So what was Oklahoma thinking?

[InternalDialogue]

Just sticking that panhandle out. Trying to touch Colorado or New Mexico, I guess.





Should that normally just be part of Texas?

(In a related note, I'm moving to west Texas, not that I'm trying to add to the real estate there... but if I were, there are a lot more professional athletes in Texas who could run up to the Oklahoma panhandle and muscle the OKC basketball team out of the way, if need be.)

[CBGLuthier]

1. In Part it was created because Texas was a slave state

Congress had decreed no slaves north of a certain point so Texas had to give up land.





When Texas sought to enter the Union in 1845 as a slave state, federal law in the United States based on the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery North of 36°30' parallel north. Under the Compromise of 1850, Texas surrendered its lands north of 36°30' latitude. The 170-mile strip of land was thus left with no formal territorial ownership. It was officially called the "Public Land Strip" and was more commonly referred to as "No Man's Land."
The Compromise of 1850 also established the eastern boundary of New Mexico Territory at the 103rd meridian, thus setting the western boundary of the strip. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 set the southern border of Kansas Territory as the 37th parallel. This became the northern boundary of No Man's Land. When Kansas joined the Union in 1861, the western part of Kansas Territory was assigned to Colorado Territory, but did not change the boundary.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Panhandle