not to beat a very slow horse
but i am seriously wondering what i might have meant by etc herebelow
besides the mentioned republics of california & dixie
probably the indian stream republic
since that seems to have been fairly sustantially real
from 1829 to 1835
probably not the conch republic
but i could easily be way wrong about this
certainly not the abortive near reunion state of nickajack
circa 1861
an earlier but failed sort of west virginia in the greater algatn area
but are there any others perhaps
so historically real or so close
m
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> anton
> this former power has actually already been discharged in the erection of
> new mexico oklahoma kansas colorado & wyoming into states out of parts of
> the republic of texas
>
> the power probably no longer inheres
> per bus&ss
>
> so texas is not fundamentally different peter
> other than in the 2 ways i mentioned previously
>
> also brendan
> lets not write off the confederacy
> nor the republic of california
> etc
> which were independent
>
> m
>
> >From: anton_zeilinger@h...
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: US counties, unincorprated territories
> >Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:19:17 -0000
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >also, Texas is the only state in the U.S. which has the power to
> >split into not more than four smaller chunks "of convenient size"
> >which would have to be admitted to the Union as separate states, see:
> >
> >http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html
> >
> >text of the resolution:
> >
> >http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html
> >
> >Anton Z.
> >
> >PS: Brendan, though it's not in the continental U.S., wasn't Hawaii
> >an independent kingdom or something like that?
> >
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., PitHokie <pithokie@y...> wrote:
> > > Peter et. al,
> > >
> > > Texas is unique in that it's the only part of the
> > > continental United States that was ever been
> > > independently governed as its own country.
> > > It's also been under more official rulers than any
> > > other part of the continental U.S. If you travel to
> > > the Capitol in Austin, you will find in the rotunda a
> > > seal of all the countries Texas has been ruled by:
> > > Spain, France, Mexico, Texas, and the United States.
> > > Texas was independent from April, 1836 until the U.S.
> > > annexed it in 1845.
> > >
> > > Brendan
> > >
> > > --- Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., PitHokie <pithokie@y...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > The difference is in name only. Governmentally,
> > > > there
> > > > > is no difference between a state and a
> > > > commonwealth.
> > > >
> > > > I know that in Germany, two "Laender" have the
> > > > official designation
> > > > of "Freistaat": Bavaria and Saxony. I don't know
> > > > whether this has any
> > > > implications. Does someone know?
> > > >
> > > > And I remember vaguely that the position of Texas is
> > > > fundamentally
> > > > different from all other states in the US (because
> > > > it used to be an
> > > > independent republic). Can someone say something
> > > > about that?
> > > >
> > > > What about the difference between territories in
> > > > countries like
> > > > Canada, Australia, and Russia (=krai) and the
> > > > regular subdivisions?
> > > > Why is it like this and what are the practical
> > > > implications?
> > > >
> > > > Peter S.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Find a job, post your resume.
> > > http://careers.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp