Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom: www.hawaii-nation.org/reconciliation-kauai.html
Southern States as an independant nation: http://www.dixienet.org/dnframeset.html
The Sagebrush Rebellion in Nevada: www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/rebel2a.htm
The Second Republic of Texas: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1842
Are these efforts the hobby of crackpots and dreamers or are there legitimate movements here?
Krispy Original – voted SDMB’s 19th most popular poster (1999)
I think its really, really great that Clinton apologized for the Hawaiin overthrow. That is a real step towards something or the other, in which someone or the other could benefit and whozit or whatizt could find a real equitable solution.
You know what I mean.
Its not crackpots. It is (and I really don’t mean this in a derogatory sense) losers who have not given up. Losers in the sense that they ‘lost this one’ - not that there are inherent character flaws.
The fact is, every nation that exists exists at the expense of a previous nation that is well documented and has sovereign rights to the property controlled by the current nation. Why bother arguing about it? The only expedient methods to resolving property disputes tend to resolve around gun powder and fleshy bodies that can absord rounds propelled by said means. Fucking sad, sure - but have you got a better idea?
Your points are well taken and nope…I have no better idea myself…although those that espouse a New World Order ultimately offer a solution that would nullify such independance efforts…
Krispy Original – voted SDMB’s 19th most popular poster (1999)
What solution is that?
That solution being the crushing and removing of all existing nations and form a single, unified human nation under the glory of [insert whatever being or idea you worship here].
Uhm, but that wouldn’t solve anything. I mean, there would be people talking revolution for hundreds of years afterwords - and there would be plenty of succession efforts.
I heard somewhere (on this board, maybe) that there is a HUGE secession movement in Alaska, as well.
-David
Cooper wrote:
I beg to differ – at least when it comes to that whole Republic of Texas shin-dig we went through in 1997.
The 1997 “Republic of Texas” crowd was operating under the incorrect, and easily falsifyable, premise that Texas never agreed to join the U.S., but instead entered into a special super-tight alliance with the U.S… While this WAS one of the offers on the table at the time, Texas instead chose to become a U.S. State, because they would gain Statehood immediately without having to go through the rigamarole of being a U.S. Territory. The 1997 Republic of Texas people were doing nothing more than pushing their own false pseudo-legal theories and hoping enough uncritical Texans would swallow them that they could get their own neo-militia group together. They were, to use strict clinical terminology, several bricks shy of a load.
The “Second Republic of Texas” webpage linked to in the OP seems to be a legitimate plea for secession, without having to invoke any of the “sovereign-citizen patriot” style pseudolaw that prevailed with the 1997 bunch, though.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Oh, and here’s the Second Republic of Texas’s disclaimer, which distances them from the 1996-1997 Republic of Texas loonies: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1842/disclaimer.html
Krispy, what New World Order are you talking about?