Subject:
|
Re: La belle province
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:19:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > If Quebec got its way, what would you do to ensure the rights of the new
> > > > English speaking minority? From what I hear it's not very pleasant to be an
> > > > English speaker in Quebec (relatively speaking, mind you... I haven't heard
> > > > of any ethnic cleansing, thank goodness) as it is.
> > >
> > > Then the English-speaking Quebecans would seccede themselves... ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Pedro
> > > (adept of City-states)
> >
> > Doesn't Texas every once in a while talk about being 'separate' or is that
> > just a figment of my imagination...
>
> 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 was obtained by purchase or conquest.
K, my misremembery--I thought I read somewhere about a decade ago that there
were some Texans talking about forming a 'separatist' movement...
> It is argued that since they were forcibly rejoined at the end of the Civil
> War they no longer have the same status. But don't say that IN Texas!
>
> 1 - the California Republic being an unclear case, maybe CA too or maybe
> not, depending on how you interpret things.
That is, until, as some Canadians talk about, Canada becomes the 51st state.
Is Puerto Rico ever going to be a state in and of itself?
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
