TX: Individual County Chronologies

ANDERSON created from HOUSTON and NACOGDOCHES; ANDERSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 20)

ANDERSON fully organized. (Hohes, 5)

ANDERSON gained small area from HOUSTON. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 80)

ANDREWS created from TOM GREEN and Young Territory; ANDREWS not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

ANDREWS detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

ANDREWS detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

ANDREWS detached from HOWARD, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 3/p. 110)

ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 4/p. 162)

ANDREWS detached from MIDLAND, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 1/p. 36)

ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1909, 31st leg., reg. sess., ch. 8, sec. 4/p. 12)

ANDREWS fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Andrews County Heritage Committee, 21)

Western extent of ANDREWS explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

ANGELINA created from Non-County Area 10; ANGELINA not fully organized, Non-County Area 10 eliminated. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 120)

ANGELINA fully organized. (Haltom, 20)

ARANSAS created from REFUGIO; ARANSAS not fully organized. Act passed 18 September 1871; took effect 30 September 1871. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 1/p. 1)

ARANSAS fully organized. ("Aransas County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:218)

ARANSAS exchanged with SAN PATRICIO [act repealed 24 April 1891]. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 40/p. 28)

ARANSAS exchanged with SAN PATRICIO [repealed act of 17 March 1887].(Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 172)

Boundaries of ARANSAS extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

ARCHER created from Young Territory; ARCHER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 5/p. 59)

ARCHER attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of ARCHER, BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

ARCHER attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

ARCHER detached from CLAY, attached to JACK "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

ARCHER detached from JACK, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 13/p. 53)

ARCHER detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

ARCHER fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Archer County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:224)

ARMSTRONG created from Young Territory; ARMSTRONG not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

ARMSTRONG detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

ARMSTRONG detached from WHEELER, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

ARMSTRONG fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 206)

ATASCOSA created from BEXAR; ATASCOSA not fully organized. [estimated lines on west and southwest] (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 33/p. 25)

ATASCOSA fully organized. (TXGenWeb Project, Atascosa County, Texas; http://bsd.pastracks.com/states/texas/atascosa/; 11 December 2001)

ATASCOSA gained from Bexar Land District; lost to creation of FRIO and McMULLEN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 6-7/p. 88)

FRIO attached to ATASCOSA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

ATASCOSA lost all territory to LIVE OAK; ATASCOSA eliminated, temporarily ending the attachment of FRIO (act repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 27)

ATASCOSA re-created from LIVE OAK; FRIO again attached to ATASCOSA (repealed acts of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

FRIO detached from ATASCOSA, attached to MEDINA "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

SAN FELIPE DE AUSTIN (now AUSTIN, original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; municipality had jurisdiction over territory between the Lavaca and San Jacinto Rivers, and south of the San Antonio Road to the Gulf of Mexico. ("Austin County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:305; Barker, 299-307)

AUSTIN lost to creation of BRAZORIA. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 196/p. 307)

AUSTIN lost to creation of MINA (now BASTROP). (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 283/p. 384)

AUSTIN lost to creation of WASHINGTON [estimated line on north]. ("Documents Relating to the Organization.," 99; Partlow, inside front cover, 326)

AUSTIN lost to creation of HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) [estimated line on north]. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 119)

AUSTIN lost to creation of COLORADO [estimated line on north]. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 130)

AUSTIN became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

Boundary between AUSTIN and WASHINGTON defined; AUSTIN lost small area to creation of MONTGOMERY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 33, 49)

AUSTIN lost to creation of FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 118)

AUSTIN gained small area from WASHINGTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 43)

Boundary between AUSTIN and FORT BEND clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 3d cong./p. 33)

AUSTIN lost to FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 220)

AUSTIN lost to FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 80, 136)

Boundary between AUSTIN and WASHINGTON adjusted [change too small to map]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 76)

Part of the boundary between AUSTIN and WASHINGTON clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 58)

AUSTIN became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

AUSTIN exchanged with FORT BEND. Area between Sixteen Mile Creek and San Bernard River was in dispute, although it appears that the 1841 boundary line continued to be generally observed. Boundary question settled 30 October 1931. [disputed area] (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 15)

AUSTIN gained small area from FORT BEND. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 77/p. 75)

AUSTIN lost to creation of WALLER. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 38/p. 49)

AUSTIN lost to FORT BEND, settling boundary dispute dating from 24 March 1846. ("Austin County v. Fort Bend County," Agreed Judgment in Cause #6545, Washington County District Court in "Austin County Boundary File 5," Texas General Land Office, Austin)

BAILEY created from Young Territory; BAILEY not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

BAILEY detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

BAILEY detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

BAILEY detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

BAILEY detached from HALE, attached to CASTRO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1892, 22d leg., called sess., ch. 24, sec. 2/p. 59)

BAILEY fully organized, detached from CASTRO. (Kennedy, 61; Texas Laws 1919, 36th leg., reg. sess., ch. 82, sec. 2/p. 132)

Western extent of BAILEY explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

BANDERA created from BEXAR, UVALDE, and Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA; BANDERA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 31)

BANDERA lost to UVALDE. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 70/p. 72)

BANDERA fully organized. ("Bandera County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:364)

EDWARDS attached to BANDERA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/ p. 120)

EDWARDS detached from BANDERA, attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 40/p. 31)

EDWARDS detached from UVALDE, attached to BANDERA "for judicial purposes." This conflicted with chapter 36 which stated EDWARDS remained attached to UVALDE; corrected 10 August 1870. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27 and ch. 36, sec. 7/p. 28)

EDWARDS detached from either BANDERA or UVALDE, attached to KERR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 27/p. 57)

BANDERA lost to creation of REAL. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 133/pp. 264-267)

MINA (now BASTROP, original county) established as a municipality by Mexico from AUSTIN and unorganized area in Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 283/p. 384)

MINA (now BASTROP) lost to creation of COLORADO. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 130)

MINA (now BASTROP) became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

MINA (now BASTROP) lost to creation of FAYETTE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 35-36)

MINA renamed BASTROP; BASTROP exchanged with BEXAR, part of BASTROP reverted to Non-County Area 3. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 90-91)

Part of BASTROP boundary defined [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 44)

BASTROP lost to creation of TRAVIS. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./pp. 181, 254)

BASTROP became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

BASTROP lost to CALDWELL. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 73/p. 82)

BASTROP exchanged with both BURLESON and WILLIAMSON. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 88/p. 7)

BASTROP lost to creation of LEE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 75/pp. 94-97)

BAYLOR created from Young Territory; BAYLOR not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 11/p. 89)

BAYLOR attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of ARCHER, BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

BAYLOR attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

BAYLOR detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

BAYLOR detached from JACK, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 13/p. 53)

BAYLOR fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Kennedy, 62)

HARDEMAN, KNOX, and WILBARGER detached from CLAY; BAILEY, COTTLE, FLOYD, HALE, LAMB, and MOTLEY detached from JACK; COCHRAN, CROSBY, DICKENS, HOCKLEY, LUBBOCK, and KING detached from YOUNG. All attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

WILBARGER fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Ross and Rouse, 2)

FLOYD detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." COTTLE and HARDEMAN both detached from BAYLOR, attached to WILBARGER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, secs. 4, 8/pp. 30-31)

HALE and MOTLEY both detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1884, 18th leg., spec. sess., ch. 15, sec. 31/p. 26)

KNOX fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Knox County History Committee, 17)

CROSBY fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Spikes and Ellis, 18-19)

BAILEY, COCHRAN, DICKENS, HOCKLEY, LAMB, and LUBBOCK detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." KING detached from BAYLOR, attached to KNOX "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

BEE created from GOLIAD, KARNES, LIVE OAK, REFUGIO, and SAN PATRICIO; BEE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 14/p. 11)

BEE fully organized. ("Bee County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:460)

BELL created from MILAM; part of MILAM reverted to Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL for administrative and judicial purposes. BELL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 55/pp. 63-65)

BELL fully organized. (Memorial and Biographical History of McLennan, Falls, Bell and Coryell Counties, 246)

Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL lost to creation of BURNET. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

BELL lost to WILLIAMSON, and lost part of Non-County Area 17 attachment to WILLIAMSON. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 41/p. 53)

Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL lost to creation of CORYELL; remaining Non-County Area 17 detached from BELL, attached to CORYELL "for all county and general purposes." (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 36/pp. 45-47)

BELL lost small area to creation of LAMPASAS. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 44/p. 41)

BELL gained from FALLS. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 142/p. 89)

BELL gained from MILAM. (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 36/p. 29)

SAN FERNANDO DE BEXAR (now BEXAR, original county) established as a municipality under the authority of New Spain. Precise boundaries not described [not mapped]. (Austin, 298; Cruz, 64-76)

BEXAR created as a department or district within the Mexican state of Coahuila and Texas. Boundaries were indefinite but BEXAR encompassed a large portion of present Texas [not mapped]. ("Mexican Government of Texas," New Handbook of Texas, 4:685)

BEXAR became a county in the Republic of Texas, boundaries indefinite [not mapped]. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

BEXAR boundaries implicitly expanded to cover all non-county area when the Republic of Texas officially established its boundaries. BEXAR included parts of present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 133)

BEXAR lost to creation of ROBERTSON; BEXAR boundary clarified when GONZALES boundaries defined. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 42)

BEXAR exchanged with BASTROP. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 91)

BEXAR exchanged with SAN PATRICIO. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 33)

BEXAR lost to FANNIN. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 194)

BEXAR lost to creation of GUADALUPE (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 78)

BEXAR gained from GUADALUPE (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

BEXAR became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

BEXAR lost to creation of COMAL. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 13)

BEXAR lost to creation of GUADALUPE. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 33)

BEXAR lost to MILAM, and to creation of Non-County Area 12. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 259)

BEXAR lost to creation of WEBB. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

BEXAR lost to creation of MEDINA. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 36/p. 27)

BEXAR lost to creation of GILLESPIE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 47/p. 35)

BEXAR lost to creation of SANTA FE (extinct). (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch 87/p. 95)

BEXAR lost to TRAVIS. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 150/p. 218)

BEXAR lost to SANTA FE (extinct). (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 24/p. 21)

BEXAR lost to WEBB. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46/p. 46)

BEXAR lost to creation of KINNEY. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 81/p. 88)

Part of BEXAR reverted to Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 89/p. 94)

BEXAR lost to creation of UVALDE. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 112/p. 132)

State of Texas sold land in present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming to the United States. BEXAR lost territory to the United States; implicitly gained territory extending to new northern limit of Texas. Except for small adjustments, Texas state boundaries now set. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 49 [1850]/pp. 446-452 and appendix, sec. 10/pp. 1005-1006; Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 2/p. 4; Van Zandt, 122)

BEXAR lost to creation of KARNES. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 35/p. 44)

BEXAR lost to creation of ATASCOSA. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 33/p. 25)

BEXAR lost to creation of BANDERA and KERR. Bexar Land District was physically separated from county of BEXAR. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 40, 42/pp. 30-31)

BEXAR lost to creation of WILSON. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 76/pp. 106-108)

BEXAR lost to MEDINA. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 21/p. 32)

Bexar Land District was physically separated from BEXAR County by creation of BANDERA and KERR [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 40, 42/pp. 30-31)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of LLANO and SAN SABA [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 48-49/pp. 44-45)

Bexar Land District exchanged with KINNEY, and lost small area to creation of LIVE OAK; part of Bexar Land District attached to WISE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 72/p. 73)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of Young Territory; area north of Young Territory became known as Bexar Territory or Unorganized Territory on contemporary maps. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41; Colton, New Map of the State of Texas; Martin and Martin, Maps of Texas, 154-155, 158-159)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of McCULLOCH [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 141/p. 69)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of KIMBLE, MASON, and MENARD [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, secs. 2-4/pp. 58-59)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of CALLAHAN, CONCHO, DIMMIT, EDWARDS, FRIO, JONES, LA SALLE, McMULLEN, RUNNELS, TAYLOR, and ZAVALA; lost to ATASCOSA [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 3, 5-8, 13-16, 20-22/pp. 87-91)

Non-county area in Bexar Land District was attached to KINNEY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 28/p. 21)

Bexar Land District lost to creation of TOM GREEN [map depicts non-county area in Bexar Land District]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 26/p. 21)

Non-county area within Bexar Land District eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of CROCKETT. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 2/p. 2)

That part of Bexar Land District north of Young Territory became known as Bexar Territory or Unorganized Territory on contemporary maps. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41; Colton, New Map of the State of Texas; Martin and Martin, Maps of Texas, 154-155, 158-159)

Bexar Territory gained from Young Territory; lost to creation of WEGEFARTH (extinct). (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 91/p. 167)

Bexar Territory (northern portion of Bexar Land District) eliminated when it lost to creation of CARSON, DALLAM, GRAY, HANSFORD, HARTLEY, HEMPHILL, HUTCHINSON, LIPSCOMB, MOORE, OCHILTREE, OLDHAM, POTTER, ROBERTS, SHERMAN, and WHEELER. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234-236)

BLANCO created from BURNET, COMAL, GILLESPIE, HAYS, KERR, all of Non-County Area 14, and all of Non-County Area 20; BLANCO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

BLANCO fully organized. (Moursund, 127)

BLANCO gained from HAYS, lost to creation of KENDALL. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., chs. 38-39/pp. 32-33)

BORDEN created from Young Territory; BORDEN not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238-239, 242)

BORDEN detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

BORDEN detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

BORDEN fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Kennedy, 65)

GARZA detached from SCURRY, attached to BORDEN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1893, 23d leg., ch. 110/p. 166)

GARZA fully organized, detached from BORDEN. (Garza County Historical Survey Committee, 5)

BOSQUE created from McLENNAN; that part of McLENNAN north and west of BOSQUE became Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE for administrative and judicial purposes. BOSQUE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 38/p. 48)

Non-county area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of JOHNSON. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 76/p. 104)

BOSQUE fully organized. (Pool, Bosque County, 24)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of PARKER. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 1/p. 3)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of COMANCHE and ERATH. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 34-35/p. 27)

Small part of Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of PALO PINTO. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 138/p. 65)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of THROCKMORTON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 39/pp. 36-38)

BOSQUE lost to creation of HAMILTON, and lost part of attached Non-County Area 22 to creation of BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 9/pp. 60-61 and ch. 56/p. 63)

Non-County Area 22 attachment to BOSQUE ended when non-county area eliminated by the creation of CALLAHAN, EASTLAND, SHACKELFORD, and TAYLOR. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 5, 10, 13, 15/pp. 87-90)

BOWIE created by the Republic of Texas from RED RIVER; BOWIE not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 97)

BOWIE fully organized. ("Old Boston," New Handbook of Texas, 4:1132)

BOWIE lost to creation of PASCHAL (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 56)

BOWIE gained from PASCHAL (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

BOWIE boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./p. 37)

BOWIE gained from HARRISON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 12)

BOWIE became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

BOWIE lost to creation of CASS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 135)

BOWIE lost to creation of TITUS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 198)

BRAZORIA ( original county) created from AUSTIN; established as a municipality by Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 196/p. 307)

BRAZORIA lost to creation of MATAGORDA. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 265/p. 352)

BRAZORIA renamed COLUMBIA. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 283/p. 385)

COLUMBIA renamed BRAZORIA. (Gammel, 1:Journals of the Consultation, 31)

BRAZORIA lost to MATAGORDA. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 114)

BRAZORIA became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

BRAZORIA lost to creation of FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 118)

BRAZORIA lost to creation of GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 24)

BRAZORIA gained San Luis Island from GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 183)

BRAZORIA lost to GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ p. 45)

BRAZORIA became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

BRAZORIA gained from FORT BEND, and exchanged small areas with MATAGORDA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 15, 18-20)

Boundaries of BRAZORIA extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

NAVASOTO (now BRAZOS) created by the Republic of Texas from ROBERTSON and WASHINGTON; NAVASOTO not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 86-88)

NAVASOTO renamed BRAZOS. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 73)

BRAZOS fully organized. (Kennedy, 66)

BRAZOS became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

Legislature authorized BRAZOS to gain from BURLESON, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 39/p. 50)

BREWSTER created from PRESIDIO; BREWSTER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 4/p. 4)

BREWSTER fully organized. (Casey, 27-28)

BUCHEL (extinct), FOLEY (extinct), and JEFF DAVIS created from PRESIDIO; BUCHEL, FOLEY, and JEFF DAVIS not fully organized, all attached to BREWSTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 26)

JEFF DAVIS fully organized, detached from BREWSTER. (Jacobson and Nored, 151)

BREWSTER gained from FOLEY (extinct), lost to PRESIDIO. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 49/p. 44)

BREWSTER gained all of BUCHEL (extinct) and FOLEY (extinct); BUCHEL and FOLEY eliminated. (Texas Laws 1897, 25th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 115)

BRISCOE created from WEGEFARTH (extinct) and Young Territory; BRISCOE not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

BRISCOE detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

BRISCOE detached from WHEELER, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

BRISCOE fully organized, detached from DONLEY. ("Briscoe County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:741)

BROOKS created from HIDALGO, STARR, and ZAPATA; BROOKS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 39/pp. 55-57)

BROOKS fully organized. (Brooks County Historical Commission, 3)

BROOKS lost to creation of JIM HOGG. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 73/pp. 133-136)

Boundary between BROOKS and JIM HOGG clarified to end uncertainty about the southern section of the boundary [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1945, 49th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 84)

BROWN created from Travis Land District and from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL; BROWN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 139/p. 66)

BROWN lost to creation of COLEMAN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 4/p. 87)

BROWN gained from Travis Land District and gained all of small remnant of Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 96/p. 122)

BROWN fully organized. (HRS Texas, Brown, 8)

COLEMAN and RUNNELS both attached to BROWN "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 2/p. 120)

COLEMAN fully organized, detached from BROWN. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 206)

RUNNELS detached from BROWN, attached to COLEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 133)

BROWN lost to creation of MILLS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 25)

BUCHEL (extinct) created from PRESIDIO; BUCHEL not fully organized, attached to BREWSTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 26)

BUCHEL (extinct) lost all territory to BREWSTER; BUCHEL eliminated. (Texas Laws 1897, 25th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 115)

BURLESON (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from MILAM; BURLESON (Judicial County) was located in the same general area as present BURLESON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 36)

BURLESON (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

BURLESON created from MILAM; BURLESON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 16-18)

BURLESON fully organized. (Kennedy, 69)

BURLESON exchanged with BASTROP. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 88/p. 7)

Legislature authorized BRAZOS to gain from BURLESON, dependent on local referendum that failed [no change]. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 39/p. 50)

BURLESON divided into two parts when it lost to creation of LEE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 75/pp. 94-97)

BURLESON lost to LEE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 149/p. 202)

BURNET (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from HOUSTON; BURNET (Judicial County) was located in a different area of Texas from present BURNET. [south line is estimated] (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 94)

BURNET (Judicial County) gained from NACOGDOCHES, lost to HOUSTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 7)

BURNET (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

BURNET created from TRAVIS, WILLIAMSON, GILLESPIE, and Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL. BURNET not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

BURNET fully organized. (Debo, 1:33)

BURNET lost to LLANO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 114/p. 147)

BURNET lost to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

Legislature authorized BURNET to gain from LAMPASAS; line cannot be drawn as described [repealed 1 May 1874; no change]. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 105/p. 184)

Act of 2 June 1873, changing the boundary between BURNET and LAMPASAS, was repealed [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 135/p. 185)

CALDWELL created from GONZALES; CALDWELL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 65/p. 53)

CALDWELL fully organized. (HRS Texas, Caldwell, 5)

CALDWELL gained from BASTROP. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 73/p. 82)

Boundary between CALDWELL and GONZALES clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 118/p. 142)

CALHOUN created from Non-County Area 6 and Non-County Area 7 (formerly parts of JACKSON and VICTORIA); CALHOUN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 48)

CALHOUN fully organized. (HRS Texas, Calhoun, 7)

CALHOUN gained from VICTORIA, lost part of Matagorda Island and part of San Antonio Bay to REFUGIO. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 177/p. 104)

CALHOUN gained part of Matagorda Island and part of San Antonio Bay from REFUGIO. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 178/p. 196)

CALHOUN gained from REFUGIO. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 1/p. 1)

Boundaries of CALHOUN extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

CALLAHAN created from Bexar Land District, Travis Land District, Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL, and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; CALLAHAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 13/p. 89)

CALLAHAN attached to COMANCHE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 3/p. 120)

CALLAHAN detached from COMANCHE, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 14/p. 54)

CALLAHAN detached from PALO PINTO, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 47, sec. 1/p. 59)

CALLAHAN detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to EASTLAND "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

CALLAHAN fully organized, detached from EASTLAND. ("Callahan County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:906)

CAMERON created from NUECES; CAMERON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 35/p. 27)

CAMERON fully organized. ("Cameron County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:919)

CAMERON boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 10/p. 8)

CAMERON lost to creation of HIDALGO. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 32)

CAMERON lost to NUECES. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

CAMERON lost to creation of WILLACY; small remnants of CAMERON remained along its former northern boundary with NUECES. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/pp. 83-87)

CAMERON lost small remnants along former northern boundary to creation of KLEBERG. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 10/pp. 14-17)

CAMERON lost to WILLACY. (Texas Laws 1921, 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 104/pp. 200-207)

Boundaries of CAMERON extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

CAMP created from UPSHUR; CAMP not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 55/p. 65)

CAMP fully organized. (Kennedy, 73)

CARSON created from Bexar Territory and Young Territory; CARSON not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235-236, 242)

CARSON detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

CARSON detached from WHEELER, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

CARSON fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (Randel, 1:38)

HUTCHINSON detached from WHEELER, attached to CARSON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 2/p. 162)

HUTCHINSON detached from CARSON, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 74/p. 92)

CASS created from BOWIE; CASS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 135)

CASS fully organized. (Kennedy, 74)

CASS lost to creation of MARION. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 48/pp. 57-59)

CASS renamed DAVIS. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 14/p. 8)

DAVIS (now CASS) authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of LATIMER (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 110)

DAVIS renamed CASS. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 95/p. 92)

CASTRO created from Young Territory; CASTRO not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

CASTRO detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

CASTRO detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

CASTRO fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Castro County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:1022)

BAILEY and LAMB detached from HALE, both attached to CASTRO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1892, 22d leg., called sess., ch. 24, sec. 2/p. 59)

LAMB fully organized, detached from CASTRO. ("Lamb County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:44)

BAILEY fully organized, detached from CASTRO. (Kennedy, 61; Texas Laws 1919, 36th leg., reg. sess., ch. 82, sec. 2/p. 132)

CHAMBERS created from JEFFERSON and LIBERTY; CHAMBERS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 125-126/pp. 192-193)

CHAMBERS fully organized. (Kennedy, 74)

CHEROKEE created from NACOGDOCHES; CHEROKEE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 63-65)

CHEROKEE fully organized. ("Cherokee County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:59)

CHILDRESS created from HARDEMAN, WEGEFARTH (extinct), and Young Territory; CHILDRESS not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

CHILDRESS detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

CHILDRESS detached from WHEELER, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

CHILDRESS fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (Ord, 8)

COLLINGSWORTH detached from WHEELER and COTTLE detached from HARDEMAN, both attached to CHILDRESS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 8/p. 163)

COLLINGSWORTH fully organized, detached from CHILDRESS. (History of Collingsworth County, 32-35)

COTTLE fully organized, detached from CHILDRESS. (Bennett, 22)

Constitutional Convention authorized WILSON to gain from GUADALUPE, and proposed WILSON be renamed "CIBOLO;" changes were never recognized or legalized by the Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 75)

CLAY created from COOKE; boundary with JACK in dispute [settled March 1895]. Non-county area west of CLAY attached to CLAY "for judicial and general purposes." CLAY not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 34/p. 33)

WICHITA attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 13, sec. 3/p. 17)

CLAY attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

CLAY fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Taylor, 47-48)

CLAY disorganized due to Indian attacks and the flight of settlers; all non-county area attachments to CLAY ended. (Taylor, 50; Vernon's Annotated Constitution, 2:634-636)

ARCHER attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." WICHITA detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

CLAY attached to MONTAGUE; ARCHER detached from CLAY, attached to JACK; WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE. All attachments were "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, secs. 1-2/p. 94)

CLAY fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Taylor, 47-50, 70-71; Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 72/pp. 106-108)

CHILDRESS, COLLINGSWORTH, DONLEY, GRAY, HALL, HEMPHILL, LIPSCOMB, OCHILTREE, ROBERTS, and WHEELER not fully organized, all attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234-236, 242)

WHEELER fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Wheeler County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:918)

ARCHER, HARDEMAN, KNOX, WICHITA, and WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, all attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

CHILDRESS, COLLINGSWORTH, DONLEY, GRAY, HALL, HEMPHILL, LIPSCOMB, OCHILTREE, and ROBERTS detached from CLAY, all attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

ARCHER fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Archer County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:224)

HARDEMAN, KNOX, and WILBARGER detached from CLAY, all attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

WICHITA fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Wichita County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:952)

CLAY lost control over the area claimed by both CLAY and JACK since 1857; Overlap Area 4 eliminated. (Taylor, 1, 127)

COCHRAN created from Young Territory; COCHRAN not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

COCHRAN detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

COCHRAN detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

COCHRAN detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

COCHRAN detached from HALE, attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

COCHRAN detached from LUBBOCK, attached to HOCKLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1921 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 199)

COCHRAN fully organized, detached from HOCKLEY. ("Cochran County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:182)

Western extent of COCHRAN explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

COKE created from TOM GREEN; COKE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 77/p. 86)

COKE fully organized. (Sharp, 1)

COLEMAN created from BROWN and Travis Land District; COLEMAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 4/p. 87)

COLEMAN attached to BROWN "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 2/p. 120)

COLEMAN fully organized, detached from BROWN. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 206)

RUNNELS detached from BROWN, attached to COLEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 133)

RUNNELS fully organized, detached from COLEMAN. ("Runnels County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:717)

COLLINGSWORTH created from WEGEFARTH (extinct); COLLINGSWORTH not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

COLLINGSWORTH detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

COLLINGSWORTH detached from WHEELER, attached to CHILDRESS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 8/p. 163)

COLLINGSWORTH fully organized, detached from CHILDRESS. (History of Collingsworth County, 32-35)

COLLIN created from non-county area of Fannin Land District; resulted in an overlap with GRAYSON (see Overlap Area 1). Southern part Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN for administrative and judicial purposes. COLLIN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 44)

Part of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN lost to creation of DENTON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 57)

COLLIN fully organized. (Stambaugh and Stambaugh, 41-42)

Overlap Area 1 between COLLIN and GRAYSON ended; COLLIN retained control of disputed area. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 11/p. 9)

Boundary between COLLIN and GRAYSON clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 18/p. 13)

Part of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN lost to creation of COOKE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 130/p. 183)

Cooke and Denton Land Districts re-organized; implicitly ended the attachment of non-county areas in Fannin Land District to COLLIN and GRAYSON [map depicts non-county area in Cooke Land District]. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

COLORADO (original county) created from AUSTIN and MINA (now BASTROP); established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 130)

COLORADO became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

COLORADO lost to creation of FAYETTE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 35-36)

COLORADO gained from JACKSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 121)

COLORADO lost to creation of WARD (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 65)

COLORADO lost to creation of LA BACA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 74)

COLORADO gained from LA BACA (Judicial County) and WARD (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

COLORADO became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

COLORADO lost to creation of WHARTON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 38)

COLORADO gained from Non-County Area 8, lost to creation of LAVACA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 37, 49)

COLORADO gained all of Non-County Area 8. (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 49)

COMAL created from BEXAR, TRAVIS, and a small part of GONZALES; COMAL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 13)

COMAL fully organized. (Kennedy, 78)

COMAL gained from GUADALUPE, lost to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

COMAL boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 6/p. 4)

COMANCHE created from Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE and Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL; COMANCHE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 35/p. 27)

COMANCHE fully organized. (Kennedy, 79)

COMANCHE gained from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 126/p. 55)

COMANCHE gained from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL; lost to creation of Non-County Area 24, anticipated creation of HAMILTON on 22 January 1858. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 49/p. 54)

Boundary between COMANCHE and ERATH clarified [no change]. CALLAHAN, EASTLAND, and TAYLOR all attached to COMANCHE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 3/p. 120 and ch. 88/p. 121)

CALLAHAN, EASTLAND, and TAYLOR detached from COMANCHE, all attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 14/p. 54)

COMANCHE lost to creation of MILLS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 25)

CONCHO created from Bexar Land District, and a very small part of Travis Land District [NE corner]; CONCHO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 3/p. 87)

CONCHO attached to SAN SABA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

CONCHO detached from SAN SABA, attached to McCULLOCH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 67, sec. 11/p. 74)

CONCHO fully organized, detached from McCULLOCH. (Kennedy, 80)

COOKE created from parts of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN and GRAYSON, and from Non-County Area 13. Non-County Area 13 eliminated, COOKE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 130/p. 183)

COOKE fully organized. (Smith, 10)

COOKE exchanged with DENTON. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41/p. 32)

COOKE lost to creation of WISE. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 31/p. 23)

Boundary between COOKE and GRAYSON clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 51/p. 49)

COOKE lost to creation of JACK, resulted in an overlap with JACK. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 135/pp. 62-64)

COOKE lost to creation of CLAY and MONTAGUE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 33-34/pp. 31-33)

Cooke Land District re-organized, gained most of non-county area in Fannin Land District; implicitly ended the attachment of non-county areas in Fannin Land District to COLLIN and GRAYSON. Map depicts non-county area in Cooke Land District. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

Cooke Land District lost to creation of YOUNG; the part of Cooke Land District south of the Wichita River attached to WISE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72)

Cooke Land District lost to creation of Young Territory. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

CORYELL created from McLENNAN and Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL; remaining Non-County Area 17 detached from BELL, attached to CORYELL "for all county and general purposes." CORYELL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 36/pp. 45-47)

CORYELL fully organized. (Scott, 35)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of COMANCHE and ERATH. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 34-35/p. 27)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of LAMPASAS. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 44/p. 41)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to COMANCHE. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 126/p. 55)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of BROWN and PALO PINTO. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., chs. 138-139/pp. 65-66)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to ERATH. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 172/p. 96)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to COMANCHE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 49/p. 54)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of CALLAHAN and EASTLAND. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 10, 13/pp. 88-89)

Attachment of Non-County Area 17 to CORYELL ended when non-county area lost all remaining territory to BROWN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 96/p. 122)

COTTLE created from HARDEMAN and Young Territory; COTTLE not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

COTTLE detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

COTTLE detached from BAYLOR, attached to WILBARGER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 8/p. 31)

COTTLE detached from WILBARGER, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

COTTLE detached from HARDEMAN, attached to CHILDRESS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 8/p. 163)

COTTLE lost to creation of FOARD. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 15/p. 17)

COTTLE fully organized, detached from CHILDRESS. (Bennett, 22)

CRANE created from TOM GREEN; CRANE not fully organized, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1e, 4/p. 9)

CRANE detached from MIDLAND, attached to ECTOR "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1903, 28th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 3/p. 92)

CRANE fully organized, detached from ECTOR. (Correspondence, Judy Crawford, District and County Clerk, Crane County, 3 July 2001)

CROCKETT created from Bexar Land District; CROCKETT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 2/p. 2)

CROCKETT attached to KINNEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 18/p. 16)

CROCKETT lost to creation of VAL VERDE, lost very small area [above NW corner of VAL VERDE] to PECOS. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 50/p. 48)

CROCKETT lost to EDWARDS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 17/p. 12)

CROCKETT detached from KINNEY, attached to VAL VERDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 65, sec. 2/p. 46)

CROCKETT lost to creation of SCHLEICHER and SUTTON. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 95)

CROCKETT fully organized, detached from VAL VERDE. ("Crockett County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:411)

CROSBY created from Young Territory; CROSBY not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

CROSBY detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

CROSBY fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Spikes and Ellis, 18-19)

BAILEY, COCHRAN, DICKENS, HOCKLEY, LAMB, and LUBBOCK detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY; FLOYD and HALE detached from DONLEY, attached to CROSBY; MOTLEY detached from HARDEMAN, attached to CROSBY. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

HALE fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Cox, Mary, 2-3)

BAILEY, COCHRAN, HOCKLEY, and LAMB detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, secs. 6, 10/p. 163)

FLOYD fully organized, detached from CROSBY. ("Floyd County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:1043)

MOTLEY fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Traweek, 15)

LUBBOCK fully organized, detached from CROSBY. ("Lubbock County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:323)

DICKENS fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Kennedy, 85)

LYNN detached from CROSBY, attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

CULBERSON created from EL PASO; CULBERSON not fully organized, attached to EL PASO "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 53)

CULBERSON fully organized, detached from EL PASO. (Wylie, 13)

DALLAM created from Bexar Territory; DALLAM not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

DALLAM detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

DALLAM detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

DALLAM detached from OLDHAM, attached to HARTLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46, sec. 2/p. 49)

DALLAM fully organized, detached from HARTLEY. (Hunter, 35)

Western extent of DALLAM explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

DALLAS created from NACOGDOCHES and ROBERTSON; DALLAS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 26)

DALLAS fully organized. (Memorial and Biographical History of Dallas County, 185)

DAWSON (original) created from KINNEY, MAVERICK, and UVALDE; DAWSON (original) not fully organized. DAWSON (original) was located in a different part of the state from present DAWSON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 9/p. 88)

DAWSON (original) attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

DAWSON (original) lost to UVALDE. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

DAWSON (original) lost all territory to KINNEY; DAWSON (original) eliminated. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 28-29/pp. 21-22)

DAWSON created from Young Territory; DAWSON not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

DAWSON detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

DAWSON detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

DAWSON fully organized, detached from HOWARD. ("Dawson County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:541)

DE WITT (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from GONZALES and VICTORIA; DE WITT (Judicial County) was located in the same general area as present DE WITT. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 89)

DE WITT (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

DE WITT created from GOLIAD, GONZALES, and VICTORIA; DE WITT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 18)

DE WITT fully organized. (HRS Texas, De Witt, 9)

DE WITT exchanged with GOLIAD. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 51/p. 40)

DE WITT lost to creation of KARNES. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 35/p. 44)

DEAF SMITH created from Young Territory; DEAF SMITH not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

DEAF SMITH detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

DEAF SMITH detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

DEAF SMITH fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Deaf Smith County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:546-547)

PARMER detached from OLDHAM, attached to DEAF SMITH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46, sec. 2/p. 49)

PARMER fully organized, detached from DEAF SMITH. ("Parmer County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:68)

Western extent of DEAF SMITH explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

Constitutional Convention authorized creation of DELTA (proposed) from FANNIN, HOPKINS, HUNT, and LAMAR [overlapped by WEBSTER (proposed)]; county was never organized or legalized by the Legislature. DELTA (proposed) was in the same general area as DELTA created 29 July 1870. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 49)

DELTA created from HOPKINS and LAMAR; DELTA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 30/p. 42)

DELTA fully organized. ("Delta County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:580)

DELTA gained from HOPKINS. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 25/p. 18)

DELTA lost to LAMAR. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 35/p. 30)

DENTON created from parts of Fannin Land District attached to both COLLIN and GRAYSON; resulted in an overlap with GRAYSON (see Overlap Area 1). DENTON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 57)

DENTON fully organized. (Kennedy, 84)

Overlap Area 1 between DENTON and GRAYSON ended; DENTON retained control of disputed area. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 11/p. 9)

DENTON exchanged with COOKE, lost to GRAYSON. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41/p. 32)

Denton Land District re-organized, gained from Non-County Area 12, from Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL, and from non-county area in Fannin Land District. Denton Land District attached to HILL. Map depicts non-county area in Denton Land District. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

Non-county area of Denton Land District attached to HILL lost to creation of PARKER; remainder of Denton Land District detached from HILL, attached to PARKER "for all county and general purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 1/p. 3)

Denton Land District lost to creation of YOUNG; the part of Denton Land District northwest of YOUNG detached from PARKER, attached to WISE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72)

Parts of Denton Land District attached to PARKER and WISE lost to creation of Young Territory, and lost to YOUNG. The portion of Denton Land District attached to WISE became part of Young Territory, ending its attachment to WISE. Remainder of non-county area in Denton Land District remained attached to PARKER. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

DICKENS created from Young Territory; DICKENS not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

DICKENS detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

DICKENS detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

DICKENS fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Kennedy, 85)

DIMMIT created from MAVERICK, UVALDE, WEBB, and Bexar Land District; DIMMIT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 21/p. 91)

DIMMIT attached to WEBB "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

DIMMIT gained from MAVERICK. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

DIMMIT detached from WEBB, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

DIMMIT fully organized, detached from MAVERICK. (Kennedy, 85)

DONLEY created from WEGEFARTH (extinct); mistake in description corrected 10 March 1891. DONLEY not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

DONLEY detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

DONLEY fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Browder, 200)

ARMSTRONG, BRISCOE, CARSON, CHILDRESS, and HALL detached from WHEELER, all attached to DONLEY; FLOYD detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY; RANDALL and SWISHER detached from OLDHAM, both attached to DONLEY. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

HALE and MOTLEY detached from BAYLOR, both attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1884, 18th leg., spec. sess., ch. 15, sec. 31/p. 26)

RANDALL detached from DONLEY, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." MOTLEY detached from DONLEY, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, secs. 2, 5/p. 109, 111)

CHILDRESS fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (Ord, 8)

FLOYD and HALE detached from DONLEY, both attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

CARSON fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (Randel, 1:38)

SWISHER detached from DONLEY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

ARMSTRONG fully organized, detached from DONLEY. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 206)

HALL fully organized, detached from DONLEY. ("Hall County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:418)

DONLEY boundaries clarified, correcting mistake of 19 November 1876 [no change]. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 20/p. 21)

BRISCOE fully organized, detached from DONLEY. ("Briscoe County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:741)

Legislature authorized creation of DUNN (proposed) from DUVAL; creation did not take effect. Act was declared unconstitutional by Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 8 April 1914. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., 1st called sess., ch. 35/pp. 86-89; "Woods et al. v. Ball et al.," in SW Rptr., 1st ser., 166:4-7)

DUVAL created from LIVE OAK and NUECES; DUVAL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 23/p. 91)

DUVAL attached to NUECES "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

DUVAL lost to McMULLEN (act repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 30/pp. 27-29)

DUVAL gained from McMULLEN (repealed act of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

DUVAL gained from STARR and ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

DUVAL fully organized, detached from NUECES. (Kennedy, 86)

DUVAL lost to creation of JIM HOGG. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 73/pp. 133-136)

Legislature authorized DUVAL to lose to creation of DUNN (proposed); creation did not take effect. Act was declared unconstitutional by Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 8 April 1914. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., 1st called sess., ch. 35/pp. 86-89; "Woods et al. v. Ball et al.," in SW Rptr., 1st ser., 166:4-7)

DUVAL lost to JIM HOGG. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 47/pp. 81-85)

EASTLAND created from PALO PINTO, Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL, and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; EASTLAND not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 10/p. 88)

EASTLAND attached to COMANCHE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 3/p. 120)

EASTLAND detached from COMANCHE, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 14/p. 54)

EASTLAND fully organized, detached from PALO PINTO. (Ghormley, 16)

CALLAHAN detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to EASTLAND "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

CALLAHAN fully organized, detached from EASTLAND. ("Callahan County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:906)

ECTOR created from TOM GREEN; ECTOR not fully organized, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1a, 4/pp. 8-9)

ECTOR fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Kennedy, 88)

CRANE detached from MIDLAND, attached to ECTOR "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1903, 28th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 3/p. 92)

CRANE fully organized, detached from ECTOR. (Correspondence, Judy Crawford, District and County Clerk, Crane County, 3 July 2001)

EDWARDS created from Bexar Land District; EDWARDS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 20/p. 91)

EDWARDS attached to BANDERA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/ p. 120)

EDWARDS detached from BANDERA, attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 40/p. 31)

EDWARDS lost to KERR. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 39/p. 33)

EDWARDS detached from UVALDE, attached to BANDERA "for judicial purposes" conflicts with chapter 36 which stated EDWARDS remained attached to UVALDE; corrected 10 August 1870]. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27 and ch. 36, sec. 7/p.28)

EDWARDS detached from either BANDERA or UVALDE, attached to KERR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 27/p. 57)

EDWARDS fully organized, detached from KERR. (Kennedy, 88)

EDWARDS gained from CROCKETT. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 17/p. 12)

EDWARDS lost to creation of REAL. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 133/pp. 264-267)

EL PASO created from Non-County Area 16; included territory in present Texas and New Mexico; EL PASO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 24)

State of Texas sold land in present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming to the United States; except for small adjustments, Texas state boundaries now set. EL PASO lost territory to the United States. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 49 [1850]/pp. 446-452 and appendix, sec. 10/pp. 1005-1006; Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 2/p. 4; Van Zandt, 122)

PRESIDIO attached to EL PASO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 85/p. 91)

EL PASO gained from PRESIDIO, lost to Non-County Area 26 that became PECOS on 8 May 1871. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 67/p. 70)

EL PASO fully organized. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 207)

PECOS and TOM GREEN both attached to EL PASO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 155)

TOM GREEN fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Tom Green County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:523)

PECOS fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Pecos County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:121)

PRESIDIO fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Presidio County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:331)

EL PASO lost to creation of CULBERSON; CULBERSON not fully organized, attached to EL PASO "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 53)

CULBERSON fully organized, detached from EL PASO. (Wylie, 13)

EL PASO lost to creation of HUDSPETH. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 25/pp. 39-43)

ELLIS created from NAVARRO [mistake in description corrected 28 January 1850]; ELLIS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 18/p. 16)

ELLIS boundaries clarified [corrected mistake of 20 December 1849; no change]. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 78/p. 86)

ELLIS fully organized. (Memorial and Biographical History of Ellis County, 108)

ELLIS lost to JOHNSON. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 23/p. 17)

ELLIS boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 74/p. 77)

ENCINAL (extinct) created from NUECES and WEBB; ENCINAL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 24/p. 92)

ENCINAL (extinct) attached to NUECES "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/ p. 120)

ENCINAL (extinct) detached from NUECES, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

ENCINAL (extinct) gained from ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

ENCINAL (extinct) lost all territory to WEBB; ENCINAL eliminated. (Texas Laws 1899, 26th leg., reg. sess., ch. 11/p. 10)

ERATH created from Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE and Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL; ERATH not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 34/p. 27)

ERATH fully organized. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 207)

ERATH gained from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 172/p. 96)

Boundary between ERATH and COMANCHE clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 88/p. 121)

ERATH gained from PALO PINTO, lost to creation of HOOD. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 84-85/pp. 82-83)

FALLS created from LIMESTONE and MILAM; FALLS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 80/p. 87)

FALLS fully organized. (Eddins, 108)

FALLS lost to BELL. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 142/p. 89)

FANNIN created by the Republic of Texas from NACOGDOCHES; FANNIN not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 53)

FANNIN fully organized. (Hodge, 8)

FANNIN gained from BEXAR, NACOGDOCHES, and ROBERTSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 194)

FANNIN became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

Part of FANNIN reverted to non-county area that was designated Fannin Land District. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 6)

FANNIN authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of DELTA (proposed) and WEBSTER (proposed); creations did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 48-49)

Part of FANNIN reverted to non-county area that was designated Fannin Land District. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 6)

Fannin Land District lost to creation of GRAYSON; northern part of Fannin Land District attached to GRAYSON for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 7)

Fannin Land District lost to creation of COLLIN; southern part of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 44)

Parts of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN and GRAYSON lost to creation of DENTON; unattached part of Fannin Land District lost to creation of HUNT. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 57-58)

Parts of Fannin Land District attached to COLLIN and GRAYSON lost to creation of COOKE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 130/p. 183)

Fannin Land District lost all territory to Cooke Land District and Denton Land District when those districts were reorganized and expanded. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

FAYETTE created by the Republic of Texas from COLORADO and MINA (now BASTROP); FAYETTE not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 35-36)

FAYETTE fully organized. ("Fayette County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:969)

FAYETTE gained from Non-County Area 3. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 2)

FAYETTE lost to creation of LA BACA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 74)

FAYETTE gained from LA BACA (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

FAYETTE became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

FAYETTE lost to creation of LAVACA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 49)

FAYETTE lost to LAVACA. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 58/p. 78)

FAYETTE lost to creation of LEE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 75/pp. 94-97)

FISHER created from JONES and Young Territory; FISHER not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

FISHER detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to NOLAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

FISHER fully organized, detached from NOLAN. (Yeats and Shelton, 43-44)

FLOYD created from Young Territory; FLOYD not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

FLOYD detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

FLOYD detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

FLOYD detached from DONLEY, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

FLOYD fully organized, detached from CROSBY. ("Floyd County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:1043)

FOARD created from COTTLE, HARDEMAN, and KNOX; FOARD not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 15/p. 17)

FOARD fully organized. ("Foard County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:1047)

FOLEY (extinct) created from PRESIDIO; FOLEY not fully organized, attached to BREWSTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 26)

FOLEY (extinct) lost to BREWSTER and PRESIDIO. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 49/p. 44)

FOLEY (extinct) lost all territory to BREWSTER; FOLEY eliminated. (Texas Laws 1897, 25th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 115)

FORT BEND created by the Republic of Texas from AUSTIN, BRAZORIA, and HARRISBURG (now HARRIS); FORT BEND not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 118)

FORT BEND fully organized. ("Fort Bend County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:1087)

Boundary between FORT BEND and AUSTIN clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 3d cong./p. 33)

FORT BEND gained from AUSTIN and HARRIS. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 220)

FORT BEND gained from AUSTIN and HARRIS. FORT BEND boundary clarified on 4 February 1841 [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 80, 136)

FORT BEND became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

FORT BEND exchanged with AUSTIN, lost to BRAZORIA. Area between Sixteen Mile Creek and San Bernard River was in dispute, although it appears that the 1841 boundary line continued to be generally observed. Boundary question settled 30 October 1931. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 15)

FORT BEND lost small area to AUSTIN. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 77/p. 75)

FORT BEND gained from AUSTIN, settling boundary dispute dating from 24 March 1846. ("Austin County v. Fort Bend County," Agreed Judgment in Cause #6545, Washington County District Court in "Austin County Boundary File 5," Texas General Land Office, Austin)

FRANKLIN created from TITUS; FRANKLIN not fully organized. Act passed 8 March 1875; took effect 13 March 1875. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 81/pp. 95-97)

FRANKLIN fully organized. ("Franklin County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:1154)

FREESTONE created from LIMESTONE; FREESTONE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 2d sess., ch. 39/p. 39 and Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 37/p. 30)

FREESTONE fully organized. (Freestone County Historical Commission, 10)

FRIO created from ATASCOSA, UVALDE, and Bexar Land District; FRIO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 6/p. 88)

FRIO attached to ATASCOSA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

LIVE OAK exchanged with McMULLEN, gained all of ATASCOSA; ATASCOSA eliminated, temporarily ending the attachment of FRIO (act repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 27)

ATASCOSA re-created from LIVE OAK; FRIO again attached to ATASCOSA (repealed acts of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

FRIO detached from ATASCOSA, attached to MEDINA "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

FRIO boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 112/p. 122)

FRIO fully organized, detached from MEDINA. (Frio County Centennial Corporation, [1])

ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to FRIO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 9/pp. 11-12)

ZAVALA fully organized, detached from FRIO. (Kennedy, 180)

GAINES created from Young Territory; GAINES not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

GAINES detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

GAINES detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

GAINES detached from HOWARD, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 3/p. 110)

GAINES fully organized, detached from MARTIN. (Kennedy, 95)

Western extent of GAINES explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

Galveston Island did not fall under the jurisdiction of any county at the time Texas declared its independence from Mexico. ("Republic of Texas," New Handbook of Texas, 5:537-538; Swindler, 9:247, 249)

Galveston Island became part of HARRISBURG (now HARRIS). (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 224)

GALVESTON created by the Republic of Texas from BRAZORIA, HARRISBURG (now HARRIS), and LIBERTY; GALVESTON not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 24)

GALVESTON fully organized. (Hayes, 1:304)

GALVESTON lost San Luis Island to BRAZORIA. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 183)

GALVESTON gained from BRAZORIA, JEFFERSON, and LIBERTY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ p. 45)

GALVESTON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

Boundaries of GALVESTON extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

GARZA created from Young Territory; GARZA not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

GARZA detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

GARZA detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

GARZA detached from MITCHELL, attached to SCURRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

GARZA detached from SCURRY, attached to BORDEN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1893, 23d leg., ch. 110/p. 166)

GARZA fully organized, detached from BORDEN. (Garza County Historical Survey Committee, 5)

GILLESPIE created from BEXAR; GILLESPIE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 47/p. 35)

GILLESPIE fully organized. (HRS Texas, Gillespie, 4)

GILLESPIE gained very small area from TRAVIS, lost to creation of BURNET. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

GILLESPIE lost to creation of LLANO. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/p. 44)

GILLESPIE lost to creation of MASON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 2/pp. 58-59)

GILLESPIE lost to LLANO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 114/p. 147)

GILLESPIE lost to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

KIMBLE attached to GILLESPIE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

KIMBLE fully organized, detached from GILLESPIE. ("Kimble County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1100)

GILLESPIE boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 89/p. 90)

GLASSCOCK created from TOM GREEN; GLASSCOCK not fully organized, attached to MARTIN "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 143/p. 136)

GLASSCOCK detached from MARTIN, attached to HOWARD "for judicial, surveying, and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 81/p. 92)

GLASSCOCK fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Kennedy, 97)

LA BAHIA DEL ESPIRITU SANTO (now GOLIAD, original county) established as a municipality under the authority of New Spain. Precise boundaries not known; general area of municipality mapped. (Cunniff, 82)

LA BAHIA DEL ESPIRITU SANTO renamed GOLIAD. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 73/p. 222)

GOLIAD became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

GOLIAD gained from REFUGIO, exchanged with SAN PATRICIO when GOLIAD boundaries were surveyed and defined. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 6)

GOLIAD became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

GOLIAD lost to creation of DE WITT. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 18)

GOLIAD boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 34/p. 26)

GOLIAD exchanged with DE WITT. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 51/p. 40)

GOLIAD lost to creation of KARNES. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 35/p. 44)

GOLIAD gained from REFUGIO, lost to creation of BEE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 13-14/pp. 10-11)

GOLIAD lost to VICTORIA. (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 42/p. 33)

GONZALES (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described until 14 December 1837; general area of municipality mapped. (Rather, 126)

GONZALES became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

GONZALES boundaries defined; lost to VICTORIA. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 42)

GONZALES gained all of Non-County Area 3; Non-County Area 3 eliminated. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 44)

GONZALES lost to creation of GUADALUPE (Judicial County) and LA BACA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 74-75, 78-79)

GONZALES lost to creation of DE WITT (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 89)

GONZALES gained from DE WITT (Judicial County), GUADALUPE (Judicial County), and LA BACA (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

GONZALES became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

GONZALES lost to creation of COMAL and DE WITT. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 13, 18)

GONZALES lost to creation of GUADALUPE. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 33)

GONZALES lost to creation of LAVACA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 49)

GONZALES lost to creation of CALDWELL. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 65/p. 53)

Boundary between GONZALES and CALDWELL clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 118/p. 142)

GONZALES lost small area to LAVACA. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 114/p. 43)

GRAYSON created from non-county area in Fannin Land District; northern part of Fannin Land District attached to GRAYSON for administrative and judicial purposes. GRAYSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 7)

Creation of COLLIN resulted in an overlap with GRAYSON (see Overlap Area 1). (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 44)

Part of Fannin Land District attached to GRAYSON lost to creation of DENTON; resulted in an overlap between GRAYSON and DENTON (see Overlap Area 1). (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 57)

GRAYSON fully organized. (Kennedy, 99)

GRAYSON boundaries redefined; lost control of Overlap Area 1 to COLLIN and DENTON; lost to creation of Non-County Area 13. Overlap Area 1 eliminated. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 11/p. 9)

Boundary between GRAYSON and COLLIN clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 18/p. 13)

Part of Fannin Land District attached to GRAYSON lost to creation of COOKE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 130/p. 183)

GRAYSON gained from DENTON. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41/p. 32)

Cooke and Denton Land Districts re-organized; implicitly ended the attachment of non-county areas in Fannin Land District to COLLIN and GRAYSON [map depicts non-county area in Cooke Land District]. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

Boundary between GRAYSON and COOKE clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 51/p. 49)

GRAY created from Bexar Territory and WEGEFARTH (extinct); GRAY not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

GRAY detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

GRAY detached from WHEELER, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1895, 24th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 143)

GRAY fully organized, detached from ROBERTS. (Kennedy, 98)

GREER (Okla.) created by Texas from Young Territory. GREER was located entirely in present Oklahoma; GREER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 90/p. 138)

GREER (Okla.) attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

GREER (Okla.) detached from MONTAGUE, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

GREER (Okla.) detached from YOUNG, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 2/p. 94)

GREER (Okla.) detached from MONTAGUE, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

GREER (Okla.) fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Greer County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:326)

GREER eliminated from Texas when U.S. Supreme Court ruled that GREER was not within the boundaries of Texas, but was under the jurisdiction of the United States. GREER became a county in Oklahoma Territory on 4 May 1896. ("United States v. Texas," in U.S. Rpts., 162:1-91; U.S. Stat., vol. 29, ch. 155[1896]/pp. 113-114)

GREGG created from UPSHUR; GREGG not fully organized. Act passed 12 April 1873; took effect 7 May 1873. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 27/pp. 37-39)

GREGG fully organized. (History of Gregg County, [5])

GREGG gained from RUSK. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 128/p. 179)

GREGG lost to UPSHUR so as to meet constitutional requirements that the boundary line approach no nearer than twelve miles to the adjoining county seat. (HRS Texas, Gregg, 12-13; Swindler, 9:340)

GRIMES created from MONTGOMERY; GRIMES not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 50)

GRIMES fully organized. (Ray, 355)

GRIMES lost to creation of MADISON. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 5/pp. 10-11)

GRIMES lost to creation of WALLER. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 38/p. 49)

Boundary between GRIMES and WALLER clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 4/p. 3)

GUADALUPE (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from BEXAR, GONZALES, and TRAVIS; GUADALUPE (Judicial County) was located in the same general area as present GUADALUPE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 78)

GUADALUPE (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

GUADALUPE created from BEXAR, GONZALES, and TRAVIS; GUADALUPE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 33)

GUADALUPE fully organized. (HRS Texas, Guadalupe, 6)

GUADALUPE lost to COMAL and HAYS. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

Constitutional Convention authorized WILSON to gain from GUADALUPE, and proposed WILSON be renamed "CIBOLO;" changes were never recognized or legalized by the Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 75)

GUADALUPE lost to WILSON. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 25/p. 21)

HALE created from Young Territory; HALE not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

HALE detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

HALE detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1884, 18th leg., spec. sess., ch. 15, sec. 31/p. 26)

HALE detached from DONLEY, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

HALE fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Cox, Mary, 2-3)

BAILEY, COCHRAN, HOCKLEY, and LAMB detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." SWISHER detached from DONLEY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, secs. 6, 10/p. 163)

SWISHER fully organized, detached from HALE. ("Swisher County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:181)

COCHRAN and HOCKLEY detached from HALE, both attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

BAILEY and LAMB detached from HALE, both attached to CASTRO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1892, 22d leg., called sess., ch. 24, sec. 2/p. 59)

HALL created from WEGEFARTH (extinct) and Young Territory; HALL not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

HALL detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

HALL detached from WHEELER, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

HALL fully organized, detached from DONLEY. ("Hall County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:418)

HAMILTON (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from HOUSTON and MONTGOMERY; HAMILTON (Judicial County) was located in a different area of Texas from present HAMILTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 91-93)

HAMILTON (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

HAMILTON created from BOSQUE, LAMPASAS, and all of Non-County Area 24; HAMILTON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 9/pp. 60-61 and ch. 56/p. 63)

HAMILTON fully organized. (Kennedy, 102)

HAMILTON lost to creation of MILLS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 25)

HANSFORD created from Bexar Territory; HANSFORD not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234-235, 242)

HANSFORD detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

HANSFORD detached from WHEELER, attached to LIPSCOMB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 2/p. 162)

HANSFORD fully organized, detached from LIPSCOMB. (Kennedy, 102)

HARDEMAN created from Young Territory; HARDEMAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 19/pp. 90-91)

HARDEMAN attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

HARDEMAN detached from MONTAGUE, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

HARDEMAN detached from YOUNG, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 2/p. 94)

HARDEMAN lost to creation of CHILDRESS and COTTLE. HARDEMAN boundaries redefined to reflect creation of CHILDRESS and COTTLE. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236-237, 240)

HARDEMAN detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

HARDEMAN detached from CLAY, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

HARDEMAN detached from BAYLOR, attached to WILBARGER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 8/p. 31)

HARDEMAN fully organized, detached from WILBARGER. (Neal, 49)

COTTLE detached from WILBARGER, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." MOTLEY detached from DONLEY, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

MOTLEY detached from HARDEMAN, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

COTTLE detached from HARDEMAN, attached to CHILDRESS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 8/p. 163)

HARDEMAN lost to creation of FOARD. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 15/p. 17)

HARDIN created from JEFFERSON, LIBERTY, and TYLER; HARDIN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 8/p. 60)

HARDIN fully organized. (History of Hardin County, 16)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS, original county) created from AUSTIN and LIBERTY; established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 119)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) gained Galveston Island. (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 224)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) gained from WASHINGTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 49)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) lost to LIBERTY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 84)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) lost to creation of FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 118)

HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) lost to creation of GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 24)

HARRISBURG renamed HARRIS. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 222)

HARRIS lost to MONTGOMERY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 222)

HARRIS lost to FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 220)

HARRIS lost to creation of SPRING CREEK (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 49)

HARRIS lost to FORT BEND. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 80, 136)

HARRIS gained from SPRING CREEK (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

HARRIS became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

HARRISON created by the Republic of Texas from SHELBY, overlapped part of MILLER (Ark. Terr. extinct); HARRISON not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 3d cong./p. 143)

Survey of boundary between the Republic of Texas and the United States began. HARRISON overlap with MILLER (Ark Terr., extinct) ended when Texas claims to the area were upheld. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 75 [1844]/p. 674; Marshall, 235-236)

HARRISON exchanged with SHELBY, lost to creation of PANOLA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ pp. 153-155)

HARRISON lost small area to creation of SMITH (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 87-89)

HARRISON fully organized. (Gournay, 39-40)

HARRISON gained from PANOLA (Judicial County) and SMITH (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

HARRISON lost small area to creation of RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 39-41)

HARRISON lost to BOWIE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 12)

HARRISON lost to RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 8)

HARRISON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

HARRISON lost to creation of PANOLA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 31)

HARRISON lost to creation of UPSHUR. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 139)

HARRISON lost small area to UPSHUR. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 90/p. 105)

HARRISON lost small area to MARION. (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 9/p. 5)

HARRISON lost to MARION. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 127/p. 178)

HARTLEY created from Bexar Territory; HARTLEY not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

HARTLEY detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

HARTLEY detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

HARTLEY fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. (Hunter, 31)

DALLAM detached from OLDHAM, attached to HARTLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46, sec. 2/p. 49)

DALLAM fully organized, detached from HARTLEY. (Hunter, 35)

Western extent of HARTLEY explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

HASKELL created from Young Territory; HASKELL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 17/p. 90)

HASKELL attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of HASKELL to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

HASKELL attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

HASKELL detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

HASKELL detached from JACK, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

HASKELL detached from YOUNG, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

HASKELL lost to creation of STONEWALL; HASKELL boundaries redefined to reflect creation of STONEWALL. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 240)

HASKELL detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

HASKELL fully organized, detached from THROCKMORTON. ("Haskell County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:501)

HAYS created from TRAVIS; HAYS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 57/p. 48)

HAYS fully organized. (HRS Texas, Hays, 7)

HAYS gained from GUADALUPE, lost to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

HAYS lost to BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 39/p. 33)

HEMPHILL created from Bexar Territory; HEMPHILL not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

HEMPHILL detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

HEMPHILL fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Hemphill County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:551-552)

HEMPSTEAD (Ark.) created by Missouri Territory from ARKANSAS (Ark.) and non-county area. HEMPSTEAD included territory in present Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Inclusion of Texas territory was primarily due to uncertainty about the location on the ground of the boundary between the United States and Spanish Texas. Act passed 14 December 1818; took effect 1 June 1819. (Mo. Terr. Laws 1818, ch. 232a, secs. 1-3/pp. 589-591)

HEMPSTEAD (Ark.) lost to creation of MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct). HEMPSTEAD continued to overlap part of present Texas. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1820, 1st sess./pp. 83-86; Reynolds, 230-231)

HEMPSTEAD (Ark.) lost to creation of LAFAYETTE (Ark.); HEMPSTEAD eliminated from present Texas. Act passed 15 October 1827; took effect 1 February 1828. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1827, 5th sess./pp. 10-12)

HENDERSON created from Non-County Area 11; HENDERSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 141)

HENDERSON fully organized. ("Henderson County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:557)

HENDERSON lost to creation of KAUFMAN. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 52/pp. 40-43)

HENDERSON lost to creation of Non-County Area 15 when HENDERSON boundaries were redefined. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 83/pp. 86-88)

HENDERSON exchanged with VAN ZANDT, lost to KAUFMAN. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., chs. 82, 86/pp. 88, 91)

HENDERSON lost to KAUFMAN (act repealed 2 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 49/p. 38)

HENDERSON gained from KAUFMAN (repealed act of 6 April 1861). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 48/p. 23)

HIDALGO created from CAMERON [mistake in description corrected 4 February 1853]; HIDALGO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 32)

HIDALGO fully organized. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42, sec. 2/p. 33)

HIDALGO boundaries clarified to correct mistake of 24 January 1852 [no change]. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 9/p. 18)

HIDALGO lost to NUECES. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

HIDALGO lost to creation of BROOKS and WILLACY. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., chs. 39, 48/pp. 55-57, 83-87)

HIDALGO lost to WILLACY. (Texas Laws 1921, 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 104/pp. 200-207)

HILL created from NAVARRO; that part of NAVARRO north of HILL became Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL "for all county and general purposes." HILL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 26/p. 37)

HILL fully organized. ("Hill County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:620)

Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL lost to creation of JOHNSON; remainder of Non-County Area 21 became part of the Denton Land District, attachment to HILL continued. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 76/p. 104)

Non-county area of Denton Land District attached to HILL lost to creation of PARKER; remainder of Denton Land District detached from HILL, attached to PARKER "for all county and general purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 1/p. 3)

HILL gained from NAVARRO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 144/p. 218)

HILL authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of RICHLAND (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 50)

HILL lost small area to JOHNSON. (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/p. 38)

HOCKLEY created from Young Territory; HOCKLEY not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237-238, 242)

HOCKLEY detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

HOCKLEY detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

HOCKLEY detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

HOCKLEY detached from HALE, attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

HOCKLEY fully organized, detached from LUBBOCK. (Hockley County Historical Commission, 200)

COCHRAN detached from LUBBOCK, attached to HOCKLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1921 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 199)

COCHRAN fully organized, detached from HOCKLEY. ("Cochran County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:182)

HOOD created from ERATH, JOHNSON, and PALO PINTO; HOOD not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 85/p. 83)

HOOD fully organized. (Kennedy, 108)

HOOD lost to creation of SOMERVELL. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 83/pp. 99-101)

HOPKINS created from NACOGDOCHES and from Non-County Area 4 attached to LAMAR; HOPKINS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 24)

HOPKINS fully organized. (Kennedy, 109)

HOPKINS authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of DELTA (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 49)

HOPKINS lost to creation of RAINS. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 3/p. 2)

HOPKINS lost to creation of DELTA. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 30/p. 42)

HOPKINS lost to DELTA. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 25/p. 18)

Boundary between HOPKINS and WOOD clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 153/p. 205)

HOUSTON created by the Republic of Texas from NACOGDOCHES; HOUSTON not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 270)

HOUSTON fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 271)

HOUSTON lost to creation of BURNET (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 94)

HOUSTON gained from BURNET (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 7)

HOUSTON lost to creation of HAMILTON (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 91-93)

HOUSTON gained from BURNET (Judicial County) and HAMILTON (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

HOUSTON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

HOUSTON lost to creation of ANDERSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 20)

HOUSTON lost small area to ANDERSON. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 80)

HOUSTON lost to creation of TRINITY. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 160/p. 201)

HOWARD created from TOM GREEN and Young Territory; HOWARD not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

HOWARD detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

HOWARD fully organized, detached from MITCHELL. (Kennedy, 109)

ANDREWS, BORDEN, DAWSON, GAINES, and MARTIN detached from MITCHELL, all attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." LYNN, TERRY and YOAKUM detached from THROCKMORTON, all attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 32/p. 63)

MARTIN fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Smithson and Hull, 4)

ANDREWS and GAINES detached from HOWARD, both attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." LYNN detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 3/pp. 109-110)

LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." TERRY and YOAKUM detached from HOWARD, both attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, secs. 4, 6/pp. 162-163)

GLASSCOCK detached from MARTIN, attached to HOWARD "for judicial, surveying, and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 81/p. 92)

BORDEN fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Kennedy, 65)

GLASSCOCK fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Kennedy, 97)

DAWSON fully organized, detached from HOWARD. ("Dawson County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:541)

HUDSPETH created from EL PASO; HUDSPETH fully organized later in 1917. Act passed 16 February 1917; took effect 19 June 1917. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 25/pp. 39-43)

HUNT created from NACOGDOCHES and from non-county area in Fannin Land District; HUNT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 58)

HUNT fully organized. (Ingmire, 1:16)

HUNT authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of DELTA (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 49)

HUNT lost to creation of RAINS. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 3/p. 2; "Hunt County v. Rains County," in Texas Rpts., 116:277-288; "Hunt County v. Rains County," in SW Rptr., 2d ser., 7:648-657)

HUTCHINSON created from Bexar Territory; HUTCHINSON not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

HUTCHINSON detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

HUTCHINSON detached from WHEELER, attached to CARSON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 2/p. 162)

HUTCHINSON detached from CARSON, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 74/p. 92)

HUTCHINSON fully organized, detached from ROBERTS. ("Hutchinson County." New Handbook of Texas, 3:805)

IRION created from TOM GREEN; IRION not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 87/p. 99)

IRION fully organized. (Crawford, 24)

JACK created from COOKE, resulted in an overlap with COOKE; JACK not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 135/pp. 62-64)

JACK fully organized. (Huckabay, 15)

Boundary between JACK and CLAY became subject to dispute upon creation of CLAY [dispute settled March 1895]. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 34/p. 33)

JACK boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 80/p. 97)

ARCHER detached from CLAY, attached to JACK; BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX and THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK; YOUNG attached to JACK. All attachments were "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

ARCHER, BAYLOR, and KNOX detached from JACK, all attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 13/p. 53)

JONES, SHACKELFORD, and STEPHENS detached from PALO PINTO, all attached to JACK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 133, sec. 2/p. 184)

SHACKELFORD fully organized, detached from JACK. ("Shackelford County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:984)

YOUNG fully organized; detached from JACK. (Crouch, 31, 57-58; "Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131)

HASKELL and THROCKMORTON detached from JACK, both attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." STEPHENS detached from JACK, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

JONES detached from JACK, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

ARMSTRONG, BAILEY, BRISCOE, CARSON, CASTRO, COTTLE, DALLAM, DEAF SMITH, FLOYD, HALE, HANSFORD, HARTLEY, HUTCHINSON, LAMB, MOORE, MOTLEY, OLDHAM, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SHERMAN, and SWISHER not fully organized, all attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/p. 242)

ARMSTRONG, BRISCOE, CARSON, CASTRO, DALLAM, DEAF SMITH, HANSFORD, HARTLEY, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, OLDHAM, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SHERMAN, and SWISHER detached from JACK, all attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

BAILEY, COTTLE, FLOYD, HALE, LAMB, and MOTLEY detached from JACK, all attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

JACK gained control over the area claimed by both JACK and CLAY since 1857; Overlap Area 4 eliminated. (Taylor, 1, 127)

JACKSON (original county) created from MATAGORDA; established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 45)

JACKSON became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

JACKSON gained from MATAGORDA and VICTORIA, lost to COLORADO. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 121 and Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 249)

JACKSON lost to creation of WARD (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 65)

JACKSON lost to creation of LA BACA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 74)

JACKSON gained from LA BACA (Judicial County) and WARD (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

JACKSON lost to MATAGORDA and VICTORIA. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 5)

JACKSON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

JACKSON gained from VICTORIA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 35)

JACKSON lost to creation of WHARTON; lost to creation of Non-County Area 7 and Non-County Area 8. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 37-38)

BEVIL (now JASPER, original county) created from LIBERTY; established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. ("Bevil, John," New Handbook of Texas, 1:514)

BEVIL renamed JASPER. (Gammel, 1:Proceedings of the Gen. Council, 65, 68)

JASPER lost to creation of JEFFERSON. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 51; Connor, 177-178)

JASPER gained from SAN AUGUSTINE. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 89)

JASPER became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

JASPER boundaries defined; JASPER gained from SABINE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 55)

JASPER gained from JEFFERSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 110)

JASPER lost to creation of NECHES (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 82-84)

JASPER gained from NECHES (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

JASPER became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

JASPER lost to creation of NEWTON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 122)

JASPER gained from NEWTON. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 133; Partlow, inside front cover, 328)

JEFF DAVIS created from PRESIDIO; JEFF DAVIS not fully organized, attached to BREWSTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 26)

JEFF DAVIS fully organized, detached from BREWSTER. (Jacobson and Nored, 151)

JEFF DAVIS authorized to exchanged with PRESIDIO [exchange disputed and never took effect, not mapped; see 11 November 1903]. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 49/p. 44)

Dispute between JEFF DAVIS and PRESIDIO ended; 1887 boundary confirmed [see also 27 March 1889]. ("Presidio County v. Jeff Davis County," in SW Rptr., 1st ser., 77:278-279)

JEFFERSON (original county) created from JASPER; established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 51; Connor, 177-178)

JEFFERSON became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

JEFFERSON gained all of Non-County Area 2, lost to JASPER; Non-County Area 2 eliminated. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 110)

JEFFERSON lost to GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ p. 45)

JEFFERSON lost to creation of NECHES (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 82-84)

JEFFERSON gained from NECHES (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

JEFFERSON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

JEFFERSON lost to creation of ORANGE. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/p. 48)

JEFFERSON lost to creation of HARDIN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 8/p. 60)

JEFFERSON lost to creation of CHAMBERS. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 125-126/pp. 192-193)

Boundaries of JEFFERSON extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

JEFFERSON lost to ORANGE in Lake Sabine. (Texas Laws 1975, 64th leg., reg. sess., chs. 322, 592/pp. 831, 1876)

JIM HOGG created from BROOKS and DUVAL; JIM HOGG not fully organized. Act passed 31 March 1913; took effect 30 June 1913. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 73/pp. 133-136)

JIM HOGG fully organized. (TXGenWeb Project, Jim Hogg County, Texas; http://www.vsta.com/~rlblack/jimhogg.html; 11 December 2001)

JIM HOGG gained from DUVAL. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 47/pp. 81-85)

Boundary between JIM HOGG and BROOKS clarified to end uncertainty about the southern section of the boundary [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1945, 49th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 84)

JIM WELLS created from NUECES; JIM WELLS not fully organized, attached to NUECES "for all purposes." Act passed 25 [sic] March 1911; took effect 11 March 1911. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 140/pp. 58-61)

JIM WELLS fully organized, detached from NUECES. (Minutes of the Commissioners' Court, Jim Wells County, 8 May 1911)

JOHNSON created from Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL, and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; JOHNSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 76/p. 104)

JOHNSON fully organized. (Byrd, 5)

JOHNSON lost to creation of HOOD. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 84-85/pp. 82-83)

JOHNSON gained from ELLIS. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 23/p. 17)

JOHNSON gained small area from HILL. (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/p. 38)

JONES created from Young Territory, Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE, a small part of Bexar Land District; JONES not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 16/p. 90)

JONES attached to PALO PINTO "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 4/p. 120)

JONES detached from PALO PINTO, attached to JACK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 133, sec. 2/p. 184)

JONES detached from JACK, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

JONES lost to creation of FISHER; JONES boundaries redefined to reflect creation of FISHER. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 240)

JONES fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Kennedy, 115)

STONEWALL detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to JONES "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

STONEWALL fully organized, detached from JONES. ("Stonewall County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:114)

KARNES created from BEXAR, DE WITT, GOLIAD, and SAN PATRICIO; KARNES not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 35/p. 44)

KARNES fully organized. ("Karnes County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1035)

KARNES lost to creation of BEE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 14/p. 11)

KARNES lost to creation of WILSON. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 76/pp. 106-108)

KAUFMAN created from HENDERSON; KAUFMAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 52/pp. 40-43)

KAUFMAN fully organized. (Kennedy, 117)

KAUFMAN gained from HENDERSON, lost to VAN ZANDT. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., chs. 82, 86/pp. 88, 91)

KAUFMAN boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 123)

KAUFMAN gained from HENDERSON (act repealed 2 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 49/p. 38)

KAUFMAN lost to HENDERSON (repealed act of 6 April 1861). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 48/p. 23)

KAUFMAN lost to creation of ROCKWALL. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 7/p. 10)

KENDALL created from BLANCO and KERR; KENDALL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 32)

KENDALL fully organized. (Kennedy, 117)

KENEDY created from WILLACY; KENEDY not fully organized. Act passed 16 March 1921; took effect 2 April 1921. (Texas Laws 1921, 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 104/pp. 200-207)

KENEDY fully organized. (Correspondence, Barbara Turcot, Kenedy County Clerk's Office, 20 June 2001)

Boundaries of KENEDY extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

KENT created from Young Territory; KENT not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

KENT detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

KENT detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

KENT detached from MITCHELL, attached to SCURRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

KENT fully organized, detached from SCURRY. (Kennedy, 118)

KERR created from BEXAR; KERR not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 40/p. 30)

KERR fully organized. ("Kerr County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1078)

KERR lost to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

KERR gained from EDWARDS, lost to creation of KENDALL. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., chs. 38-39/pp. 32-33)

EDWARDS detached from either BANDERA or UVALDE, attached to KERR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 27/p. 57)

EDWARDS fully organized, detached from KERR. (Kennedy, 88)

KERR lost to creation of REAL. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 133/pp. 264-267)

KIMBLE created from Bexar Land District; KIMBLE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 4/p. 59)

KIMBLE attached to GILLESPIE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

KIMBLE fully organized, detached from GILLESPIE. ("Kimble County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1100)

SUTTON created from CROCKETT; SUTTON not fully organized, attached to KIMBLE "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 95)

SUTTON fully organized, detached from KIMBLE. (Kennedy, 160)

KING created from KNOX and Young Territory; KING not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

KING detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

KING detached from BAYLOR, attached to KNOX "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 8/p. 81)

KING fully organized, detached from KNOX. (Kennedy, 119)

KINNEY created from BEXAR; KINNEY not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 81/p. 88)

KINNEY exchanged with Bexar Land District, lost to creation of MAVERICK. MAVERICK attached to KINNEY "for all judicial and county purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 69, 72/pp. 71, 73)

KINNEY lost to creation of DAWSON (original). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 9/p. 88)

KINNEY attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

KINNEY gained all of DAWSON (original); DAWSON (original) eliminated. KINNEY lost to MAVERICK. Non-county area in Bexar Land District was attached to KINNEY "for judicial and other purposes." MAVERICK detached from KINNEY, attached to UVALDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 28-29/pp. 21-22)

KINNEY detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 6/p. 5)

KINNEY fully organized, detached from MAVERICK. (Gournay, 61)

KINNEY boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12/p. 9)

CROCKETT attached to KINNEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 18/p. 16)

KINNEY lost to creation of VAL VERDE. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 50/p. 48)

CROCKETT detached from KINNEY, attached to VAL VERDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 65, sec. 2/p. 46)

KLEBERG created from small remnants of CAMERON and from NUECES; KLEBERG not fully organized, attached to NUECES "for all purposes." (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 10/pp. 14-17)

KLEBERG fully organized, detached from NUECES. ("Kleberg County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1139)

KLEBERG exchanged with WILLACY. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 7/pp. 8-11)

Boundaries of KLEBERG extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

KNOX created from Young Territory; KNOX not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 18/p. 90)

KNOX attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of KNOX to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

KNOX attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

KNOX detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

KNOX detached from JACK, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 13/p. 53)

KNOX lost to creation of KING; KNOX boundaries redefined to reflect creation of KING. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 240)

KNOX detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

KNOX detached from CLAY, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

KNOX fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Knox County History Committee, 17)

KING detached from BAYLOR, attached to KNOX "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 8/p. 81)

KNOX lost to creation of FOARD. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 15/p. 17)

KING fully organized, detached from KNOX. (Kennedy, 119)

LA BACA (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from COLORADO, FAYETTE, GONZALES, JACKSON, and VICTORIA; LA BACA (Judicial County) was located in the same general area as present LAVACA. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 74)

LA BACA (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

LA SALLE created from small area of NUECES, from WEBB, Bexar Land District, and Non-County Area 23; LA SALLE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 22/p. 91)

LA SALLE attached to NUECES "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

LA SALLE detached from NUECES, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 16/p. 54)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial and all other necessary purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 121/p. 132)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 123/pp. 207-208)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to McMULLEN "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 22)

LA SALLE fully organized, detached from McMULLEN. (Ludeman, 7)

LAFAYETTE (Ark.) created by Arkansas Territory from HEMPSTEAD (Ark.); included part of present Texas. HEMPSTEAD eliminated from present Texas. Act passed 15 October 1827; took effect 1 February 1828. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1827, 5th sess./pp. 10-12)

Survey of boundary between the Republic of Texas and the United States began. LAFAYETTE (Ark.) lost to Republic of Texas; LAFAYETTE eliminated from present Texas. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 75 [1844]/p. 674; Marshall, 235-236)

LAMAR created by the Republic of Texas from RED RIVER; LAMAR not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 97)

LAMAR lost to creation of PASCHAL (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 56)

LAMAR fully organized. ("Lamar County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:40)

LAMAR gained from PASCHAL (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

Part of LAMAR reverted to Non-County Area 4. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./p. 1)

Non-County Area 4 attached to LAMAR for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 37-38)

LAMAR lost to Non-County Area 4 which was then attached to LAMAR for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 6)

LAMAR became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

LAMAR authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of DELTA (proposed) and WEBSTER (proposed); creations did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 48-49)

LAMAR lost to creation of DELTA. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 30/p. 42)

LAMAR gained from DELTA. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 35/p. 30)

LAMB created from Young Territory; LAMB not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

LAMB detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

LAMB detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

LAMB detached from CROSBY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

LAMB detached from HALE, attached to CASTRO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1892, 22d leg., called sess., ch. 24, sec. 2/p. 59)

LAMB fully organized, detached from CASTRO. ("Lamb County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:44)

LAMPASAS created from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL, from a small area of BELL, and from Travis Land District; LAMPASAS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 44/p. 41)

LAMPASAS fully organized. ("Lampasas County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:50)

LAMPASAS lost to creation of HAMILTON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 9/pp. 60-61)

Legislature authorized BURNET to gain from LAMPASAS; line cannot be drawn as described [repealed 1 May 1874; no change]. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 105/p. 184)

Act of 2 June 1873, changing the boundary between LAMPASAS and BURNET, was repealed [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 135/p. 185)

LAMPASAS lost to creation of MILLS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 25)

Constitutional Convention authorized creation of LATIMER (proposed) from DAVIS (now CASS) and TITUS; county was never organized or legalized by Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 110)

LAVACA created from COLORADO, FAYETTE, GONZALES, and Non-County Area 8; LAVACA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 49)

LAVACA fully organized. (Kennedy, 123)

LAVACA gained from FAYETTE. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 58/p. 78)

LAVACA gained small area from GONZALES. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 114/p. 43)

LEE created from BASTROP, BURLESON, FAYETTE, and WASHINGTON; LEE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 75/pp. 94-97)

LEE gained from BURLESON. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 149/p. 202)

LEE fully organized. (Kennedy, 126)

LEE boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 27)

LEON created from ROBERTSON; LEON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 8)

LEON fully organized. (Kennedy, 126)

LEON lost to creation of MADISON. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 5/pp. 10-11)

LIBERTY (original county) created from NACOGDOCHES; established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. (Partlow, inside front cover, 79-81, 325)

LIBERTY lost to creation of BEVIL (now JASPER). ("Bevil, John," New Handbook of Texas, 1:514)

LIBERTY lost to creation of WASHINGTON. ("Documents Relating to the Organization.," 99; Partlow, inside front cover, 326)

LIBERTY lost to creation of HARRISBURG (now HARRIS). (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 119)

LIBERTY became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

LIBERTY lost to creation of MONTGOMERY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 33)

LIBERTY boundaries defined. LIBERTY gained from HARRISBURG (now HARRIS) and gained all of Non-County Area 1 (which was eliminated); lost to creation of Non-County Area 2 in anticipation of the 21 December 1837 change to JEFFERSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 84)

LIBERTY lost to creation of GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 24)

LIBERTY lost to creation of NORTHERN DIVISION OF LIBERTY (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 205)

LIBERTY lost to GALVESTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ p. 45)

LIBERTY lost to creation of MENARD (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 74)

LIBERTY gained from MENARD (Judicial County) and TRINITY (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

LIBERTY became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

LIBERTY lost to creation of POLK. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 27-29)

LIBERTY lost to creation of TYLER. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 42-44)

LIBERTY lost to creation of HARDIN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 8/p. 60)

LIBERTY lost to creation of CHAMBERS. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 125-126/pp. 192-193)

LIBERTY authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of SAN JACINTO (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 66)

LIBERTY lost to creation of SAN JACINTO. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 59/p. 79)

LIMESTONE created from ROBERTSON; LIMESTONE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 72)

LIMESTONE fully organized. ("Limestone County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:199)

LIMESTONE gained from NAVARRO. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 142/p. 207)

LIMESTONE lost to creation of McLENNAN. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 54/p. 62)

LIMESTONE lost to creation of FALLS. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 80/p. 87)

LIMESTONE exchanged with NAVARRO. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 102/p. 112)

LIMESTONE lost to creation of FREESTONE. (Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 2d sess., ch. 39/p. 39 and Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 37/p. 30)

LIMESTONE gained from NAVARRO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 144/p. 218)

LIMESTONE authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of RICHLAND (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 50)

LIPSCOMB created from Bexar Territory; LIPSCOMB not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234, 242)

LIPSCOMB detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

LIPSCOMB fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Lipscomb County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:216)

HANSFORD detached from WHEELER, attached to LIPSCOMB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 2/p. 162)

HANSFORD fully organized, detached from LIPSCOMB. (Kennedy, 102)

LIVE OAK created from NUECES, SAN PATRICIO, and a small area of Bexar Land District; LIVE OAK not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/pp. 54-56)

LIVE OAK fully organized. (Kennedy, 128)

LIVE OAK lost to creation of BEE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 14/p. 11)

LIVE OAK lost to creation of DUVAL and McMULLEN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 7, 23/pp. 88, 91)

McMULLEN attached to LIVE OAK "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

LIVE OAK exchanged with McMULLEN, gained all of ATASCOSA; ATASCOSA eliminated, temporarily ending the attachment of FRIO (act repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 27)

LIVE OAK exchanged with McMULLEN, lost to re-creation of ATASCOSA (repealed acts of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

LA SALLE detached from NUECES, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 16/p. 54)

LIVE OAK exchanged with NUECES. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 106/p. 109)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial and all other necessary purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 121/p. 132)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 123/pp. 207-208)

McMULLEN fully organized, detached from LIVE OAK. ("McMullen County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:438)

LLANO created from Bexar Land District and GILLESPIE; LLANO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/p. 44)

LLANO fully organized. (Oatman, 33)

LLANO lost to creation of MASON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 2/pp. 58-59)

LLANO gained from BURNET and GILLESPIE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 114/p. 147)

LOVING created from TOM GREEN; LOVING not fully organized, attached to REEVES "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1c, 3/pp. 8-9)

LOVING fully organized, detached from REEVES. Organization was determined to be fraudulent, and the county was officially disorganized 24 May 1897. ("Loving County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:311)

LOVING disorganized, reattached to REEVES "for judicial and other purposes" [see also 8 July 1893]. (Texas Laws 1897, 25th leg., reg. sess., ch. 143/p. 205; "Loving County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:311)

LOVING fully organized, detached from REEVES. (Correspondence, Beverly Hanson, District and County Clerk, Loving County, 19 July 2001)

LUBBOCK created from Young Territory; LUBBOCK not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

LUBBOCK detached from YOUNG, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

LUBBOCK detached from BAYLOR, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

LUBBOCK fully organized, detached from CROSBY. ("Lubbock County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:323)

COCHRAN and HOCKLEY detached from HALE, both attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." LYNN detached from CROSBY, attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

LYNN fully organized, detached from LUBBOCK. ("Lynn County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:352)

HOCKLEY fully organized, detached from LUBBOCK. (Hockley County Historical Commission, 200)

COCHRAN detached from LUBBOCK, attached to HOCKLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1921 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 199)

LYNN created from Young Territory; LYNN not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

LYNN detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

LYNN detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 32/p. 63)

LYNN detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 3/p. 109)

LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 6/p. 163)

LYNN detached from CROSBY, attached to LUBBOCK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 3/p. 37)

LYNN fully organized, detached from LUBBOCK. ("Lynn County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:352)

MADISON (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from MONTGOMERY; MADISON (Judicial County) was located south of present MADISON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 91-93)

MADISON (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

MADISON created from GRIMES, LEON, and WALKER; MADISON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 5/pp. 10-11)

MADISON fully organized. ("Madison County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:455)

MARION created from CASS and TITUS; MARION not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 48/pp. 57-59)

MARION fully organized. (Kennedy, 132)

MARION gained small area from HARRISON. (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 9/p. 5)

MARION gained from HARRISON. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 127/p. 178)

MARTIN created from TOM GREEN and Young Territory; MARTIN not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

MARTIN detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

MARTIN detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

MARTIN fully organized, detached from HOWARD. (Smithson and Hull, 4)

ANDREWS and GAINES detached from HOWARD, both attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 3/p. 110)

GLASSCOCK created from TOM GREEN; GLASSCOCK not fully organized, attached to MARTIN "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 143/p. 136)

TERRY and YOAKUM detached from HOWARD, both attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 4/p. 162)

GLASSCOCK detached from MARTIN, attached to HOWARD "for judicial, surveying, and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 81/p. 92)

ANDREWS detached from MIDLAND, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 1/p. 36)

TERRY fully organized, detached from MARTIN. (Terry County Historical Survey Committee, 19)

YOAKUM detached from MARTIN, attached to TERRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 9, sec. 5/p. 11)

GAINES fully organized, detached from MARTIN. (Kennedy, 95)

ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1909, 31st leg., reg. sess., ch. 8, sec. 4/p. 12)

MASON created from GILLESPIE, LLANO, and Bexar Land District; MASON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 2/pp. 58-59)

MASON fully organized. (Kennedy, 134)

MENARD attached to MASON "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

MENARD fully organized, detached from MASON. (Kennedy, 135)

MATAGORDA (original county) created from BRAZORIA; established as a municipality by Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 265/p. 352)

MATAGORDA lost to creation of JACKSON. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 45)

MATAGORDA gained from BRAZORIA. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 114)

MATAGORDA became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

MATAGORDA lost to JACKSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 121)

MATAGORDA lost to creation of WARD (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 65)

Boundary between MATAGORDA and VICTORIA clarified along the Gulf Shore [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 102)

MATAGORDA gained from WARD (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

MATAGORDA gained from JACKSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 5)

MATAGORDA became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

MATAGORDA exchanged small areas with BRAZORIA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 18-20)

Part of MATAGORDA reverted to Non-County Area 5; anticipated creation of WHARTON on 3 April 1846. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 34)

MATAGORDA boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 41/p. 31)

Boundaries of MATAGORDA extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

MAVERICK created from KINNEY. MAVERICK not fully organized, attached to KINNEY "for all judicial and county purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 69/p. 71)

MAVERICK lost to creation of DAWSON (original), DIMMIT, and ZAVALA; lost small area to UVALDE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 8-9, 21/pp. 88, 91)

MAVERICK lost to DIMMIT and ZAVALA. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

MAVERICK gained from KINNEY, lost to creation of Non-County Area 25; MAVERICK detached from KINNEY, attached to UVALDE "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 29/p. 22)

DIMMIT detached from WEBB, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

MAVERICK fully organized, detached from UVALDE. ("Maverick County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:577)

KINNEY detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." ZAVALA detached from MAVERICK, attached to UVALDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 6/p. 5)

KINNEY fully organized, detached from MAVERICK. (Gournay, 61)

DIMMIT fully organized, detached from MAVERICK. (Kennedy, 85)

McCULLOCH created from Bexar Land District; McCULLOCH not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 141/p. 69)

McCULLOCH attached to SAN SABA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

McCULLOCH fully organized, detached from SAN SABA. (Spiller, 1:36)

CONCHO detached from SAN SABA, attached to McCULLOCH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 67, sec. 11/p. 74)

CONCHO fully organized, detached from McCULLOCH. (Kennedy, 80)

McLENNAN created from LIMESTONE, MILAM, and NAVARRO; McLENNAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 54/p. 62)

McLENNAN fully organized. (Memorial and Biographical History of McLennan, Falls, Bell and Coryell Counties, 103)

McLENNAN lost to creation of BOSQUE and CORYELL; all of McLENNAN north of BOSQUE and CORYELL became Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., chs. 36, 38/pp. 45-48)

McMULLEN created from ATASCOSA, LIVE OAK, NUECES, Bexar Land District, and Non-County Area 23; McMULLEN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 7/p. 88)

McMULLEN attached to LIVE OAK "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

McMULLEN gained from DUVAL and NUECES, exchanged with LIVE OAK (acts repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., chs. 29-30/pp. 27-29)

McMULLEN exchanged with LIVE OAK, lost to DUVAL and NUECES (repealed acts of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

McMULLEN fully organized, detached from LIVE OAK. ("McMullen County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:438)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to McMULLEN "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 22)

LA SALLE fully organized, detached from McMULLEN. (Ludeman, 7)

MEDINA created from BEXAR; MEDINA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 36/p. 27)

MEDINA fully organized. (Castro Colonies Heritage Association, 5)

Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 89/p. 94)

Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA lost to creation of BANDERA. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 31)

FRIO detached from ATASCOSA, attached to MEDINA "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

FRIO fully organized, detached from MEDINA. (Frio County Centennial Corporation, [1])

MEDINA gained from BEXAR and from Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 21/p. 32)

MENARD (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from LIBERTY; MENARD (Judicial County) was located in a different area of Texas from present MENARD. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 74)

MENARD (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

MENARD created from Bexar Land District; MENARD not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 3/p. 59)

MENARD attached to MASON "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

MENARD fully organized, detached from MASON. (Kennedy, 135)

SCHLEICHER created from CROCKETT; SCHLEICHER not fully organized, attached to MENARD "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 95)

SCHLEICHER fully organized, detached from MENARD. ("Schleicher County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:920)

Republic of Mexico gained its independence from Spain; present Texas became part of Mexico. Transfer of authority over Texas took place 24 August 1822. (Beers, 100; "Mexican War of Independence," New Handbook of Texas, 4:698)

NACOGDOCHES (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. ("Nacogdoches County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:926; Singletary, 88-90)

SAN FELIPE DE AUSTIN (now AUSTIN, original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; municipality had jurisdiction over territory between the Lavaca and San Jacinto Rivers, and south of the San Antonio Road to the Gulf of Mexico. ("Austin County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:305; Barker, 299-307)

VICTORIA (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. (Grimes, 448)

GONZALES (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described until 14 December 1837; general area of municipality mapped. (Rather, 126)

MINA (now BASTROP, original county) and SAN PATRICIO (original county) established as municipalities by Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 283/p. 384)

REFUGIO (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. (Huson, 1:1, 200; Henderson, 32:10)

VIESCA (now MILAM, original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. (McLean, 3:300; 9:31-32, 39)

MIDLAND created from TOM GREEN; MIDLAND not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 23/p. 24)

MIDLAND fully organized. (Griffin, 70)

CRANE, ECTOR, and UPTON all created from TOM GREEN; new counties not fully organized, all attached to MIDLAND "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1, 4/pp. 8-9)

ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 4/p. 162)

ECTOR fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Kennedy, 88)

ANDREWS detached from MIDLAND, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 34, sec. 1/p. 36)

CRANE detached from MIDLAND, attached to ECTOR "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1903, 28th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 3/p. 92)

ANDREWS detached from MARTIN, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1909, 31st leg., reg. sess., ch. 8, sec.

UPTON fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Eagleton, 15)

ANDREWS fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Andrews County Heritage Committee, 21)

VIESCA (now MILAM, original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. (McLean, 3:300; 9:31-32, 39)

VIESCA renamed MILAM. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 98)

MILAM became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

MILAM lost to creation of ROBERTSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 56)

MILAM gained from WASHINGTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 223)

MILAM lost to creation of BURLESON (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 36)

MILAM lost to creation of WACO (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 80)

MILAM gained from BURLESON (Judicial County) and WACO (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

MILAM became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

MILAM lost to creation of BURLESON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 16-18)

MILAM gained from BEXAR; boundary change resulted in overlaps with Fannin Land District and creation of Non-County Area 12 north of the Brazos River. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 259)

MILAM lost to creation of WILLIAMSON. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 78/p. 76)

MILAM lost to creation of BELL and McLENNAN; part of MILAM reverted to Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., chs. 54-55/pp. 62-65)

MILAM lost to creation of FALLS. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 80/p. 87)

MILAM lost to BELL. (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 36/p. 29)

MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) created by Arkansas Territory from HEMPSTEAD (Ark.); included parts of present Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1820, 1st sess./pp. 83-86; Reynolds, 230-231)

Treaty of Doak's Stand, between the United States and the Choctaw Indians, granted possession of the territory north of Red River and west of a point three miles below the mouth of Little River in present Arkansas to the Choctaws; included all of MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) north of Red River. White settlers protested, but the War Department did attempt to remove settlers living west of the Kiamichi River in present Oklahoma [not mapped]. (Royce, 700-703; Strickland, 162-165)

MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) lost to Choctaw Indian territory when the western extent of Arkansas Territory was moved to a line running forty miles west of the southern corner of Missouri. No change to the portion of MILLER that overlapped present Texas. (U.S. Stat., vol. 4, ch. 155 [1824]/pp. 40-41; Morris, Goins, McReynolds, 21; Van Zandt, 119)

MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) lost to Indian lands when treaty between the U.S. and Cherokee Indians established the western line of Arkansas Territory north of Red River along the eastern line of the Choctaw Session. No change to the portion of MILLER that overlapped present Texas. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1828, spec. sess./pp. 9-10; Royce, 720-721)

MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) lost to creation of SEVIER (Ark.). Act passed 17 October 1828; took effect 1 November 1828. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1828, spec. sess./pp. 5-8 and sec. 9/p. 28; Strickland, 42-43)

MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) gained from SEVIER (Ark.); SEVIER eliminated from present Texas. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1829, 6th sess./p. 91)

Arkansas effectively lost control of MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct). (Ark. Acts 1838, 2d sess./p. 138; Reynolds, 234-235)

Survey of boundary between the Republic of Texas and the United States began. MILLER (Ark. Terr.) officially became extinct as Texas claims to the area were upheld. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 75 [1844]/p. 674; Marshall, 235-236)

MILLS created from BROWN, COMANCHE, HAMILTON, and LAMPASAS; MILLS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 37/p. 25)

MILLS fully organized. (Bowles, 85)

MITCHELL created from TOM GREEN and Young Territory; MITCHELL not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

MITCHELL fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. ("Mitchell County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:781)

ANDREWS, BORDEN, DAWSON, GAINES, HOWARD, MARTIN, and SCURRY detached from SHACKELFORD, all attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

HOWARD fully organized, detached from MITCHELL. (Kennedy, 109)

GARZA and KENT detached from THROCKMORTON, both attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." ANDREWS, BORDEN, DAWSON, GAINES, and MARTIN detached from MITCHELL, all attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

SCURRY fully organized, detached from MITCHELL. (Shelton, 26)

LYNN detached from HOWARD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 67, sec. 32/p. 63)

GARZA and KENT detached from MITCHELL, both attached to SCURRY "for judicial purposes." LYNN detached from MITCHELL, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, secs. 3, 5/pp. 109, 111)

MONTAGUE created from COOKE; MONTAGUE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 33/p. 31)

MONTAGUE fully organized. ("Montague County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:795)

CLAY, GREER (Okla.), HARDEMAN, and WILBARGER all attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

CLAY fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Taylor, 47-48)

GREER (Okla.), HARDEMAN, and WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, all attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." WICHITA detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

CLAY attached to MONTAGUE; WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE; GREER (Okla.), HARDEMAN, and WILBARGER detached from YOUNG, all attached to MONTAGUE. All attachments were "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 2/p. 94)

ARCHER, BAYLOR, and KNOX detached from JACK, all attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 13/p. 53)

CLAY fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Taylor, 47-50, 70-71; Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 72/pp. 106-108)

BAYLOR fully organized, detached from MONTAGUE. (Kennedy, 62)

ARCHER, HARDEMAN, KNOX, WICHITA, and WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, all attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

MONTAGUE boundaries clarified [no change]. GREER (Okla.) detached from MONTAGUE, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29 and ch. 47/p. 42)

MONTGOMERY created by the Republic of Texas from LIBERTY, WASHINGTON, and a small part of AUSTIN; MONTGOMERY fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 33)

MONTGOMERY boundaries defined and clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 45)

MONTGOMERY gained from HARRIS. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 222)

MONTGOMERY lost to creation of SPRING CREEK (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 49)

MONTGOMERY lost to creation of HAMILTON (Judicial County) and MADISON (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 91-93)

MONTGOMERY gained from HAMILTON (Judicial County), MADISON (Judicial County), and SPRING CREEK (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

MONTGOMERY became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

MONTGOMERY lost to creation of GRIMES and WALKER. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 50-51)

MONTGOMERY authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of SAN JACINTO (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 66)

MONTGOMERY lost to creation of SAN JACINTO. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 59/p. 79)

Boundary of SAN JACINTO with MONTGOMERY and WALKER clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 62/p. 71)

MOORE created from Bexar Territory; MOORE not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

MOORE detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

MOORE detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

MOORE detached from OLDHAM, attached to POTTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

MOORE fully organized, detached from POTTER. ("Moore County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:826)

MORRIS created from TITUS; MORRIS not fully organized. Act passed 8 March 1875; took effect 13 March 1875. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 82/pp. 97-99)

MORRIS fully organized. ("Morris County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:846)

MOTLEY created from Young Territory; MOTLEY not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

MOTLEY detached from JACK, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

MOTLEY detached from BAYLOR, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1884, 18th leg., spec. sess., ch. 15, sec. 31/p. 26)

MOTLEY detached from DONLEY, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

MOTLEY detached from HARDEMAN, attached to CROSBY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 98, sec. 4/p. 80)

MOTLEY fully organized, detached from CROSBY. (Traweek, 15)

NACOGDOCHES (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; municipality had initial jurisdiction over territory between the Neches and Sabine Rivers and the remaining area east of the Trinity River was designated part of NACOGDOCHES on 17 March 1836. Continued uncertainty over the boundary between the United States and Mexico resulted in an overlap between NACOGDOCHES and HEMPSTEAD (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct). ("Nacogdoches County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:926; Singletary, 88-90)

NACOGDOCHES defined, overlap with LAYFETTE (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark. Terr. extinct) continued. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 164/p. 171)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of LIBERTY. (Partlow, inside front cover, 79-81, 325)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of SAN AUGUSTINE. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 265/p. 352)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of RED RIVER and TENEHAW (now SHELBY). (Gammel, 1:Journals of the Consultation, 28)

NACOGDOCHES became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of HOUSTON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1836, 1st cong./p. 270)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of FANNIN and ROBERTSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 48, 52-53, 56, 89)

NACOGDOCHES lost to FANNIN. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 194)

Survey of boundary between the Republic of Texas and the United States began. NACOGDOCHES overlap with MILLER (Ark Terr., extinct) ended when Texas claims to the area were upheld. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 75 [1844]/p. 674; Marshall, 235-236)

NACOGDOCHES lost to BURNET (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 7)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of SMITH (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 87-89)

NACOGDOCHES gained from BURNET (Judicial County) and SMITH (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 39-41)

NACOGDOCHES became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of ANDERSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 20)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of HOPKINS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 24)

NACOGDOCHES lost to creation of DALLAS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 26)

NACOGDOCHES divided into two parts when it lost to creation of CHEROKEE, HUNT, and SMITH. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 55-58, 63-65)

NACOGDOCHES boundaries defined; lost to creation of Non-County Area 10 and Non-County Area 11. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 93)

NAVARRO created from Non-County Area 9; NAVARRO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 132)

NAVARRO fully organized. (Putman, 3)

NAVARRO lost to LIMESTONE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 142/p. 207)

NAVARRO lost to creation of ELLIS and TARRANT. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., chs. 17-18/pp. 14-16)

NAVARRO lost to creation of McLENNAN. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 54/p. 62)

NAVARRO exchanged with LIMESTONE. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 102/p. 112)

NAVARRO lost to creation of HILL; that part of NAVARRO north of HILL became Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL "for all county and general purposes." (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 26/p. 37)

NAVARRO lost to HILL and LIMESTONE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 144/p. 218)

NAVARRO authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of RICHLAND (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 50)

NECHES (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from JASPER and JEFFERSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 82-84)

NECHES (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

NEWTON created from JASPER; NEWTON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 122)

NEWTON fully organized. (Kennedy, 141)

NEWTON lost to JASPER. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 133; Partlow, inside front cover, 328)

NOLAN created from TAYLOR, TOM GREEN, and Young Territory; NOLAN not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 239, 242)

NOLAN fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. ("Nolan County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:1027)

FISHER detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to NOLAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

FISHER fully organized, detached from NOLAN. (Yeats and Shelton, 43-44)

Non-County Area 1 created from a remnant of WASHINGTON that was east of MONTGOMERY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 33)

Non-County Area 1 eliminated when it lost all territory to LIBERTY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 84)

In anticipation of JEFFERSON gain on 21 Dec 1837, Non-County Area 2 created from LIBERTY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 84)

Non-County Area 2 eliminated when it lost all territory to JEFFERSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 110)

Non-County Area 3 created from MINA (now BASTROP). (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 90-91)

Non-County Area 3 lost to FAYETTE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 2)

Non-County Area 3 eliminated when it lost all territory to GONZALES. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 44)

Non-County Area 4 created from LAMAR. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./p. 1)

Non-County Area 4 attached to LAMAR for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 37-38)

Non-County Area 4 gained from LAMAR; attached to LAMAR for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 6)

Non-County Area 4 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of HOPKINS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 24)

Non-County Area 5 created from MATAGORDA; anticipated creation of WHARTON on 3 Apr 1846. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 34)

Non-County Area 5 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of WHARTON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 38)

Non-County Area 6 created from VICTORIA; anticipated creation of CALHOUN on 4 April 1846. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 35)

Non-County Area 6 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 48)

Non-County Area 7 created from JACKSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 37-38)

Non-County Area 7 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 48)

Non-County Area 8 created from JACKSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 37-38)

Non-County Area 8 lost to creation of LAVACA, and lost to COLORADO. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 38, 49)

Non-County Area 8 eliminated when it lost all territory to COLORADO. (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 49)

Non-County Area 9 created from all that part of ROBERTSON north of LIMESTONE. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 60, 72)

Non-County Area 9 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of NAVARRO. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 132)

Non-County Area 10 created from NACOGDOCHES. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 93)

Non-County Area 10 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of ANGELINA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 120)

Non-County Area 11 created from NACOGDOCHES. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 93)

Non-County Area 11 lost to creation of HENDERSON and UPSHUR. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 139, 141)

Non-County Area 11 eliminated when it lost all territory to the creation of TITUS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 198)

Non-County Area 12 inadvertently created north of the Brazos River when MILAM gained from BEXAR. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 259)

Non-County Area 12 lost to Denton Land District. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 72/p. 100)

Non-County Area 12 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of Young Territory and to YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

Non-County Area 13 created from GRAYSON. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 11/p. 9)

Non-County Area 13 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of COOKE. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 130/p. 183)

Non-County Area 14 created from TRAVIS. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 57/p. 48)

Non-County Area 14 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

Non-County Area 15 created from HENDERSON when HENDERSON boundaries were redefined. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 83/pp. 86-88)

Non-County Area 15 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of VAN ZANDT. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 119/p. 149)

Non-County Area 16 created from SANTA FE (extinct) in anticipation of the creation of EL PASO, PRESIDIO, and WORTH (extinct) on 3 January 1850. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 24/p. 21)

Non-County Area 16 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of EL PASO, PRESIDIO, and WORTH (extinct). (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 24)

Non-County Area 17 created from MILAM; attached to BELL for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 55/pp. 63-65)

Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL lost to creation of BURNET. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL lost to WILLIAMSON. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 41/p. 53)

Non-County Area 17 lost to creation of CORYELL. Non-County area 17 detached from BELL, attached to CORYELL for all county and general purposes. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 36/pp. 45-47)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of COMANCHE and ERATH. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 34-35/p. 27)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of LAMPASAS. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 44/p. 41)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to COMANCHE. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 126/p. 55)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to creation of BROWN and PALO PINTO. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., chs. 138-139/pp. 65-66)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to ERATH. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 172/p. 96)

Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL lost to COMANCHE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 49/p. 54)

Non-County Area 17 lost to creation of EASTLAND and CALAHAN . (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 10, 13/pp. 88-89)

Non-County Area 17 eliminated when it lost all remaining territory to BROWN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 96/p. 122)

Non-County Area 18 created from VAN ZANDT. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 86/p. 91)

Non-County Area 18 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of WOOD. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 98/pp. 103-106)

Non-County Area 19 created from BEXAR. Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 89/p. 94)

Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA lost to creation of BANDERA. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 31)

Non-County Area 19 attached to MEDINA eliminated when it lost all territory to MEDINA. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 21/p. 32)

Non-County Area 20 created from TRAVIS. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

Non-County Area 20 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of BLANCO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 130/pp. 198-200)

Non-County Area 21 created from that part of NAVARRO north of HILL. Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL "for all county and general purposes." (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 26/p. 37)

Non-County Area 21 attached to HILL eliminated when it lost to creation of JOHNSON; remainder of Non-County Area 21 became part of the Denton Land District; attachment to HILL continued. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 76/p. 104)

Non-County Area 22 created from that part of MCLENNAN north of BOSQUE and CORYELL. Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE for administrative and judicial purposes. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 38/p. 48)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of JOHNSON. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 76/p. 104)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of PARKER. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 1/p. 3)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of COMANCHE and ERATH. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., chs. 34-35/p. 27)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost small area to creation of YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of PALO PINTO. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 138/p. 65)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of THROCKMORTON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 39/pp. 36-38)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE lost to creation of BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 6/pp. 59-60)

Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of CALLAHAN, EASTLAND, SHACKELFORD, and TAYLOR. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 5, 10, 13, 15/pp. 87-90)

Non-County Area 23 created from SAN PATRICIO. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/pp. 54-56)

Non-County Area 23 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of McMULLEN and LA SALLE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 7, 22/p. 88, 91)

Non-County Area 24 created from COMANCHE, anticipated creation of HAMILTON on 22 Jan 1858. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 49/p. 54)

Non-County Area 24 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of HAMILTON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 9/pp. 60-61 and ch. 56/p. 63)

Non-County Area 25 created from MAVERICK. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 29/p. 22)

Non-County Area 25 eliminated when it lost all territory to WEBB. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 45/p. 43)

Non-County Area 26 created from EL PASO. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 67/p. 70)

Non-County Area 26 eliminated when it lost all territory to creation of PECOS. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 70/p. 73)

NUECES created from SAN PATRICIO; NUECES not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 90)

NUECES fully organized. (Marcum, 1:1)

NUECES lost to creation of WEBB. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

NUECES lost to creation of STARR. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 31/p. 24)

NUECES lost to creation of CAMERON; NUECES boundaries redefined to reflect creation of CAMERON. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., chs. 33, 35/pp. 26-27)

NUECES lost to creation of LIVE OAK. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/pp. 54-56)

NUECES exchanged with SAN PATRICIO (repealed 23 January 1858). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 13/p. 10)

NUECES exchanged with SAN PATRICIO (repealed act of 8 December 1857). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 59/p. 65)

NUECES lost to creation of DUVAL, ENCINAL (extinct), LA SALLE, and McMULLEN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 7, 22-24/pp. 88, 91-92)

NUECES gained from SAN PATRICIO in Corpus Christi and Aransas Bays, including Mustang Island and "various small Islands." (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 89/p. 105)

DUVAL, ENCINAL (extinct), and LA SALLE attached to NUECES "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/ p. 120)

NUECES lost to McMULLEN (act repealed 4 December 1863). (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 30/pp. 27-29)

NUECES gained from McMULLEN (repealed acts of 3 January 1862). (Texas Laws 1863, 10th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 8/p. 5)

ENCINAL (extinct) detached from NUECES, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." LA SALLE detached from NUECES, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

NUECES gained from CAMERON, HIDALGO, and STARR. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

NUECES exchanged with LIVE OAK. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 106/p. 109)

DUVAL fully organized, detached from NUECES. (Kennedy, 86)

NUECES lost to creation of JIM WELLS; JIM WELLS not fully organized, attached to NUECES "for all purposes." (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 140/pp. 58-61)

JIM WELLS fully organized, detached from NUECES. (Minutes of the Commissioners' Court, Jim Wells County, 8 May 1911)

NUECES lost to creation of KLEBERG; KLEBERG not fully organized, attached to NUECES "for all purposes." (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 10/pp. 14-17)

KLEBERG fully organized, detached from NUECES. ("Kleberg County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:1139)

Boundaries of NUECES extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

OCHILTREE created from Bexar Territory; OCHILTREE not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234, 242)

OCHILTREE detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

OCHILTREE fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Kennedy, 142-143)

OLDHAM created from Bexar Territory and Young Territory; OLDHAM not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

OLDHAM detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

CASTRO, DALLAM, DEAF SMITH, HARTLEY, MOORE, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SHERMAN, and SWISHER detached from WHEELER, all attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

OLDHAM fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Kennedy, 143)

RANDALL and SWISHER detached from OLDHAM, both attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

RANDALL detached from DONLEY, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 2/p. 109)

POTTER fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Potter County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:300)

MOORE, RANDALL, and SHERMAN detached from OLDHAM, all attached to POTTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

DEAF SMITH fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Deaf Smith County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:546-547)

HARTLEY fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. (Hunter, 31)

DALLAM detached from OLDHAM, attached to HARTLEY "for judicial purposes." PARMER detached from OLDHAM, attached to DEAF SMITH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46, sec. 2/p. 49)

CASTRO fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Castro County," New Handbook of Texas, 1:1022)

Western extent of OLDHAM explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

ORANGE created from JEFFERSON; ORANGE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/p. 48)

ORANGE fully organized. (Kennedy, 143)

ORANGE gained from JEFFERSON in Lake Sabine. (Texas Laws 1975, 64th leg., reg. sess., chs. 322, 592/pp. 831, 1876)

Creation of COLLIN resulted in an overlap with GRAYSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 44)

Overlap Area 1 expanded when creation of DENTON resulted in an overlap with GRAYSON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 57)

Overlap Area 1 eliminated when GRAYSON boundaries redefined and control of the area was assigned to COLLIN and DENTON. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 11/p. 9)

Creation of JACK resulted in an overlap with COOKE. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 135/pp. 62-64)

Overlap Area 2, between COOKE and JACK, eliminated when CLAY created from COOKE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 34/p. 33)

Creation of PALO PINTO resulted in an overlap with YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 138/p. 65)

Overlap Area 3 eliminated when PALO PINTO boundaries were clarified and YOUNG gained undisputed control of the area. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 97/p. 123)

Creation of CLAY resulted in an overlap area between CLAY and JACK. Dispute was settled in favor of JACK in March 1895. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 34/p. 33)

Overlap Area 4 eliminated when dispute between CLAY and JACK was settled in favor of JACK [see 24 Dec 1857]. (Taylor, 1, 127)

PALO PINTO created from Non-County Area 17 attached to CORYELL, Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE, and non-county area in Denton Land District attached to PARKER; resulted in an overlap with YOUNG (see Overlap Area 3). PALO PINTO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 138/p. 65)

PALO PINTO fully organized. (Clarke, 7)

PALO PINTO lost to creation of EASTLAND. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 10/p. 88)

PALO PINTO lost to YOUNG when PALO PINTO boundaries were clarified; eliminated overlap with YOUNG dating from 27 August 1856. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 97/p. 123)

BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS), JONES, and SHACKELFORD attached to PALO PINTO "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 4/p. 120)

PALO PINTO lost to ERATH and lost to creation of HOOD. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 84-85/pp. 82-83)

CALLAHAN, EASTLAND, and TAYLOR detached from COMANCHE, all attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 14/p. 54)

EASTLAND fully organized, detached from PALO PINTO. (Ghormley, 16)

JONES, SHACKELFORD, and STEPHENS detached from PALO PINTO, all attached to JACK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 133, sec. 2/p. 184)

STEPHENS detached from JACK, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

CALLAHAN and TAYLOR detached from PALO PINTO, both attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 47, sec. 1/p. 59)

STEPHENS fully organized, detached from PALO PINTO. ("Stephens County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:88)

PANOLA (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from HARRISON. PANOLA (Judicial County) was located directly north of present PANOLA. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ pp. 153-155)

PANOLA (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

PANOLA created from HARRISON and RUSK; PANOLA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 31)

PANOLA fully organized. ("Panola County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:46)

PARKER created from Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE and from non-county area of Denton Land District; remainder of Denton Land District detached from HILL, attached to PARKER "for all county and general purposes." PARKER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 1/p. 3)

PARKER fully organized. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 208)

PARKER lost part of non-county attachment in Denton Land District to YOUNG. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

PARMER created from Young Territory; PARMER not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

PARMER detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

PARMER detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

PARMER detached from OLDHAM, attached to DEAF SMITH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46, sec. 2/p. 49)

PARMER fully organized, detached from DEAF SMITH. ("Parmer County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:68)

Western extent of PARMER explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

PASCHAL (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from BOWIE, LAMAR, and RED RIVER. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 56)

PASCHAL (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

PECOS created from PRESIDIO and Non-County Area 26; PECOS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 70/p. 73)

PECOS attached to EL PASO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 155)

PECOS fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Pecos County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:121)

PECOS lost to creation of REEVES. (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 105)

PECOS gained very small area [above NW corner of VAL VERDE] from CROCKETT, lost to creation of VAL VERDE. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 50/p. 48)

PECOS lost to creation of TERRELL; TERRELL not fully organized, attached to PECOS "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." Act passed 8 April 1905; took effect 14 July 1905. (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 70/p. 96)

TERRELL fully organized, detached from PECOS. ("Terrell County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:263)

POLK created from LIBERTY; POLK not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 27-29)

POLK fully organized. (Kennedy, 146)

Boundary between POLK and TYLER clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 24/p. 19)

POLK authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of SAN JACINTO (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 66)

POLK lost to creation of SAN JACINTO. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 59/p. 79)

POLK gained from TRINITY. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 67/p. 81)

POTTER created from Bexar Territory and Young Territory; POTTER not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

POTTER detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

POTTER detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

POTTER fully organized, detached from OLDHAM. ("Potter County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:300)

MOORE, RANDALL, and SHERMAN detached from OLDHAM, all attached to POTTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

SHERMAN fully organized, detached from POTTER. (McDaniel, 1:29)

RANDALL fully organized, detached from POTTER. ("Randall County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:438)

MOORE fully organized, detached from POTTER. ("Moore County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:826)

PRESIDIO created from Non-County Area 16; PRESIDIO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 24)

PRESIDIO attached to EL PASO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 85/p. 91)

PRESIDIO boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 19/p. 32)

PRESIDIO lost to EL PASO. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 67/p. 70)

PRESIDIO lost to creation of PECOS. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 70/p. 73)

PRESIDIO boundaries redefined [no change]. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 86/p. 86)

PRESIDIO fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Presidio County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:331)

PRESIDIO lost to creation of BREWSTER. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 4/p. 4)

PRESIDIO lost to creation of BUCHEL (extinct), FOLEY (extinct), and JEFF DAVIS. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 38/p. 26)

PRESIDIO gained from BREWSTER and FOLEY (extinct); PRESIDIO was authorized to exchange with JEFF DAVIS [exchange disputed and never took effect, not mapped; see 11 November 1903]. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 49/p. 44)

Dispute between PRESIDIO and JEFF DAVIS ended; 1887 boundary confirmed [see also 27 March 1889]. ("Presidio County v. Jeff Davis County," in SW Rptr., 1st ser., 77:278-279)

RAINS created from HOPKINS, HUNT, VAN ZANDT, and WOOD; RAINS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 3/p. 2; "Hunt County v. Rains County," in Texas Rpts., 116:277-288; "Hunt County v. Rains County," in SW Rptr., 2d ser., 7:648-657)

RAINS fully organized. (Kennedy, 147)

RANDALL created from Young Territory; RANDALL not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 236, 242)

RANDALL detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

RANDALL detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

RANDALL detached from OLDHAM, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

RANDALL detached from DONLEY, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 2/p. 109)

RANDALL detached from OLDHAM, attached to POTTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

RANDALL fully organized, detached from POTTER. ("Randall County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:438)

REAGAN created from TOM GREEN; REAGAN not fully organized, attached to TOM GREEN "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1903, 28th leg., reg. sess., ch. 32/p. 44)

REAGAN fully organized, detached from TOM GREEN. (History of Reagan County, 19)

REAL created from BANDERA, EDWARDS, and KERR; REAL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1913, 33d leg., reg. sess., ch. 133/pp. 264-267)

REAL fully organized. (Chiodo, 362-363)

RED RIVER (original county) created from NACOGDOCHES; overlapped LAFAYETTE (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct). Established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas, although specific boundaries not described until 18 Dec 1837. Boundaries mapped are based on 18 Dec 1837 descriptions. LAFAYETTE (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) had been established in the same area in the 1820s, resulting in competing claims to the area by Arkansas Territory and the Republic of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Journals of the Consultation, 28)

RED RIVER became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

RED RIVER boundaries defined [this definition used for 11 November 1835 creation]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 89)

Survey of boundary between the Republic of Texas and the United States began. RED RIVER overlaps with LAFAYETTE (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark Terr., extinct) ended when Texas claims to the area were upheld. (U.S. Stat., vol. 5, ch. 75 [1844]/p. 674; Marshall, 235-236)

RED RIVER lost to creation of BOWIE and LAMAR. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 97)

RED RIVER lost to creation of PASCHAL (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 56)

RED RIVER gained from PASCHAL (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

RED RIVER became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

RED RIVER lost to creation of TITUS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 198)

REEVES created from PECOS; REEVES not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 105)

REEVES fully organized. (Kennedy, 150)

LOVING, WARD, and WINKLER created from TOM GREEN; LOVING, WARD, and WINKLER not fully organized, all attached to REEVES "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1, 3-4/pp. 8-9)

WARD fully organized, detached from REEVES. (Kennedy, 171)

LOVING fully organized, detached from REEVES. Organization was determined to be fraudulent, and the county was officially disorganized 24 May 1897. ("Loving County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:311)

LOVING disorganized, reattached to REEVES "for judicial and other purposes" [see also 8 July 1893]. (Texas Laws 1897, 25th leg., reg. sess., ch. 143/p. 205; "Loving County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:311)

WINKLER fully organized, detached from REEVES. ("Winkler County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1023)

LOVING fully organized, detached from REEVES. (Correspondence, Beverly Hanson, District and County Clerk, Loving County, 19 July 2001)

REFUGIO (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. (Huson, 1:1, 200; Henderson, 32:10)

REFUGIO became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

REFUGIO lost to GOLIAD when boundary was surveyed and GOLIAD boundaries were defined. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 6)

REFUGIO re-organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 21)

REFUGIO became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

REFUGIO lost to VICTORIA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 35)

REFUGIO lost to SAN PATRICIO. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 86)

REFUGIO gained part of Matagorda Island and part of San Antonio Bay from CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 177/p. 104)

REFUGIO lost to GOLIAD and SAN PATRICIO, and lost to creation of BEE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 13-14/pp. 10-11)

REFUGIO gained from SAN PATRICIO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 59/p. 65)

REFUGIO lost part of Matagorda Island and part of San Antonio Bay to CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., spec., ch. 178/p. 196)

REFUGIO lost to creation of ARANSAS, and lost to CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 1/p. 1)

Texas declared its independence from Mexico; map depicts non-county area in the Republic of Texas. ("Republic of Texas," New Handbook of Texas, 5:537-538; Swindler, 9:247, 249)

Constitutional Convention authorized creation of RICHLAND (proposed) from HILL, LIMESTONE, and NAVARRO; county was never organized or legalized by the Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 50)

ROBERTS created from Bexar Territory; ROBERTS not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

ROBERTS detached from CLAY, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

ROBERTS fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Roberts County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:614)

HUTCHINSON detached from CARSON, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 74/p. 92)

GRAY detached from WHEELER, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1895, 24th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 143)

HUTCHINSON fully organized, detached from ROBERTS. ("Hutchinson County." New Handbook of Texas, 3:805)

GRAY fully organized, detached from ROBERTS. (Kennedy, 98)

ROBERTSON created by the Republic of Texas from BEXAR, MILAM and NACOGDOCHES; ROBERTSON not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 56)

ROBERTSON fully organized. (HRS Texas, Robertson, 4)

ROBERTSON lost to FANNIN. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 194)

ROBERTSON lost to creation of NAVASOTO (now BRAZOS). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 86-88)

ROBERTSON lost to creation of WACO (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 80)

ROBERTSON gained from WACO (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

ROBERTSON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

ROBERTSON lost to creation of LEON. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 8)

ROBERTSON lost to creation of DALLAS. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 26)

ROBERTSON lost to creation of LIMESTONE; all of ROBERTSON north of LIMESTONE reverted to non-county area. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 60, 72)

ROCKWALL created from KAUFMAN; ROCKWALL not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 7/p. 10)

ROCKWALL fully organized. (Kennedy, 151)

RUNNELS created from Bexar Land District and Travis Land District; RUNNELS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 14/p. 89)

RUNNELS attached to BROWN "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 2/p. 120)

RUNNELS detached from BROWN, attached to COLEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 133)

RUNNELS fully organized, detached from COLEMAN. ("Runnels County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:717)

RUSK created by the Republic of Texas from NACOGDOCHES and small areas of both HARRISON and SHELBY; RUSK not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 39-41)

RUSK fully organized. (Winfrey, 20)

RUSK gained from HARRISON and SHELBY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 8)

RUSK lost to SHELBY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 62)

RUSK became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

RUSK lost to creation of PANOLA. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 31)

RUSK lost to GREGG. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 128/p. 179)

SABINE (original county) created from SAN AUGUSTINE; established as a municipality by the Provisional Government of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 89)

SABINE became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

SABINE exchanged with SHELBY, lost to JASPER and SAN AUGUSTINE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 48-49, 52, 55)

SABINE became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

SAN AUGUSTINE (original county) created from NACOGDOCHES; established as a municipality by Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 265/p. 352)

SAN AUGUSTINE lost to creation of TENEHAW (now SHELBY). (Gammel, 1:Journals of the Consultation, 28)

SAN AUGUSTINE lost to creation of SABINE, and lost to JASPER. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 89)

SAN AUGUSTINE became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

SAN AUGUSTINE boundaries defined; SAN AUGUSTINE gained from SABINE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 52)

SAN AUGUSTINE became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

Constitutional Convention authorized creation of SAN JACINTO from LIBERTY, MONTGOMERY, POLK, and WALKER; county was never organized or legalized by the Legislature. Boundaries were identical to those of SAN JACINTO created 13 August 1870 [not mapped]. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 66)

SAN JACINTO created from LIBERTY, MONTGOMERY, POLK, and WALKER; SAN JACINTO not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 59/p. 79)

SAN JACINTO fully organized. (Kennedy, 154)

Boundary of SAN JACINTO with MONTGOMERY and WALKER clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 62/p. 71)

SAN PATRICIO (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. (Gammel, 1:Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas, decree no. 283/p. 384)

SAN PATRICIO became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

SAN PATRICIO exchanged with BEXAR. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 33)

SAN PATRICIO exchanged with GOLIAD. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 6)

SAN PATRICIO re-organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 21)

SAN PATRICIO became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

SAN PATRICIO gained from REFUGIO, lost to creation of NUECES. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 86, 90)

SAN PATRICIO boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 84/p. 90)

SAN PATRICIO lost to creation of KARNES. (Texas Laws 1853, 5th leg., ch. 35/p. 44)

SAN PATRICIO lost to creation of LIVE OAK; part of SAN PATRICIO reverted to Non-County Area 23. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 59/pp. 54-56)

SAN PATRICIO gained from REFUGIO, exchanged with NUECES, and lost to creation of BEE (NUECES exchange repealed 23 January 1858). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., chs. 13-14/pp. 10-11)

SAN PATRICIO exchanged with NUECES (repealed act of 8 December 1857); lost to REFUGIO. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 59/p. 65)

SAN PATRICIO lost to NUECES in Corpus Christi and Aransas Bays, including Mustang Island and "various small Islands." (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 89/p. 105)

SAN PATRICIO exchanged with ARANSAS [act repealed 24 April 1891]. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 40/p. 28)

SAN PATRICIO exchanged with ARANSAS [repealed act of 17 March 1887]. (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 172)

SAN SABA created from Bexar Land District; SAN SABA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 49/p. 45)

SAN SABA fully organized. ("San Saba County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:877)

SAN SABA boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 115/p. 148)

CONCHO and McCULLOCH both attached to SAN SABA "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

McCULLOCH fully organized, detached from SAN SABA. (Spiller, 1:36)

CONCHO detached from SAN SABA, attached to McCULLOCH "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 67, sec. 11/p. 74)

SANTA FE (extinct) created from BEXAR; included parts of present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming. SANTA FE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch 87/p. 95)

SANTA FE (extinct) boundaries redefined; gained from BEXAR, lost to creation of Non-County Area 16 in anticipation of EL PASO, PRESIDIO, and WORTH creations on 3 January 1850. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 24/p. 21)

State of Texas sold land in present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming to the United States. BEXAR lost territory to the United States; implicitly gained territory extending to new northern limit of Texas. Except for small adjustments, Texas state boundaries now set; SANTA FE eliminated. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 49 [1850]/pp. 446-452 and appendix, sec. 10/pp. 1005-1006; Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 2/p. 4; Van Zandt, 122)

SCHLEICHER created from CROCKETT; SCHLEICHER not fully organized, attached to MENARD "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 95)

SCHLEICHER fully organized, detached from MENARD. ("Schleicher County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:920)

SCURRY created from Young Territory; SCURRY not fully organized, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

SCURRY detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

SCURRY fully organized, detached from MITCHELL. (Shelton, 26)

GARZA and KENT detached from MITCHELL, both attached to SCURRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

KENT fully organized, detached from SCURRY. (Kennedy, 118)

GARZA detached from SCURRY, attached to BORDEN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1893, 23d leg., ch. 110/p. 166)

SEVIER (Ark.) created by Arkansas Territory from HEMPSTEAD (Ark.) and MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct); included part of present Texas. Act passed 17 October 1828; took effect 1 November 1828. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1828, spec. sess./pp. 5-8 and sec. 9/p. 28; Strickland, 42-43)

SEVIER (Ark.) lost to MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct); SEVIER eliminated from present Texas. (Ark. Terr. Acts 1829, 6th sess./p. 91)

SHACKELFORD created from Young Territory and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; SHACKELFORD not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 5/pp. 87-88)

SHACKELFORD attached to PALO PINTO "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 4/p. 120)

SHACKELFORD detached from PALO PINTO, attached to JACK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 133, sec. 2/p. 184)

SHACKELFORD fully organized, detached from JACK. ("Shackelford County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:984)

CALLAHAN and TAYLOR detached from PALO PINTO, both attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 47, sec. 1/p. 59)

CALLAHAN detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to EASTLAND "for judicial purposes." HASKELL and THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, both attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." JONES detached from JACK, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

BORDEN, DAWSON, FISHER, GAINES, HOWARD, MARTIN, MITCHELL, NOLAN, and SCURRY not fully organized, all attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238-239, 242)

TAYLOR fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Zachry, 9)

THROCKMORTON fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Kennedy, 163)

MITCHELL fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. ("Mitchell County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:781)

NOLAN fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. ("Nolan County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:1027)

HASKELL detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

BORDEN, DAWSON, GAINES, HOWARD, MARTIN, and SCURRY detached from SHACKELFORD, all attached to MITCHELL "for judicial purposes." FISHER detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to NOLAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 74, sec. 11/p. 79)

JONES fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Kennedy, 115)

TENEHAW (now SHELBY, original county) created from NACOGDOCHES and SAN AUGUSTINE; overlapped part of MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct). Specific boundaries were not described until 14 Dec 1837. Boundaries mapped are based on 14 Dec 1837 descriptions. MILLER (Ark. Terr., extinct) had been established in the same area in 1820, resulting in competing claims to the area by Arkansas Territory and the Republic of Texas. (Gammel, 1:Journals of the Consultation, 28)

TENEHAW renamed SHELBY. (Gammel, 1:Ordinances and Decrees, Provisional Govt. Texas, 121-122)

SHELBY became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

SHELBY boundaries defined; SHELBY exchanged with SABINE. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 48)

SHELBY lost to creation of HARRISON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 3d cong./p. 143)

SHELBY exchanged with HARRISON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./ pp. 153-155)

SHELBY lost small area to creation of SMITH (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 87-89)

SHELBY gained small area from SMITH (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

SHELBY lost small area to creation of RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1842, 7th cong./pp. 39-41)

SHELBY lost to RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 8)

SHELBY gained from RUSK. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 62)

SHELBY became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

SHERMAN created from Bexar Territory; SHERMAN not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

SHERMAN detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

SHERMAN detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

SHERMAN detached from OLDHAM, attached to POTTER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

SHERMAN fully organized, detached from POTTER. (McDaniel, 1:29)

SHERMAN boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1959, 56th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41/p. 82)

SMITH (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from NACOGDOCHES and small areas of HARRISON and SHELBY. SMITH (Judicial County) was located directly east of present SMITH. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./pp. 87-89)

SMITH (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

SMITH created from NACOGDOCHES; SMITH not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 55-57)

SMITH fully organized. (Johnson, 10)

SOMERVELL created from HOOD; SOMERVELL not fully organized [county name was incorrectly spelled "SOMERVILLE;" see 20 November 1876]. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 83/pp. 99-101)

SOMERVELL fully organized. (Nunn, 44)

Correct spelling of SOMERVELL was confirmed [act of 13 March 1875 incorrectly spelled it "SOMERVILLE"]. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 99/p. 152)

Starting in 1726 the area in present Texas became a separate province of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. (Beers, 98)

LA BAHIA DEL ESPIRITU SANTO (now GOLIAD, original county) established as a municipality under the authority of New Spain. Precise boundaries not known; general area of municipality mapped. (Cunniff, 82)

Republic of Mexico gained its independence from Spain; present Texas became part of Mexico. Transfer of authority over Texas took place 24 August 1822. (Beers, 100; "Mexican War of Independence," New Handbook of Texas, 4:698)

SPRING CREEK (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from HARRIS and MONTGOMERY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 49)

SPRING CREEK (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

STARR created from NUECES; STARR not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 31/p. 24)

STARR fully organized. (Kennedy, 159)

STARR lost to creation of ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 7/p. 60)

STARR lost to DUVAL and NUECES. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

STARR lost to creation of BROOKS. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 39/pp. 55-57)

BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS) created from Young Territory and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; BUCHANAN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 6/pp. 59-60)

BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS) attached to PALO PINTO "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 4/p. 120)

BUCHANAN renamed STEPHENS. (Texas Laws 1861, 9th leg., reg. sess., ch. 14/p. 8)

STEPHENS detached from PALO PINTO, attached to JACK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 133, sec. 2/p. 184)

STEPHENS detached from JACK, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

STEPHENS fully organized, detached from PALO PINTO. ("Stephens County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:88)

STERLING created from TOM GREEN; STERLING not fully organized, attached to TOM GREEN "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 16/p. 18)

STERLING fully organized, detached from TOM GREEN. (Daniels, 20-21)

STONEWALL created from HASKELL and Young Territory; STONEWALL not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

STONEWALL detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

STONEWALL detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to JONES "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

STONEWALL fully organized, detached from JONES. ("Stonewall County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:114)

SUTTON created from CROCKETT; SUTTON not fully organized, attached to KIMBLE "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 103/p. 95)

SUTTON fully organized, detached from KIMBLE. (Kennedy, 160)

SWISHER created from Young Territory; SWISHER not fully organized, attached to JACK "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237, 242)

SWISHER detached from JACK, attached to WHEELER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

SWISHER detached from WHEELER, attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

SWISHER detached from OLDHAM, attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

SWISHER detached from DONLEY, attached to HALE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 10/p. 163)

SWISHER fully organized, detached from HALE. ("Swisher County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:181)

TARRANT created from NAVARRO; TARRANT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 17/pp. 14-16)

TARRANT fully organized. (History of Texas . . . Biographical History of Tarrant and Parker Counties, 208)

TAYLOR created from Bexar Land District, Travis Land District, Young Territory, and small part of Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; TAYLOR not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 15/p. 90)

TAYLOR attached to COMANCHE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 3/p. 120)

TAYLOR detached from COMANCHE, attached to PALO PINTO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 14/p. 54)

TAYLOR detached from PALO PINTO, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 47, sec. 1/p. 59)

TAYLOR lost to creation of NOLAN; TAYLOR boundaries redefined to reflect creation of NOLAN. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/p. 239)

TAYLOR fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Zachry, 9)

TERRELL created from PECOS; TERRELL not fully organized, attached to PECOS "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." Act passed 8 April 1905; took effect 14 July 1905. (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 70/p. 96)

TERRELL fully organized, detached from PECOS. ("Terrell County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:263)

TERRY created from Young Territory; TERRY not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

TERRY detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

TERRY detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

TERRY detached from HOWARD, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 4/p. 162)

TERRY fully organized, detached from MARTIN. (Terry County Historical Survey Committee, 19)

YOAKUM detached from MARTIN, attached to TERRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 9, sec. 5/p. 11)

YOAKUM fully organized, detached from TERRY. "Yoakum County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1122)

THROCKMORTON created from Young Territory and Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; THROCKMORTON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 39/pp. 36-38)

THROCKMORTON attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of THROCKMORTON to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

THROCKMORTON attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

THROCKMORTON detached from JACK, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

THROCKMORTON fully organized, detached from SHACKELFORD. (Kennedy, 163)

GARZA, KENT, LYNN, STONEWALL, TERRY, and YOAKUM detached from YOUNG, all attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." HASKELL detached from SHACKELFORD, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

LYNN, TERRY, and YOAKUM detached from THROCKMORTON, all attached to HOWARD; GARZA and KENT detached from THROCKMORTON, both attached to MITCHELL; STONEWALL detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to JONES. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

HASKELL fully organized, detached from THROCKMORTON. ("Haskell County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:501)

TITUS created from BOWIE, RED RIVER, and Non-County Area 11; Non-County Area 11 eliminated, TITUS not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 198)

TITUS fully organized. (Kennedy, 163)

TITUS lost to creation of MARION. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 48/pp. 57-59)

TITUS authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of LATIMER (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 110)

TITUS lost to creation of FRANKLIN and MORRIS. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., chs. 81-82/pp. 95-99)

TOM GREEN created from Bexar Land District; TOM GREEN not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 26/p. 21)

TOM GREEN attached to EL PASO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 109/p. 155)

TOM GREEN fully organized, detached from EL PASO. ("Tom Green County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:523)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of ANDREWS, HOWARD, MARTIN, MITCHELL, and NOLAN. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/p. 239)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of MIDLAND. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 23/p. 24)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of CRANE, ECTOR, LOVING, UPTON, WARD, and WINKLER. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12/pp. 8-10)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of GLASSCOCK. (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 143/p. 136)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of IRION. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 87/p. 99)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of COKE. (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 77/p. 86)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of STERLING; STERLING not fully organized, attached to TOM GREEN "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1891, 22d leg., reg. sess., ch. 16/p. 18)

STERLING fully organized, detached from TOM GREEN. (Daniels, 20-21)

TOM GREEN lost to creation of REAGAN; REAGAN not fully organized, attached to TOM GREEN "for judicial, surveying and recording purposes." (Texas Laws 1903, 28th leg., reg. sess., ch. 32/p. 44)

REAGAN fully organized, detached from TOM GREEN. (History of Reagan County, 19)

TRAVIS created by the Republic of Texas from BASTROP; western boundary clarified 5 February 1840. TRAVIS not fully organized. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./pp. 181, 254)

Western boundary of TRAVIS clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 181)

TRAVIS fully organized. ("Travis County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:553)

TRAVIS lost to creation of GUADALUPE (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 78)

TRAVIS gained from GUADALUPE (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

TRAVIS became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

TRAVIS lost to creation of COMAL. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 13)

TRAVIS lost to creation of GUADALUPE. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 33)

TRAVIS lost to creation of HAYS; small remnant of TRAVIS reverted to Non-County Area 14. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 57/p. 48)

TRAVIS gained from BEXAR. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 150/p. 218)

TRAVIS lost to creation of BURNET, lost very small area to GILLESPIE, and lost to creation of Non-County Area 20; that part of TRAVIS north of BURNET became Travis Land District. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

Travis Land District created when county of TRAVIS was divided by creation of BURNET. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

Travis Land District lost to creation of LAMPASAS. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 44/p. 41)

Travis Land District divided into two parts when it lost to creation of BROWN. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 139/p. 66)

Travis Land District lost to creation of CALLAHAN, COLEMAN, CONCHO, RUNNELS, and TAYLOR, area lost to CONCHO was very small; the land district remained divided into two parts. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 4, 13-15/pp. 87, 89-90)

Remaining non-county area of Travis Land District eliminated when it became part of BROWN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 96/p. 122)

NORTHERN DIVISION OF LIBERTY (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from LIBERTY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 205)

NORTHERN DIVISION OF LIBERTY (Judicial County) renamed TRINITY (Judicial County); TRINITY (Judicial County) was located south of present TRINITY. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 8)

TRINITY (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

TRINITY created from HOUSTON; TRINITY not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 160/p. 201)

TRINITY fully organized. (Kennedy, 165)

TRINITY lost to WALKER. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 50/p. 54)

TRINITY lost to POLK. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 67/p. 81)

TYLER created from LIBERTY; TYLER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./pp. 42-44)

TYLER fully organized. (Kennedy, 165)

Boundary between TYLER and POLK clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 24/p. 19)

TYLER lost to creation of HARDIN. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 8/p. 60)

UPSHUR created from HARRISON and Non-County Area 11; UPSHUR not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 139)

UPSHUR fully organized. (Kennedy, 165)

UPSHUR gained small area from HARRISON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 90/p. 105)

UPSHUR lost to creation of GREGG. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 27/pp. 37-39)

UPSHUR lost to creation of CAMP. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 55/p. 65)

UPSHUR gained from GREGG so as to meet constitutional requirements that the boundary line approach no nearer than twelve miles to the adjoining county seat. (HRS Texas, Gregg, 12-13; Swindler, 9:340)

UPTON created from TOM GREEN; UPTON not fully organized, attached to MIDLAND "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1d, 4/p. 9)

UPTON fully organized, detached from MIDLAND. (Eagleton, 15)

UVALDE created from BEXAR; UVALDE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 112/p. 132)

UVALDE lost to creation of BANDERA. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 42/p. 31)

UVALDE gained from BANDERA. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 70/p. 72)

UVALDE fully organized. (HRS Texas, Uvalde, 7)

UVALDE gained small area from MAVERICK; lost to creation of DAWSON (original), FRIO, DIMMIT, and ZAVALA. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 6, 8-9, 21/pp. 88, 91)

DAWSON (original), KINNEY, and ZAVALA all attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

EDWARDS detached from BANDERA, attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 40/p. 31)

UVALDE gained from DAWSON (original). (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

MAVERICK detached from KINNEY, attached to UVALDE "for judicial and other purposes." DAWSON (original) lost all territory to KINNEY; DAWSON (original) eliminated, ending its attachment to UVALDE. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., chs. 28-29/pp. 21-22)

EDWARDS attached to UVALDE "for judicial purposes," or EDWARDS detached from UVALDE, attached to BANDERA "for judicial purposes" [conflict between chapters 35 and 36; corrected 10 August 1870]. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27 and ch. 36, sec.7/p. 28)

ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." EDWARDS detached from either BANDERA or UVALDE, attached to KERR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, secs. 25, 27/p. 57)

MAVERICK fully organized, detached from UVALDE. ("Maverick County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:577)

KINNEY detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." ZAVALA detached from MAVERICK, attached to UVALDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 6/p. 5)

ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to FRIO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 9/pp. 11-12)

VAL VERDE created from CROCKETT, KINNEY, and PECOS; VAL VERDE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 50/p. 48)

VAL VERDE fully organized. (Kennedy, 167)

CROCKETT detached from KINNEY, attached to VAL VERDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 65, sec. 2/p. 46)

CROCKETT fully organized, detached from VAL VERDE. ("Crockett County," New Handbook of Texas, 2:411)

VAN ZANDT created from Non-County Area 15; Non-County Area 15 eliminated, VAN ZANDT not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 119/p. 149)

VAN ZANDT fully organized. (Manning, Wentworth, 104)

VAN ZANDT gained from KAUFMAN, exchanged with HENDERSON, lost to creation of Non-County Area 18. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., chs. 82, 86/pp. 88, 91)

VAN ZANDT lost to creation of RAINS. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 3/p. 2)

VAN ZANDT boundaries confirmed [no change]. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 24/p. 17)

VICTORIA (original county) established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. (Grimes, 448)

VICTORIA became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

VICTORIA gained from GONZALES when GONZALES boundaries were defined. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 42)

VICTORIA lost to JACKSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./p. 121 and Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 249)

Boundary between VICTORIA and MATAGORDA clarified along the Gulf Shore [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 102)

VICTORIA lost to creation of LA BACA (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 74)

VICTORIA lost to creation of DE WITT (Judicial County). (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 89)

VICTORIA gained from DE WITT (Judicial County) and LA BACA (Judicial County) when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

VICTORIA gained from JACKSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1844, 9th cong., 1st sess./p. 5)

VICTORIA became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

VICTORIA lost to creation of DE WITT. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 18)

VICTORIA boundaries redefined: VICTORIA gained from REFUGIO, lost to JACKSON. Part of VICTORIA reverted to Non-County Area 6 that became CALHOUN on 4 April 1846. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 35)

VICTORIA lost to CALHOUN. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 177/p. 104)

VICTORIA gained from GOLIAD. (Texas Laws 1861, 8th leg., ext. sess., ch. 42/p. 33)

WACO (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from MILAM and ROBERTSON. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 80)

WACO (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

WALKER created from MONTGOMERY; WALKER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 51)

WALKER fully organized. ("Walker County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:800)

WALKER boundaries clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 64/p. 53)

WALKER lost to creation of MADISON. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 5/pp. 10-11)

WALKER gained from TRINITY. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 50/p. 54)

WALKER authorized by Constitutional Convention to lose to creation of SAN JACINTO (proposed); creation did not take effect. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 66)

WALKER lost to creation of SAN JACINTO. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 59/p. 79)

Boundary of SAN JACINTO with MONTGOMERY and WALKER clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 62/p. 71)

WALLER created from AUSTIN and GRIMES; WALLER not fully organized. Act passed 28 April 1873; took effect 7 May 1873. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 38/p. 49)

WALLER fully organized. (Waller County Historical Survey Committee, 145)

Boundary between WALLER and GRIMES clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 4/p. 3)

WARD (Judicial County) created by the Republic of Texas from COLORADO, JACKSON, and MATAGORDA. WARD (Judicial County) was located in a different area of Texas from present WARD. (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./p. 65)

WARD (Judicial County) eliminated when Republic of Texas Supreme Court ruled judicial counties unconstitutional. ("Stockton v. Montgomery" in Dallam, 473-486)

WARD created from TOM GREEN; WARD not fully organized, attached to REEVES "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1f, 3/p. 9)

WARD fully organized, detached from REEVES. (Kennedy, 171)

WASHINGTON (original county) created from AUSTIN and LIBERTY; established as a municipality by Mexico. Precise boundaries not described; general area of municipality mapped. ("Documents Relating to the Organization.," 99; Partlow, inside front cover, 326)

WASHINGTON became a county in the Republic of Texas. (Connor, 170-171; Swindler, 9:254-255)

WASHINGTON boundaries defined; lost to creation of MONTGOMERY and Non-County Area 1, lost to HARRISBURG (now HARRIS), line between WASHINGTON and AUSTIN was established. (Texas Repub. Laws 1837, 2d cong., 1st sess./pp. 33, 49)

WASHINGTON lost small area to AUSTIN. (Texas Repub. Laws 1838, 2d cong., 2d sess./p. 43)

WASHINGTON lost to MILAM. (Texas Repub. Laws 1839, 4th cong./p. 223)

WASHINGTON lost to creation of NAVASOTO (now BRAZOS). (Texas Repub. Laws 1840, 5th cong./pp. 86-88)

Boundary between WASHINGTON and AUSTIN adjusted [change too small to map]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1841, 6th cong., 1st sess./p. 76)

Part of the boundary between WASHINGTON and AUSTIN clarified [no change]. (Texas Repub. Laws 1843, 8th cong./p. 58)

WASHINGTON became a county in the newly-established state of Texas. (Texas Repub. Laws 1845, 9th cong., spec. sess./pp. 4-6; U.S. Stat., vol. 9, res. 1 [1845]/p. 108; Van Zandt, 122)

WASHINGTON lost to creation of LEE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 75/pp. 94-97)

WEBB created from BEXAR and NUECES; WEBB not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

WEBB fully organized. (Kennedy, 171)

WEBB gained from BEXAR. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 46/p. 46)

WEBB lost to creation of ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 7/p. 60)

WEBB lost to creation of DIMMIT, ENCINAL (extinct), and LA SALLE. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 21-22, 24/pp. 91-92)

DIMMIT attached to WEBB "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

ENCINAL (extinct) detached from NUECES, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

WEBB gained small area from ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." DIMMIT detached from WEBB, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, secs. 16, 25/pp. 54, 57)

WEBB lost small area to ZAPATA. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 58/p. 62)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to LIVE OAK "for judicial and all other necessary purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 121/p. 132)

LA SALLE detached from LIVE OAK, attached to WEBB "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 123/pp. 207-208)

LA SALLE detached from WEBB, attached to McMULLEN "for judicial and surveying purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 22)

WEBB gained all of Non-County Area 25. (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 45/p. 43)

WEBB gained all of ENCINAL (extinct); ENCINAL eliminated. (Texas Laws 1899, 26th leg., reg. sess., ch. 11/p. 10)

WEBB lost small area to ZAPATA when agreement was reached on the true boundary line between the counties. ("Zapata County v. Webb County," Jim Hogg District Court, December Term 1921)

Constitutional Convention authorized creation of WEBSTER (proposed) from FANNIN and LAMAR [overlapped by DELTA (proposed)]; county was never organized or legalized by the Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 48)

WEGEFARTH (extinct) created from Bexar Territory and Young Territory; WEGEFARTH not fully organized. Act passed 2 June [sic] 1873; took effect 31 May 1873. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 91/p. 167)

WEGEFARTH (extinct) lost all territory to creation of BRISCOE, CHILDRESS, COLLINGSWORTH, DONLEY, GRAY, HALL, and WHEELER; WEGEFARTH eliminated. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235-237)

WHARTON created from COLORADO, JACKSON, and all of Non-County Area 5; WHARTON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1846, 1st leg./p. 38)

WHARTON fully organized. (Kennedy, 173)

WHEELER created from Bexar Territory and WEGEFARTH (extinct); WHEELER not fully organized, attached to CLAY "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 235, 242)

WHEELER fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Wheeler County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:918)

CHILDRESS, COLLINGSWORTH, DONLEY, GRAY, HALL, HEMPHILL, LIPSCOMB, OCHILTREE, and ROBERTS detached from CLAY, all attached to WHEELER; GREER (Okla.) detached from MONTAGUE, attached to WHEELER; ARMSTRONG, BRISCOE, CARSON, CASTRO, DALLAM, DEAF SMITH, HANSFORD, HARTLEY, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, OLDHAM, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SHERMAN, and SWISHER detached from JACK, all attached to WHEELER. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., spec. sess., ch. 30, sec. 3/p. 29)

CASTRO, DALLAM, DEAF SMITH, HARTLEY, MOORE, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SHERMAN, and SWISHER detached from WHEELER, all attached to OLDHAM "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 13, sec. 5/p. 8)

OLDHAM fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Kennedy, 143)

DONLEY fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Browder, 200)

ARMSTRONG, BRISCOE, CARSON, CHILDRESS, and HALL detached from WHEELER, all attached to DONLEY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 4/p. 30)

GREER (Okla.) fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Greer County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:326)

LIPSCOMB fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Lipscomb County," New Handbook of Texas, 4:216)

HEMPHILL fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Hemphill County," New Handbook of Texas, 3:551-552)

ROBERTS fully organized, detached from WHEELER. ("Roberts County," New Handbook of Texas, 5:614)

COLLINGSWORTH detached from WHEELER, attached to CHILDRESS; HANSFORD detached from WHEELER, attached to LIPSCOMB; HUTCHINSON detached from WHEELER, attached to CARSON. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, secs. 2, 10p/p. 162-163)

OCHILTREE fully organized, detached from WHEELER. (Kennedy, 142-143)

GRAY detached from WHEELER, attached to ROBERTS "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1895, 24th leg., reg. sess., ch. 90/p. 143)

WICHITA created from Young Territory; WICHITA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 2/p. 87)

WICHITA attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 13, sec. 3/p. 17)

WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

WICHITA detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

WICHITA detached from CLAY, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 2/p. 94)

WICHITA detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

WICHITA fully organized, detached from CLAY. ("Wichita County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:952)

WILBARGER created from Young Territory; WILBARGER not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 12/p. 89)

WILBARGER attached to MONTAGUE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 6/p. 120)

WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27)

WILBARGER detached from YOUNG, attached to MONTAGUE "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, sec. 2/p. 94)

WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, attached to CLAY "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1879, 16th leg., reg. sess., ch. 136/p. 150)

WILBARGER detached from CLAY, attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

WILBARGER fully organized, detached from BAYLOR. (Ross and Rouse, 2)

COTTLE and HARDEMAN detached from BAYLOR, both attached to WILBARGER "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 8/p. 31)

HARDEMAN fully organized, detached from WILBARGER. (Neal, 49)

COTTLE detached from WILBARGER, attached to HARDEMAN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1885, 19th leg., ch. 113, sec. 5/p. 111)

WILLACY created from CAMERON and HIDALGO; WILLACY not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 48/pp. 83-87)

WILLACY fully organized. (Pierce, Frank C., 139)

WILLACY exchanged with KLEBERG. (Texas Laws 1917, 35th leg., reg. sess., ch. 7/pp. 8-11)

WILLACY re-created and re-organized. WILLACY gained from CAMERON and HIDALGO; lost all of its territory to creation of KENEDY, except for narrow strip along its original southern border. WILLACY organized later in 1921. (Texas Laws 1921, 37th leg., reg. sess., ch. 104/pp. 200-207)

Boundaries of WILLACY extended to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1947, 50th leg., reg. sess., ch. 287/p. 490)

WILLIAMSON created from MILAM; WILLIAMSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1847, 2d leg., ch. 78/p. 76; "Travis County v. Williamson County," in SW Rptr., 2d ser., 4:610-613)

WILLIAMSON fully organized. (Scarbrough, 125)

WILLIAMSON lost to creation of BURNET. (Texas Laws 1851, 4th leg., reg. sess., ch. 60/p. 49)

WILLIAMSON gained from BELL and from Non-County Area 17 attached to BELL. (Texas Laws 1853, 4th leg., 2d sess., ch. 41/p. 53)

WILLIAMSON exchanged small areas with BASTROP. (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 88/p. 7)

WILSON created from BEXAR and KARNES; WILSON not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 76/pp. 106-108)

WILSON fully organized. (HRS Texas, Wilson, 7)

Constitutional Convention authorized WILSON to gain from GUADALUPE, and proposed WILSON be renamed "CIBOLO;" changes were never recognized or legalized by the Legislature. (Gammel, 6: "Ordinances Constitutional Convention 1868," 75)

WILSON gained from GUADALUPE. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 25/p. 21)

WINKLER created from TOM GREEN; WINKLER not fully organized, attached to REEVES "for judicial, surveying, and all other purposes." (Texas Laws 1887, 20th leg., reg. sess., ch. 12, secs. 1b, 3/pp. 8-9)

WINKLER fully organized, detached from REEVES. ("Winkler County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1023)

WISE created from COOKE; WISE not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 31/p. 23)

Parts of Bexar, Cooke, and Denton Land Districts were attached to WISE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72)

WISE fully organized. (Cates, 63-64)

Non-county area of Denton Land District detached from WISE, attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

WOOD created from Non-County Area 18, Non-County Area 18 eliminated; WOOD not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 98/pp. 103-106)

WOOD fully organized. (Kennedy, 178)

WOOD lost to creation of RAINS. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 3/p. 2)

Boundary between WOOD and HOPKINS clarified [no change]. (Texas Laws 1874, 14th leg., reg. sess., ch. 153/p. 205)

WORTH (extinct) created from Non-County Area 16; WORTH located entirely in present New Mexico. WORTH not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1849, 3d leg., reg. sess., ch. 29/p. 24)

State of Texas sold land in present Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming to the United States; except for small adjustments, Texas state boundaries now set; WORTH eliminated. (U.S. Stat., vol. 9, ch. 49 [1850]/pp. 446-452 and appendix, sec. 10/pp. 1005-1006; Texas Laws 1850, 3d leg., 3d sess., ch. 2/p. 4; Van Zandt, 122)

YOAKUM created from Young Territory; YOAKUM not fully organized, attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 238, 242)

YOAKUM detached from YOUNG, attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

YOAKUM detached from THROCKMORTON, attached to HOWARD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1883, 18th leg., reg. sess., ch. 41, sec. 1/p. 29)

YOAKUM detached from HOWARD, attached to MARTIN "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1889, 21st leg., ch. 138, sec. 4/p. 162)

YOAKUM detached from MARTIN, attached to TERRY "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1905, 29th leg., reg. sess., ch. 9, sec. 5/p. 11)

YOAKUM fully organized, detached from TERRY. "Yoakum County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1122)

Western extent of YOAKUM explicitly extended to the Texas-New Mexico boundary (103d meridian) as established by John H. Clark in 1859 [not mapped]. (Texas Laws 1931, 42d leg., reg. sess., ch. 358/p. 850)

YOUNG created from non-county area in Cooke and Denton Land Districts and from a small part of Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE; YOUNG fully organized by 12 February 1856. (Texas Laws 1855, 6th leg., reg. sess., ch. 71/p. 72; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690)

YOUNG gained from Non-County Area 22 attached to BOSQUE, from Non-County Area 12, and from part of Denton Land District attached to PARKER; lost to creation of Young Territory. Young Territory was non-county area attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

YOUNG gained undisputed control of part of PALO PINTO when PALO PINTO boundaries were clarified; eliminated overlap with PALO PINTO dating from 27 August 1856. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 97/p. 123)

ARCHER, BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON attached to YOUNG "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 5/p. 120)

[by 1865; possibly by 1861-1862] YOUNG disorganized, ending attachment of ARCHER, BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON to YOUNG. ("Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131; "Kimmarle & Hirsh v. Houston & Texas Central Railway," in Texas Rpts., 76:690-691)

BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON all attached to YOUNG; GREER (Okla.), HARDEMAN, and WILBARGER detached from MONTAGUE, attached to YOUNG. All attachments were "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 35, sec. 17/p. 27 and ch. 96, sec. 1/p. 94)

YOUNG attached to JACK; BAYLOR, HASKELL, KNOX, and THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, attached to JACK; GREER (Okla.), HARDEMAN, WILBARGER detached from YOUNG, attached to MONTAGUE. All attachments were "for judicial and other purposes." (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 96, secs. 1-2/p. 94)

YOUNG fully organized; detached from JACK. (Crouch, 31, 57-58; "Young County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1131)

HASKELL and THROCKMORTON detached from JACK, both attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1875, 14th leg., 2d sess., ch. 40, sec. 2/p. 54)

HASKELL and THROCKMORTON detached from YOUNG, both attached to SHACKELFORD "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 88/p. 134)

COCHRAN, CROSBY, DICKENS, GARZA, HOCKLEY, KENT, KING, LUBBOCK, LYNN, STONEWALL, TERRY, and YOAKUM not fully organized, all attached to YOUNG "for judicial, surveying and all other purposes." Act passed 21 August 1876; took effect 19 November 1876. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 237-238, 242)

COCHRAN, CROSBY, DICKENS, HOCKLEY, KING, and LUBBOCK detached from YOUNG, all attached to BAYLOR "for judicial purposes." GARZA, KENT, LYNN, STONEWALL, TERRY, and YOAKUM detached from YOUNG, all attached to THROCKMORTON "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1881, 17th leg., reg. sess., ch. 18, sec. 2/p. 12)

Young Territory created from Bexar and Cooke Land Districts, from the part of Denton Land District attached to WISE, part of Non-County Area 12, and from YOUNG. Young Territory was non-county area attached to YOUNG "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1856, 6th leg., adj. sess., ch. 110/p. 41)

Young Territory lost to creation of THROCKMORTON. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 39/pp. 36-38)

Young Territory lost to creation of ARCHER and BUCHANAN (now STEPHENS). (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, secs. 5-6/pp. 59-60)

Young Territory lost to creation of BAYLOR, HARDEMAN, HASKELL, JONES, KNOX, SHACKELFORD, TAYLOR, WICHITA, and WILBARGER. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, secs. 2, 5, 11-12, 15-19/pp. 87-91)

Young Territory lost to creation of GREER (Okla.). (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 90/p. 138)

Young Territory lost to creation of WEGEFARTH (extinct); lost to Bexar Territory. (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 91/p. 167)

Young Territory eliminated when it lost to creation of ANDREWS, ARMSTRONG, BAILEY, BORDEN, BRISCOE, CARSON, CASTRO, CHILDRESS, COCHRAN, COTTLE, CROSBY, DAWSON, DEAF SMITH, DICKENS, FISHER, FLOYD, GAINES, GARZA, HALE, HALL, HOCKLEY, HOWARD, KENT, KING, LAMB, LUBBOCK, LYNN, MARTIN, MITCHELL, MOTLEY, NOLAN, OLDHAM, PARMER, POTTER, RANDALL, SCURRY, STONEWALL, SWISHER, TERRY, and YOAKUM. (Texas Laws 1876, 15th leg., ch. 144/pp. 234-239)

ZAPATA created from STARR and WEBB; ZAPATA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 55, sec. 7/p. 60)

ZAPATA fully organized. ("Zapata County," New Handbook of Texas, 6:1144)

ZAPATA lost to DUVAL, ENCINAL (extinct), and WEBB. (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 27/p. 40)

ZAPATA gained small area from WEBB. (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 1st sess., ch. 58/p. 62)

ZAPATA lost to creation of BROOKS. (Texas Laws 1911, 32d leg., reg. sess., ch. 39/pp. 55-57)

ZAPATA gained small area from WEBB when agreement was reached on the true boundary line between the counties. ("Zapata County v. Webb County," Jim Hogg District Court, December Term 1921)

ZAVALA created from MAVERICK, UVALDE, and Bexar Land District; ZAVALA not fully organized. (Texas Laws 1857, 7th leg., ch. 75, sec. 8/p. 88)

ZAVALA attached to UVALDE "for all judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1859, 8th leg., reg. sess., gen., ch. 87, sec. 7/p. 120)

ZAVALA gained from MAVERICK. (Texas Laws 1866, 11th leg., ch. 23/p. 18)

ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to MAVERICK "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1870, 12th leg., called sess., ch. 40, sec. 25/p. 57)

ZAVALA detached from MAVERICK, attached to UVALDE "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1871, 12th leg., 2d sess., ch. 6/p. 5)

ZAVALA detached from UVALDE, attached to FRIO "for judicial purposes." (Texas Laws 1873, 13th leg., ch. 9/pp. 11-12)

ZAVALA fully organized, detached from FRIO. (Kennedy, 180)

Legislature confirmed the correct spelling of "ZAVALA" to contain one "L," not two. (Texas Laws 1929, 41st leg., 1st called sess., ch. 57/p. 157)

Texas: Individual County Chronologies