Most worthless US territorial acquisition

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,090
Iowa USA
Recognizing statehood requires an act of Congress, so AFAIK it can be vetoed.
I am surprised that Buchanan admitted Oregon, then. It could not have been approved by the Southern Democrats.

(With Minnesota I can easily imagine railroad or other interests spreading some sweeteners around Congress, but Oregon, I need to read more on this one.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,094
I am surprised that Buchanan admitted Oregon, then. It could not have been approved by the Southern Democrats.

(With Minnesota I can easily imagine railroad or other interests spreading some sweeteners around Congress, but Oregon, I need to read more on this one.)
James Buchanan was a 'Doughface,' but he was a Northerner and perhaps had a more expansive understanding of his responsibilities.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,588
SoCal
James Buchanan was a 'Doughface,' but he was a Northerner and perhaps had a more expansive understanding of his responsibilities.
He might have also been a butterface in the sense of wanting butter-makers in Minnesota to be a part of the Union as opposed to merely be a US territory! ;) :D
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,664
Sydney
on the emancipation proclamation there was a comment
" Lincoln Free those he cannot and doesn't those he can "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,090
Iowa USA
on the emancipation proclamation there was a comment
" Lincoln Free those he cannot and doesn't those he can "
He seemed to work pretty hard to pass A. 13, didn't he?

So the comment could have been valid in '64 but not at end of his life.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,094
on the emancipation proclamation there was a comment
" Lincoln Free those he cannot and doesn't those he can "
That's politics. The E.P. could not affect the economic interests of the political elite in states that did not secede. The Proclamation was a war time statement of what the Union finally intended, issued by the President. Too bad, but there it is. In order to institutionalize the intent, the 13th Amendment had to be ratified later in 1865.

And I would argue that, yes, the E.P. took effect where the US army had control, regardless of whether it was an entire state. All that was a foundation of the Compromise of 1877 which AFAIK was no formal agreement, but a back-room deal to hand the southern states back to the political interests of the South. Disgraceful, but......once again, that's politics.
 
Last edited: