Texas secession UL

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Jason Brian Chapa

unread,
Jul 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/31/96
to

On 31 Jul 1996 02:24:51 GMT, yl...@columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) wrote:

>....What Is?.... <wha...@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
>> (Did you know that Texas is the only state with the right to
>> secession *in their state constitution*?)

I remember hearing this in history class in grade school: Texas flag
is the only flag that can fly at the same height as the US flag. Is
this true or UL material?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~ Jason Brian Chapa ~~~
~~~ Jason...@cyberstation.net ~~~
~~~ Jason...@mohican.mwsu.edu ~~~
~~~ http://www.cyberstation.net/~jasonchapa ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edmund Unneland

unread,
Jul 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/31/96
to

In <slrn4vth0...@simile.cc.columbia.edu> yl...@columbia.edu

(Yeechang Lee) writes:
>
>....What Is?.... <wha...@nic.cerf.net> wrote:
>> (Did you know that Texas is the only state with the right to
>> secession *in their state constitution*?)
>
>And did you know this is an urban legend that gets debunked in
>alt.folklore.urban every few weeks, and is covered in the a.f.u.
>archive (specifically,
><URL:"http://www.urbanlegends.com/politics/texas_secession_rights.html
>)?
>
>Crossposts and followups set.
>
>Yeechang "Don't mess with Texas" Lee
>--
>http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/ _. icbm://40.83.-73.91/
> __./ |
> /___. |___
> PERTH------>\*./
>
My suspicion is that people confuse the permission given by Congress to
the Republic of Texas, at the time of its admission, to divide itself
into five states, with a right of secession. Under the U.S.
Constitution, the approval of Congress, and the affected state
legislatures, are all that is needed to effect either a division of a
state, or a merger of states.

Ed Unneland

Yeechang Lee

unread,
Jul 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/31/96
to

Julia Kelso

unread,
Jul 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM7/31/96
to

Ok, nobody scream at me too loudly, if it's a UL it's a UL, but that this
clause remains in the Texas constitution because it was a "country" before
it joined the US was taught as fact in both High School and University
History classes. I mean it's gota be simple to check, but its interesting
that its this prevalent.
JK

Yeechang Lee (yl...@columbia.edu) wrote:

Harry

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

jke...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Julia Kelso) wrote:

>: Crossposts and followups set.

This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
SUBDIVISION not secession. Texas can subdivide into a maximum of 5
states.

Harry "the happy historian"
do...@premier.net


snopes

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:

> This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
> SUBDIVISION not secession.

So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.

- snopes

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The name "snopes" alone is no guarantee of excellence. It is used |
| by a number of publishers and may serve mainly to mislead an unwary |
| buyer. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Barbara Mikkelson

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
> Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:

>> This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
>> SUBDIVISION not secession.
>
> So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.

You mean they've those horrid little tract houses everywhere? Ewwww!

Barbara "yes, virginia, there is a subdivision" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | 4. If you put things in numbered lists, people
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | sometimes believe that they are correct.
| - Drew Lawson

dtk

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In article <4u5eqk$3...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:

> Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:
>
> > This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
> > SUBDIVISION not secession.
>
> So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.
>


The Texas state constitution is available at:
http://www.law.utexas.edu/library/netref/txconst

There is nothing in it about secession or subdivision.
(As mentioned above, subdivision of a state is a matter for
the U.S. Congress)

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

Rod Stites <RodS...@i-link.net> writes:

...
>To the point: individuals receiving education in K12 schools or state
>universities are required by state law to receive education on both the
>history and governement of the state of Texas. Whehter you want it or
>not, you get it in K12, and then you get it again in order to receive an
>undergraduate degree. We are therefore quite aware that we do not have
>an intrinsic right to secede (though we did so unlawfully despite the
>pleadings of our then Senator Sam Houston and paid the price) and we are
>also aware that we reserve the right to divide into up to five unique
>states.
...

As I recall, over the years here in AFU quite a number of people
self-identifying as Texans who had "receiv[ed] education in K12 schools
or state universities ...on both the history and governement of the
state of Texas" have stated that they learned there a different set
of facts than those you present; some had come to doubt some of what
they said they'd been taught, others had no doubt whatever. It would
appear that when you say "We are therefore quite aware...", you are
either (a) tautologously restricting the scope of "We" to "Texans who
are quite aware", or (b) redefining "Texan" to exclude those folks,
or (c) saying they're all liars.

Or (d) wrong.

Lee Rudolph

Diane M. Lank

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In article <4u5eqk$3...@nntp1.best.com>, snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
>Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:
>
>> This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
>> SUBDIVISION not secession.
>
> So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.
>
> - snopes
>
Snopes is right, but (alas!) gave no source. See U.S. Constitution,
Article IV, section 3:

Section 3.

Admission of new States. Power of Congress over territory and other
property.

1. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no
new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any
other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or
more states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states
concerned, as well as of the Congress.

Diane "ahem, doesn't the FAQ say quote the source" Lank

Barbara Mikkelson

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:

>> You mean they've those horrid little tract houses everywhere? Ewwww!
>

> As a realio trulio resident of one of the boxes, little boxes, all made
> out of ticky-tacky, I resemble that remark.

No wonder you choose to live on a fault line.

Barbara "dave, if the ground swallows it, it'll spit it right back out"
Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | A "Type A" person is the sort who brushes his
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | teeth while going to the toilet and flushes just
| before he's finished to save time. - Ewan Kirk

DaveHatunen

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <4u5fil$5...@nntp1.best.com>,

Barbara Mikkelson <bha...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>snopes <sno...@best.com> wrote:
>> Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:
>
>>> This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
>>> SUBDIVISION not secession.
>>
>> So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.
>
>You mean they've those horrid little tract houses everywhere? Ewwww!

As a realio trulio resident of one of the boxes, little boxes, all made
out of ticky-tacky, I resemble that remark.

Dave "a little yellow dog and a little grey mouse" Hatunen

--


********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************


F Andrew McMichael

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

snopes (sno...@best.com) wrote:
: Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:

: > This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
: > SUBDIVISION not secession.

: So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.

However, the Constitution requires that the citizens of the state
also vote on it. The rest of the Virginians were never asked.
Lincoln used a bit of political witchery in claiming that since
the rest of Virginians were in rebellion and had seceeded they
could have no voice in the process. All this while claiming that
people in the Confederacy were still citiznes of the U.S. because
neither he nor Congress were going to recognize the secession as
legal. So the splitting of Virginia into Va./W.Va was not really
constitutionally legal. More of a political expedient.

I can expand on this if anyone is really interested, but somehow
I think you aren't. If you want to read about it, I suggest

McPhereson, James. _Ordeal by fire : the Civil War and Reconstruction_
New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, c1982.

This will give a very short treatment of the subject, and is
a good intro into the subject of Civil Wra history. You could
also check out the first volume of Shelby Foote's work.


Bruce Tindall

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

F Andrew McMichael <amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
[regarding the right of a U.S. state to subdivide itself with
Congress's approval]

>However, the Constitution requires that the citizens of the state
>also vote on it.

Not quite. Article IV, Section 3, requires "the Consent of the Legislatures
of the States concerned." Not a referendum of all citizens; rather, a
vote of the legislature.

--
Bruce Tindall tin...@panix.com Apex, N.C.
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive are located at
http://www.urbanlegends.com or ftp://ftp.urbanlegends.com .

F Andrew McMichael

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

Bruce Tindall (tin...@panix.com) wrote:
: F Andrew McMichael <amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
: >However, the Constitution requires that the citizens of the state
: >also vote on it.

: Not quite. Article IV, Section 3, requires "the Consent of the Legislatures
: of the States concerned." Not a referendum of all citizens; rather, a
: vote of the legislature.


Quite. But the point remains that the 'subdivision' was not
Constitutionally legal at the time, although I believe the
Supreme Court upheld it after the war. Each year the State of
Virginia petitions for monetary compensation as per the
decision. I'll have to find the cite on that, though.

DaveHatunen

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <32066A...@i-link.net>,
Rod Stites <RodS...@i-link.net> wrote:

[...]

>Although Texans tend to view themselves as a distint group, they are not
>stupid. The state is not a semi-arid desert intellectually, to the
>surprise of many (Austin has the highest number of bookstors per capita
>of any city in North America as well as the highest median level of
>education of any city in North America. Check demographic data and
>census figures for confirmation).

Handwaving. Give us the citation.

So Austin is an oasis in the intellectual semi-arid desert?

>To the point: individuals receiving education in K12 schools or state
>universities are required by state law to receive education on both the
>history and governement of the state of Texas. Whehter you want it or
>not, you get it in K12, and then you get it again in order to receive an
>undergraduate degree. We are therefore quite aware that we do not have
>an intrinsic right to secede (though we did so unlawfully despite the
>pleadings of our then Senator Sam Houston and paid the price) and we are
>also aware that we reserve the right to divide into up to five unique
>states.

There is no such reserved right. And any ante-belllum right that *may*
have existed evaporated when Texas seceded.

DaveHatunen

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <4u8idt$d...@portal.gmu.edu>,

Of course the subdivision wasn't legal. That's why they had to use guns
to do it.

Oh. You meant the creation of West Virginia, not the secession, didn't
you?

DaveHatunen

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <4u7nao$m...@portal.gmu.edu>,

F Andrew McMichael <amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>snopes (sno...@best.com) wrote:
>: Harry <do...@premier.net> wrote:
>
>: > This is not entirely a myth. The option Texas can excersize is
>: > SUBDIVISION not secession.
>
>: So can any state, with the approval of Congress. Virginia already did.
>
>However, the Constitution requires that the citizens of the state
>also vote on it. The rest of the Virginians were never asked.

Um. No. The state legislature does it. In the case of Virginia, the
portion of the state that had seceded was not represented, for obvious
reasons. And the people had voted by seceeding. To have claimed the
need for representation on the rump legislature would have been to eat
their cake and have it to.

>Lincoln used a bit of political witchery in claiming that since
>the rest of Virginians were in rebellion and had seceeded they
>could have no voice in the process. All this while claiming that
>people in the Confederacy were still citiznes of the U.S. because
>neither he nor Congress were going to recognize the secession as
>legal. So the splitting of Virginia into Va./W.Va was not really
>constitutionally legal. More of a political expedient.

It was a legal *trick*, but it was a *legal* trick.

>I can expand on this if anyone is really interested, but somehow
>I think you aren't. If you want to read about it, I suggest

Ultimately, your opinions aren't worth any more than mine.

What has the Supreme Court said on the question?

F Andrew McMichael

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >the rest of Virginians were in rebellion and had seceeded they

: >could have no voice in the process. All this while claiming that
: >people in the Confederacy were still citiznes of the U.S. because
: >neither he nor Congress were going to recognize the secession as
: >legal. So the splitting of Virginia into Va./W.Va was not really
: >constitutionally legal. More of a political expedient.

: It was a legal *trick*, but it was a *legal* trick.

It was hardly even legal, since Lincoln claimed that the Citizens
of Virginia hadn't seceeded but were only being led astray
by fanatics. Under his logic, the legislature of Va. should
have been allowed to vote. The legal thing to do under the
circumstances would have been to wait until the rebellion was put
down. However, the crisis of the rebellion was more important
than some minor Constitutional quibbles. Witness the
suspension of habeus corpus and other acts.


: >I can expand on this if anyone is really interested, but somehow


: >I think you aren't. If you want to read about it, I suggest

: Ultimately, your opinions aren't worth any more than mine.

Don't be so sure.


David Martin

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

DaveHatunen wrote:
>
> In article <32066A...@i-link.net>,
> Rod Stites <RodS...@i-link.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Although Texans tend to view themselves as a distint group, they are not
> >stupid. The state is not a semi-arid desert intellectually, to the
> >surprise of many (Austin has the highest number of bookstors per capita
> >of any city in North America as well as the highest median level of
> >education of any city in North America. Check demographic data and
> >census figures for confirmation).
>
> Handwaving. Give us the citation.
>
> So Austin is an oasis in the intellectual semi-arid desert?
>
> >To the point: individuals receiving education in K12 schools or state
> >universities are required by state law to receive education on both the
> >history and governement of the state of Texas. Whehter you want it or
> >not, you get it in K12, and then you get it again in order to receive an
> >undergraduate degree. We are therefore quite aware that we do not have
> >an intrinsic right to secede (though we did so unlawfully despite the
> >pleadings of our then Senator Sam Houston and paid the price) and we are
> >also aware that we reserve the right to divide into up to five unique
> >states.
>
> There is no such reserved right. And any ante-belllum right that *may*
> have existed evaporated when Texas seceded.


Damn. I knew this was going to happen. I have been trying to answer
this very question and have some references that help a little, but
they are at home. I'll give you my answers so far.

I contacted the Attorney General's Office with the question "Did Texas
retain the right to divide into five states after the Civil War?" The
answer I received was that the answer to this question was in the
joint resolution that brought about statehood. The implication would
be that the Civil War didn't change anything (but of course, this might
just be a weaselly lawyer answer).

So I contacted the State Archives (or something, memory fails). They
sent me some information (it is at home). It included a copy of the
joint resolution that gives the five state business. They also said
that during the Reconstruction there was a constitutional convention
that bogged down in fights over dividing into a number of states.
Apparently one of those efforts resulted in the creation of a constitution
for a state of West Texas (although the boundaries sound more like
South Texas). The main person behind this effort gave up the local
fight and went to DC. There he succeeding in getting a bill drafted,
but it was sent to the committee on Reconstruction to die the miserable
death that bills sent off to committee often die.

I know this doesn't really anwer diddly-squatt, but it's all I've got.
Since it is clear that any state can divide or combine, it's unclear
if any of the Reconstruction activity was special to the five states
right that Texas came in with.

I'll post again either when I have my sources at hand or when I get
something that actually answers the question.

David "Don't know much about history" Martin

F Andrew McMichael

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

[followups set to soc.history.moderated]

DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4u8idt$d...@portal.gmu.edu>,


: F Andrew McMichael <amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:

: >Quite. But the point remains that the 'subdivision' was not

: >Constitutionally legal at the time, although I believe the
: >Supreme Court upheld it after the war. Each year the State of
: >Virginia petitions for monetary compensation as per the
: >decision. I'll have to find the cite on that, though.

: Of course the subdivision wasn't legal. That's why they had to use guns
: to do it.

You *are* slow aren't you. <sigh>. Since you don't seem to have
followed the thread back past 2 days ago, which is when I assume
you got your daddy's password, let me spell it out for you:

The discussion began with someone claiming that Texas might have the
legal right to seceed.

A discussion ensued about the legality of subdividing states

snopes(tm) pointed out that West Virginia had subdivided from
Virginia, and was the only state to have done so.

I pointed out that they hadn't gone through the Constitutional
requirement for secession, and so no state ahd gone through
the legal process.

You jumped in, trying to make an impression, and began shooting
away at straw men that you had only set up moments before.


: Oh. You meant the creation of West Virginia, not the secession, didn't
: you?

Maybe you aren't as slow as I had figured.

Wiley Sanders

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

>Handwaving. Give us the citation.

Handwaving about bookstores per capita seems to be a long-established
Usenet tradition. From a quick Altavista query on "bookstores per
capita":

From the rec.arts.books FAQ:

"New Orleans is a city of eaters, drinkers, partyers, and dreamers, not
readers! I would venture to guess--and I'm a former New Orleanian and
still a property owner there--that New Orleans has fewer bookstores per
capita than any other city in the Western world." (One reader's
unsubstantiated conjecture.)

"There are no truly outstanding bookstores in Bellevue; however, the
number of bookstores per capita is astounding; no one can figure out
how so many bookstores can make a go of it." (another reader's
unsubstantiated conjecture.)

From http://www.epicsys.com/madison.html:

"Madison, the capital of Wisconsin, is located on an isthmus between
two beautiful lakes. The city offers a top-ranked university, an active
fine arts community, a free zoo and nature reserve right in the heart
of the city, and the highest number of bookstores per capita in the
country. Residents come together to enjoy the pedestrian shopping area
on State Street, and a popular farmers' market and weekly outdoor
concerts on Capitol Square."

From http://minerva.acc.virginia.edu/~anthro/c-ville.html:

{Charlottesville, VA] ... verandas, mint juleps, and space for a garden
. . . bagels even New Yorkers respect . . . more bookstores per
capita than any other city in the country . . . serious classical music
. . . within two hours of Washington, D.C. ...

From another version of the rec.arts.books faq at
http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/books/stores/north-american/midwestern/faq-doc-9.html

"Someone else reports that they read somewhere recently the statistic
that Ann Arbor has five times the national average of bookstores per
capita."

Of course we never forget our friends from Wales:

And, finally, from a badly misformatted account of a trip to Wales at
http://icecube.acf-lab.alaska.edu/~fxfjn/Eng.trip/about

" . . . then we drove to wales and a town called Hay On Why which has
the most bookstores per capita in the world. I bought a bible from
1835 for $4, a study in scarlet from 1908 for $3, a book on mideaval
england, a book that has all of the grim fairy tales written in 1900
for $12, and all the beatrix potter books."

[Hey, fxfjn, learn to use the RETURN key, OK?]

-Wiley "Resident of Mountain View, California, more EPA Superfund Sites
per capita than any other city in the world."

Bruce Tindall

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

F Andrew McMichael <amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
[Re West Virginia's admission to the USA]

>I pointed out that they hadn't gone through the Constitutional
>requirement for secession, and so no state ahd gone through
>the legal process.

But a state *had* already gone through the legal process, 43 years
before West Virginia went through the legal process. Maine separated
from Massachusetts in 1820.

Chris Fishel

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu (F. Andrew McMichael) writes:
>
> snopes(tm) pointed out that West Virginia had subdivided from
> Virginia, and was the only state to have done so.
>
> I pointed out that they hadn't gone through the Constitutional
> requirement for secession, and so no state ahd gone through
> the legal process.
>
So what exactly was non-kosher about the creation of
Maine (formerly part of Mass.) and Vermont (formerly part of New York)?

Chris "Former New Yorker living in Virgina. Every state I move
to decides to break up, for some reason" Fishel


Terry Smith

unread,
Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96
to

> From: amcm...@osf1.gmu.edu (F Andrew McMichael)
> Date: 7 Aug 1996 18:42:55 GMT

> DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >the rest of Virginians were in rebellion and had seceeded
they

...


> : Ultimately, your opinions aren't worth any more than mine.

> Don't be so sure.

ObUL: The bloated self opinions of `first_initial second_name
surname' prats regarding the importance of their statements on
local history, or the world interest in the same, are tedious
and pathetic.

Terry "With or without a `Jnr.' suffix" Smith.

Erik Nielsen

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

All right, I admit it, I have no earth-shattering insights on the right of
Texas to secede. A friend of mine, however, maintains that Vermont actually
did have the right, and that some sort of formal Referendum actually had to
be voted on in the past twenty years or so. Any truth, or am I just
hopelessly vectoring another UL?

Erik "Vermont being Vermont, this wouldn't exactly surprise me" Nielsen

--
"To sleep perchance to dream, Ay, there's the rub;
for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must
give us pause...." The Bard, waxing poetic...

snopes

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

Erik Nielsen <eri...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

> All right, I admit it, I have no earth-shattering insights on the right of
> Texas to secede. A friend of mine, however, maintains that Vermont actually
> did have the right, and that some sort of formal Referendum actually had to
> be voted on in the past twenty years or so. Any truth, or am I just
> hopelessly vectoring another UL?

No truth. In 1990, Vermont's bicentennial (or bicentenary) commission
sponsored a series of tongue-in-cheek debates about whether Vermont
should secede from the USA, as a means of attracting press attention.
Some people took the debates far too seriously, a few still believing
that Vermont indeed had the right to secede.

As _The Economist_ described it (28 April 1990):

"Gun enthusiasts, anti-nukers, right-to-lifers, survivalists and other
passionate single-issue advocates regularly telephone the state's
archivist to ask about secession. They believe, mistakenly, that when
Vermont joined the Union it extracted the right to secede if provoked."

- snopes

David A. Johns

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

In <4uv13b$l...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>, eri...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Erik
Nielsen) wrote:

# All right, I admit it, I have no earth-shattering insights on
# the right of Texas to secede. A friend of mine, however,
# maintains that Vermont actually did have the right, and that
# some sort of formal Referendum actually had to be voted on in
# the past twenty years or so. Any truth, or am I just
# hopelessly vectoring another UL?

When I was pretending to go to college in Vermont from '59 to '61, I
constantly heard claims that Vermont had never ratified the
Constititution and that there were country inns up in the Green
Mountains that still flew the Union Jack.

David "Not to mention more cows than people" Johns

Jake Patterson

unread,
Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96
to

Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN' (jlne...@mole.uvm.edu) wrote:

> Classic Vermont UL, containing rare but defined Statism(State Nationalism)
> Element which VTers are known for. This statism dictates if your
> grandparents(great-great....etc) wern't born in Vermont, you're not a
> "real Vermonter"

> ObUL: Many legitimate citizens desire to be called "real Vermonters"


Like Texas, Vermont was an independant republic before becoming a state,
there was even a period where some towns currently in New York and New
Hampshire left their respective states and joined the republic of Vermont.
The resulting entity was called Greater Vermont.

__
Yet another Yet another Yet another Yet another Yet anot
lame (TM) lame (TM) lame (TM) lame (TM) lame (TM)
3D .sig! 3D .sig! 3D .sig! 3D .sig! 3D .sig! 3D .
This sig and the post preceding it brought to you by jpat...@mole.uvm.edu

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages