Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 24th, 2017, 10:22 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,038

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakmatt View Post
I look at the separation issue another way. Other than the 13 original colonies the federal government paid for or negotiated (or took) the most of the land that made up the USA in 1860: The treaty of Paris, LA. purchase, The Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and Oregon Treaty. Any states, other than the original 13, trying to leave the union was theft land the US owned.
So according to that interpretation six slave states: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, might possibly have the legal right to secede, but Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas certainly did not.

There is a bit of a complication in that the territories that became Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were not acquired by the Federal government under the United States constitution after 1789 but by the previous federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

The USA had won independence and negotiated the acquisition of the lands of the future Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi from Great Britain under the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, many of the eastern states had land claims in the regions between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi and the congress negotiated the surrender of those land claims north of the Ohio River to the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

Land claims south of the Ohio River were ceded to the Federal government both before and after the adoption of the constitution. In any case the Federal government under the constitution is the heir and successor of the Federal government under the Articles of Confederation and Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were not the states which had once claimed their lands. Virginia, Georgia, and North and South Carolina could have claimed that their secession also meant the secession of the territories they had given to the federal government, but that would have meant reclaiming Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.

In any case the Federal government created the territories that later became the states of Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas out of the public domain.

Last edited by MAGolding; November 24th, 2017 at 10:43 AM.
MAGolding is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 24th, 2017, 11:34 AM   #22
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 793

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
So according to that interpretation six slave states: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, might possibly have the legal right to secede, but Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas certainly did not.

Yes, as they were independent when the union was formed.

There is a bit of a complication in that the territories that became Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were not acquired by the Federal government under the United States constitution after 1789 but by the previous federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

It is the same country with the same leadership

The USA had won independence and negotiated the acquisition of the lands of the future Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi from Great Britain under the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, many of the eastern states had land claims in the regions between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi and the congress negotiated the surrender of those land claims north of the Ohio River to the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

Land claims south of the Ohio River were ceded to the Federal government both before and after the adoption of the constitution. In any case the Federal government under the constitution is the heir and successor of the Federal government under the Articles of Confederation and Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were not the states which had once claimed their lands. Virginia, Georgia, and North and South Carolina could have claimed that their secession also meant the secession of the territories they had given to the federal government, but that would have meant reclaiming Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.

In any case the Federal government created the territories that later became the states of Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas out of the public domain.
Correct, federal public domain

This is all based my my personal thoughts on the matter. I have read nothing close to those thoughts. But....I find it an interesting take on the subject.
yakmatt is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 04:23 PM   #23
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: US
Posts: 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josefa View Post
Thanks again to both of you, Chlodio and Jax Historian! I think this helps me to understand better why so many flag-waving people in the South of the US are so upset.
You likely already have a better understanding than the large majority of Americans simply by asking why!
Musashi55 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 02:38 PM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,773

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josefa View Post
I merely wanted to say thanks for that long and informative post to EmpereroftheBavarians - I learned a lot.

And regarding your post, Chlodio - can I ask a question that has been bothering me for some time now but that I did not quite dare to post, seeing as this seems to be a very emotional topic in the US with all the current discussions about white supremacy and slavery and statues being removed?

It's actually two questions. If slavery had not been an issue in 1861, if the Southern states had abolished it yet still insisted on leaving the Union - would there still have been a Civil War?
And how about today? If some state or a group of states wanted to leave the USA, peacefully, would there be something like a "Brexit" option for them? (I do understand that the EU concept is way different from the United States but it was the best I could come up with.)
If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been no reason to secede. If they still wanted to secede, the North would have been well in its rights to stop them from doing so. No country worthy of the name has a suicide clause in its constitution.

The same things apply today. No state has a right to secede. This is one country.

Last edited by royal744; December 8th, 2017 at 03:05 PM.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 02:43 PM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,773

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josefa View Post
Thanks again to both of you, Chlodio and Jax Historian! I think this helps me to understand better why so many flag-waving people in the South of the US are so upset.
There are now so many Northerners living in the South that it is highly unlikely that these flag-wavers which you cite are of any consequence whatsoever.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2017, 05:14 PM   #26

Recusant's Avatar
Miscreant Erendrake
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N after curfew
Posts: 2,536
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
. . . There is a bit of a complication in that the territories that became Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi were not acquired by the Federal government under the United States constitution after 1789 but by the previous federal government under the Articles of Confederation. . . .
True enough, but it seems relevant to point out that the full title is "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." In accord with that title, nowhere in the Articles of Confederation is there any provision for secession.

Though you are no doubt aware, I will also mention for the benefit of the OP that the Constitution was conceived as an improvement on the Articles, intended to ameliorate problems that had become apparent in the years since they had been ratified--"in Order to form a more perfect Union." No reasonable interpretation can be support the idea that "more perfect" implies "no longer Perpetual."
Recusant is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 07:18 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,773

Quote:
Originally Posted by yakmatt View Post
Correct, federal public domain

This is all based my my personal thoughts on the matter. I have read nothing close to those thoughts. But....I find it an interesting take on the subject.
I’m not sure if there are any other states that have this, but the Federal Government never owned any of the public lands within the borders of Texas. This might have had something to do with the fact that Texas was a sovereign nation before it became part of the United States. Other than Big Bend National Park, I can’t think of any large public lands in this state that are run or owned by the Federal Government. Maybe the Padre Island National Seashore. But before Texas was allowed to join the Union, it had to give up claims to what are now the states of Oklahoma, Colorado and part of New Mexico.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 9th, 2017, 08:47 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,598

Ironically despite Texas having the strongest legal case to a right to secede, Texas was the plaintiff in the case that established that states didn't have the right to secede in the aftermath of the civil war thus erasing any would be legal grey area.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old December 10th, 2017, 10:18 AM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,773

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Ironically despite Texas having the strongest legal case to a right to secede, Texas was the plaintiff in the case that established that states didn't have the right to secede in the aftermath of the civil war thus erasing any would be legal grey area.
Texas has no right to secede; nor does it have a “strong legal case” to do so.
royal744 is offline  
Old December 10th, 2017, 12:33 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,204

You're original post is right on the money. Slavery was still legal in the North at the time of the war of northern agression. Lincoln's much ballyhooed emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the South not those in the North. In other words he declared slaves he didn't have free & kept enslaved those that he did. Also notice the war had been going on for a couple of years before Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Also note that Lincoln was dead & the war over before slavery was abolished in the North. Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation is a midwar grab on the moral high ground. Probably the most successful use of spin & propaganda in history. Don't get me wrong slavery is a terrible thing but the Yankees are just as guilty of it as the South. The war was fought over states rights.

Last edited by M9Powell; December 10th, 2017 at 01:04 PM.
M9Powell is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
civil, newbie, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie Cameronian New Users 3 July 17th, 2017 09:11 PM
Hello from a newbie JoanGF New Users 4 February 3rd, 2015 10:00 AM
Hello Everybody...a newbie here! dale1257 New Users 12 August 6th, 2012 10:55 AM
Newbie Caelyn New Users 24 December 22nd, 2010 09:18 AM
Newbie rokerman New Users 23 September 16th, 2010 01:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.