 | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Nope. They're the only (?? (1) ) state that joined by treaty after being an independent republic rather than being an original founder (that ratified the constitution as the means of joining) or a state formed from unorganised territory that (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement... (...) That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state. Is Puerto Rico (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Whoops! I meant "nope" as in "nope, you're not misremembering", sorry about that. Texans talk about separatism more often than most, for sure. (...) More like 51st through 64th or whatever, one state for each province/territory I would (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Puerto Rico occasionally holds referendums to decide whether to remain a territory (technically a commonwealth) or become a state. I found this on the web as an example: (URL) fairly sure PR would benefit greatly from becoming a state. In the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
