----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Pledge of Allegence
> 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. Nope, Hawaii was a conquered nation. As were, arguably, each of the original 13 States. Nope. Never called themselves such, never had "republic of" or somesuch as part of the name. They went straight from being colonies to being a nation creating a government. > > 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. Among the states Texas' history is unique. If you had read any of it you would not be making that argument. Its quite silly for you to do so. There is *no* "lost cause" to discuss in regards to the former nationhood of Texas. When Texas became a state, the population *overwhelmingly* voted for statehood. How do you equate that with a lost cause? xponent Better Get That 14th Star Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
