"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 12:42 AM 3/7/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >> At 10:26 PM 3/6/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >> >> At 09:38 PM 3/6/2004 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >> >> >There are a number of Texans who make a big deal out of Texas
> >> >having
> >> >> >been a sovereign nation before it was a state, and maybe this
> >> >pledge
> >> >> >thing fits in with that mindset.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suspect that this thing has as much to do with "Lost Cause
> >> >Confederacy"
> >> >> as anything else.
> >> >
> >> >Absolutely not!
> >> >Thats a completely different issue and one that has less strength
> >in
> >> >Texas than elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Gautam and Dan are the "Lost Cause" experts, but to the extent that
> >I have
> >> encountered the modern incarnation of "Lost Cause Theory" it has
> >been based
> >> on the idea that each States retains its individual sovereignty, and
> >indeed
> >> should and aught to have the right to secede from the Union at any
> >time.
> >> Again, in many ways similar to envisioning the United States as
> >being more
> >> similar to The European Union than as a proper "country." It
> >seems to
> >> me that a pledge to the State of Texas of designed to reinforce the
> >notion
> >> that Texas remains a sovereign entity, that should and aught to have
> >had
> >> the right to secede whenever it wanted, and that it is analogous to
> >the UK
> >> within the European Union.
> >>
> >
> >I figure you missed the point of my previous message.
> >
> >Texas is the ***only*** nation to have become a state. It was never a
> >territory or area that was previously claimed by the US. It was not
> >conquered territory. It was a country.
> >
> >That is the root of Texas' prideful character. It has nothing to do
> >with the Civil War.
>
> No, I totally understood.
>
> First off,Texas is not the "only" such State. Hawaii was also an
> independent country. As were, arguably, each of the original 13 States.
Did Hawaii become part of the US by treaty? Or the 13 States by
treaty? The 13 states decided it was in their best interest to form the
United States in a unique experiment. I think Hawaii was taken by
force, but I don't remember my history well enough to say for sure.
Texas joined the already-existing US under a treaty, and that treaty
gave it certain rights as a state that other states didn't have. (I
doubt that the right to split into several states will be exercised
anytime in the near future, though!)
> More to the point, however, I believe that the obsession among certain
> Texans with Texas' former status is a direct result of "Lost Cause" logic,
> and a means of post facto justification for secession.
Maybe among a minority, but I know a number of Texans who take pride in
these special things about the state and who think that secession was a
bad idea.
The majority of Texans are proud of the way Texas became a state, and
proud of its unique history, without taking pride in its secession or
dwelling on its unique status as justification for secession.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
