Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Gettysburg Address - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2011 02:01 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Well i feel he was backward in his thinking.  The south was trying to achieve national freedom from a voluntary association with the other states.  The Confederates died for that freedom.  I am not a fan of Lincoln and I see him as not the American Moses but the American Pharoah who would not let my people go.  I will not justify anything else Confederat because that is pretty dificult to do but the south was fighting for independence from a group they joined with the knowledge they could leave if they wanted too.  I also believe that if the Confederacy had succeeded that other states would have left and formed their own nations. It is great to have people to talk to with other opinions and I welcome the discourse.  have a great day 



 Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2011 07:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

wardenerd wrote: The south was trying to achieve national freedom from a voluntary association with the other states.
This is incorrect in a number of examples.

Arkansas is formed from land of the Louisiana Purchase from France to the United States in 1803.

Florida was created from the ceding of land to the United States by Spain in 1819.

Tennessee is part of the land relinquished to the United States in the treaty of Paris ending the Revolution in 1783.

Perhaps the original colonies and Texas could claim 'voluntary' association in the United States. The newer states, formed from federal territories, certainly cannot.

 

Cheers,

HankC



 Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2011 08:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought territories had to apply for statehood......



 Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2011 09:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

explain to me how WVA can leave Va when the constitution forbids imviluntary splitting of states.  Oh yeah I remember the winner makes the rules.  It was that kind of stuff that spelled the end of the Union.  The states lost the federal system and never got it back.



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 01:43 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

wardenerd wrote: explain to me how WVA can leave Va when the constitution forbids imviluntary splitting of states.  Oh yeah I remember the winner makes the rules.  It was that kind of stuff that spelled the end of the Union.  The states lost the federal system and never got it back.
I recall a lecturer saying that West Virginians were seceding *to* the constitution rather than *from* the constitution ;)



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 02:03 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Albert Sailhorst wrote: I thought territories had to apply for statehood......

correct.

Territories may either 1) remain as is and have their governor and judges appointed and laws approved by Congress or 2) become a state and have those elective and other rights themselves.

Unlike the 13 original states, the next 37 states were born in Congress, nurtured as federal territories and then granted statehood.

I believe Vermont, Maine and Texas are exceptions to the rule.

VT and ME were created from existing states and TX was annexed without the intervening territorial steps...



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 02:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

When you say "granted statehood", does that mean after they had applied for statehood?

However, under Manifest Destiny, no territory, parcel of land, etc. would ever even have the chance of being soverign......Would they??.....(Texas, of course, does not apply, as it broke away from Mexico to begin with).

Thanks for your input!!



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 03:33 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

For the sake of discussion, I'll momentarily forego (until you respond, in which case I'll most likely see your point and agree!) that the latter 37 states were granted statehood (and thus, perhaps, compelled to remain in the Union)....Yet, the original 13 chose to be a part of the Union. If they choose to be in the Union, what would stop them from choosing to no longer be a part of the Union??.....To over-simplify, it's like getting married and then being forced to stay married......Sure, marriage is contractual, but to what extent is being a state contractual to the Union of states??.....

Could there ever be a reason for seccession??.....If not, why not??.....What if Alaska were compelled to relinquish it's gold and oil reserves, as well as other natural resources, in order to lower the tax burden of the lower 48 states?? (Of course, this would never happen, but, for the sake of discussion....)....The other 48 states use the resources of another, to the detrement of those in Alaska, why would Alaska not get upset and vote to become sovereign??.....



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 03:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Actually, Vermont itself was an independent republic. 1777 saw the creation of first Republic of New Connecticut from the NH grants in January then in June New Connecticut became the Republic of Vermont.In fact during it's existance the Republic of Vermont sent ambassadors to Philadelphia during the time it served as the federal capitol. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 saw members of the convention assume that the Republic of Vermont was a part of NY however the notes taken by Madison suggest otherwise.



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 12:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

yes and that same lecturer thinks that the reason makes legality when we have been saved by the rule of law and not the rule of man.  If the Pharoah had killed Moses and the jews would the excuse be that we told them they could not leave?



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 05:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Albert Sailhorst wrote: When you say "granted statehood", does that mean after they had applied for statehood?

However, under Manifest Destiny, no territory, parcel of land, etc. would ever even have the chance of being soverign......Would they??.....(Texas, of course, does not apply, as it broke away from Mexico to begin with).

Thanks for your input!!



Yes, after they apply. Congress grants statehood and I Believe affirms the first state constitution.

 

Manifest Destiny is a policy or philosophy. The land still must be acquired by treaty, cash, or some other (quasi-) legal means. You are correct; the land initially belongs to the US so any state carved out of it is not sovereign, at least, not as we think the original 13 states were...



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 06:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So, in the end, no state or territory was ever given the choice but to be part of the Union; be it as a territory or a state. Am I correct in assuming this??

Thanks again for your input & discussion!! I enjoy it very much!!



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 06:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank C-

  Making distinctions between the rights of states and the citizens that lived in them is kind of a nebulous area, though we in Texas consider ourselves to be a special case because Texas was a republic before it became a state. Some would maintain that the treaty made in 1845 still applies.

  As to other southern states, we could discuss colonial land grants in the 17th and 18th centuries (London Co Grant, Carolina Grant, Georgia Grant, etc.). But by 1787 you had a situation where southern states claimed areas west of their boundaries. For example, most of the area that became Kentucky was claimed by Virginia. The area that became Tennessee was claimed by North Carolina. South Carolina claimed a strip of land that became the northern most sections of Alabama and Mississippi. Georgia claimed a larger portion of what is now Alabama and Mississippi, basically in the central areas of those future states. Georgia also claimed a section further south, that claim being disputed by Spain. The coastal areas of the two future states were part of Spanish Florida at that time.

  The various states gave up their claims and ceded these lands to the newly formed federal government (Georgia being the last to do so in 1802). So if one is inclined to quibble, and gives any validity to the land claims of the various southern states, then it can be maintained that those lands: "Initially" belonged to those states and not to the federal government which was established after the states.

  So in the end if you want to make distinctions between the various states that formed the CSA, then you can say that there were five categories. You had the four original states, the four that were formed from lands initially claimed by the preceding four states, and the three special cases, Texas (established as a republic before becoming a state), Florida ("bought" from Spain) and Louisiana (Bought from France after being taken from Spain- after being taken from France).

  All of this aside, the majorities of citizens in the eleven states that seceded thought that they had rights under the US Constitution that had been violated by the federal government, so they chose to sever their ties with it. Those running the federal government at that time chose to maintain that the eleven states hadn't in reality left the Union. (While overlooking inconsistencies such as allowing some counties of Virginia to: "Secede" from that state, and declaring a naval blockade against part of their "Own" country). The question of legality of secession wasn't settled in the court system until the 1869 Supreme Court decision Texas v. White, which declared that Texas had never really left the Union because it wasn't legal for states to do so.

TEXAS V. WHITE | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)

Last edited on Tue Jan 25th, 2011 09:15 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 09:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
wardenerd
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jan 20th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 19
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

actually at least three states entered the union after being promised they could leave if they so chose two were Virginia and New York and i think New Hampshire although NH could be wrong.  The first two are fact.



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 09:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Albert Sailhorst wrote: So, in the end, no state or territory was ever given the choice but to be part of the Union; be it as a territory or a state. Am I correct in assuming this??



I think you are right.
 
I disremember how Hawaii was acquired.
 
The process is similar to doing a title search: who owned what and when did they own it ;)



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 09:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: Hank C-

  Making distinctions between the rights of states and the citizens that lived in them is kind of a nebulous area, though we in Texas consider ourselves to be a special case because Texas was a republic before it became a state. Some would maintain that the treaty made in 1845 still applies.

  As to other southern states, we could discuss colonial land grants in the 17th and 18th centuries (London Co Grant, Carolina Grant, Georgia Grant, etc.). But by 1787 you had a situation where southern states claimed areas west of their boundaries. For example, most of the area that became Kentucky was claimed by Virginia. The area that became Tennessee was claimed by North Carolina. South Carolina claimed a strip of land that became the northern most sections of Alabama and Mississippi. Georgia claimed a larger portion of what is now Alabama and Mississippi, basically in the central areas of those future states. Georgia also claimed a section further south, that claim being disputed by Spain. The coastal areas of the two future states were part of Spanish Florida at that time.

  The various states gave up their claims and ceded these lands to the newly formed federal government (Georgia being the last to do so in 1802). So if one is inclined to quibble, and gives any validity to the land claims of the various southern states, then it can be maintained that those lands: "Initially" belonged to those states and not to the federal government which was established after the states.

  So in the end if your want to make distinctions between the various states that formed the CSA, then you can say that there were five categories. You had the four original states, the four that were formed from lands initially claimed by the preceding four states, and the three special cases, Texas (established as a republic before becoming a state), Florida ("bought" from Spain) and Louisiana (Bought from France after being taken from Spain- after being taken from France).

  All of this aside, the majorities of citizens in the eleven states that seceded thought that they had rights under the US Constitution that had been violated by the federal government, so they chose to sever their ties with it. Those running the federal government at that time chose to maintain that the eleven states hadn't in reality left the Union. (While overlooking inconsistencies such as allowing some counties of Virginia to: "Secede" from that state, and declaring a naval blockade against part of their "Own" country). The question of legality of secession wasn't settled in the court system until the 1869 Supreme Court decision Texas v. White, which declared that Texas had never really left the Union because it wasn't legal for states to do so.

TEXAS V. WHITE | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)



You describe the situation well.
 
A key factor is that new states inherit the rights and privileges of the old states - new states are equal members of the Union.
 
Hence, if Georgia thinks they may secede, than so can Arkansas. If it's illegal for Virginia, the same for Tennessee...
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 10:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 548
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank, Thanks!!!....I don't recall how Hawaii came in either.....



 Current time is 02:16 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4811 seconds (20% database + 80% PHP). 31 queries executed.