 1845. However, the terms of Texas’ admission into the Union were unlike any other state in the nation. In the joint resolution passed by Congress, it was specifically stated that Texas had the right to divide itself into as many as five states, with the consent of its citizens. This unusual provision was included due to the unique circumstances surrounding Texas’ annexation.
At the time, the question of slavery was a major point of contention in U.S. politics, and the addition of Texas to the Union had the potential to shift the balance of power between free and slave states. The clause allowing Texas to divide itself was seen as a way to placate both Southern and Northern interests. By dividing the state into multiple parts, the South could ensure that Texas remained a stronghold for slavery, while the North could avoid giving Texas too much influence in the Senate.
The provision came about largely due to the efforts of Isaac Van Zandt, a prominent diplomat from the Texas Republic. Van Zandt worked closely with Southern senators and representatives to secure Texas’ entry into the Union on favorable terms, including the four-state clause. The clause passed with Texas’ admission to the Union in 1845 and became a part of the state’s legal framework.
However, the idea of dividing Texas was not only about politics. It also reflected the practical difficulties of governing such a vast and remote land. In the years following its annexation, many Texans in the western and northern parts of the state felt neglected by the central government in Austin. The idea of creating smaller states was seen as a solution to these concerns, and some, like Van Zandt, believed that dividing the state would allow for better governance and greater political influence.
Early Attempts to Divide Texas
The notion of splitting Texas into multiple states did not fade quickly. In fact, the idea was seriously considered during the mid-1800s. In 1847, Isaac Van Zandt ran for governor on a platform that included dividing Texas into up to four states. His reasoning was twofold: first, he believed that a divided Texas would wield more political power in Washington, and second, he argued that it would make governing the sprawling state more efficient.
Despite his arguments, Van Zandt did not win the election, and the idea of dividing the state lost some momentum. However, the issue was brought up again in 1852, when a proposal to split Texas along the Brazos River was put before the state legislature. The plan was to divide the state into two parts: one for the eastern and more populous regions, and another for the sparsely populated western territories. The proposal, however, was rejected by a wide margin, as many Texans were unwilling to give up the pride of having a single state.
In the years following the Civil War, as Reconstruction took hold, the question of division resurfaced. Radical Republicans, who had gained control of the Texas state government, proposed creating a West Texas state that would be more aligned with Union ideals. They hoped that this new state would be able to rejoin the Union before the rest of Texas. However, this plan was fraught with challenges. Texans were unable to agree on the details of how to divide the state, and the idea was ultimately abandoned.
The 1920s and 1930s: A Revival of Division Talk
In the early 20th century, as Texas experienced rapid growth and development, the idea of dividing the state resurfaced once again. In 1921, Governor Pat M. Neff vetoed a bill to build a college in West Texas, and in response, a large group of frustrated West Texans gathered in Sweetwater and drafted resolutions calling for the state’s breakup. They demanded that the legislature redistrict the state and build the promised college or face the threat of division.
The proposal, however, did not gain much traction, and it was temporarily quieted when Texas Tech University was established in Lubbock in 1923. However, just a few years later, Garner once again brought up the idea of division, this time in the context of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Garner suggested that a divided Texas could wield more political power in Washington, but his idea was largely dismissed.
The Enduring Legacy of Texas’ Unique Status
Though no serious attempt has been made to divide Texas in modern times, the idea persists as a curiosity in both political and cultural discussions. Over the years, various political analysts and commentators have toyed with the idea of dividing Texas into five states, each with its own political identity. Some have even suggested that such a split could change the balance of power in Congress.
But despite these ongoing discussions, most Texans are fiercely proud of their state’s unity and independence. There’s a deep-seated pride in being part of a state so large and powerful that it could theoretically divide itself at will. This pride is rooted in Texas’ unique history as a former independent republic and its status as the only state with the legal right to divide itself.
As Donald W. Whisenhunt, a Texas native and author of The Five States of Texas: An Immodest Proposal, pointed out, the idea of dividing Texas may be appealing at first glance, but the reality is much more complicated. The state’s vast oil wealth, its major state universities, and its deep-rooted identity make division an unlikely prospect. “Texas is the biggest, the best, and the first,” Whisenhunt says. “That’s a pride that’s hard to give up.”
In the end, while the idea of dividing Texas may remain a captivating thought experiment, it’s unlikely to ever become a reality. The state’s unique history, its cultural pride, and the practical challenges of division all ensure that Texas will remain united, at least for the foreseeable future.

