Why did North Dakota try to secede in the '30s?

"You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West.

“You know. Morons.”


They genuinely believed that the bitch had set him up.

Book titles on this topic, please?


Thanks for the additional info, and welcome to the SDMB, northdakotatroy.

Damn. Was all ready to quote that, and I was late, late.

While this has nothing do with the OP, it’s sort of interesting.

When the LittleHook (age 42) started the first grade we lived in Grayson, Kentucky. The president of the school board had only a couple of years earlier gotten out of prison. He’d been the president of the school board earlier and was found to have embezzled a fair amount of coin. When he got out he was reelected.

North Dakota has nothing on Kentucky in the entertainment arena.

You may now continue your regulary scheduled posting.

What other states proposed, in any serious way, seceding after the Civil War?

I’m guessing the former nation (?) Texas has done it a number of times.

Since the Civil War? None all that seriously. But Northern California has from time to time had folks who wanted to secede from Southern California, and Rick Perry got some attention last year when he said Texas just might want to secede again if those tax-n-spend libruls in Washington couldn’t get their act together.

Not seriously. By the way, Hawaii was also an independent sovereign state.

Can I declare myself an independent sovereign state?

I remember reading a while ago about this Palestinian self-recognition thing that it involves having clear borders and some other things.

As was Vermont from 1777-1791: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_vermont

Hawaii had the advantage of actually being recognized as an independent state by other countries.

Quoting myself:


What do you have against Minotaurs?

Well, apparently they call themselves minotaurs, so there’s one strike right there.

Book titles on this topic, please?

Brief history of California, as I think I understand it:
– Part of Mexico, settled (sort of) by Spaniard soldiers and padres.
– American businessmen gain foothold, foment revolt, gain enough power to declare independent Bear Flag Republic.
– Bear Flag Republic lasts only a short while, soon petitions to become part of United States.
– Becomes the State of California.

In retrospect, it can be seen that the American businessmen intended it to play out this way all along, because they saw it was to their advantage to become part of the United States rather than be part of Mexico.

Brief history of Hawaii, as I think I understand it:
– Independent nation, islands united by Kamehameha to create a dynasty, lastly ruled by Queen Liliuokalani.
– Increasing presence of American businessmen, in particular the Dole and C&H barons; they gain enough economic power to foment revolt against Kamehameha dynasty; created republic.
– Quickly petitions to be come part of the United States.
– Becomes a state.

In retrospect, it can be seen that the American businessmen intended it to play out this way all along, because they saw it was to their advantage to become part of the United States rather than be ruled by independent local natives.

Yes, history repeats itself.

Texan history more or less follows the same pattern. But even taking them all together, Hawaii is the one case in which the country was already an independent state. It wasn’t manufactured by white settlers.

Morlan, Robert L. Political Prairie Fire: The Nonpartisan League 1915-1922. (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1955, 1985). The standard work on Bill Langer’s political rise.

I remember a biography of Langer being advertised on television back in the 1970s, but can’t find any sign of it.

Some research libraries might have this book, but given its date of publication I’d have doubts about its impartiality:

Holzworth, John M. The fighting governor : the story of William Langer and the state of North Dakota Chicago: The Pointer Press, 1938.