Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-27-2014, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,623 posts, read 13,856,346 times
Reputation: 5883

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Yeah, Texans thought that too, they were wrong.

This is what the People of Texas agreed to.

Ordinance of Annexation
Approved by the Texas Convention
on July 4, 1845
An Ordinance

Whereas,
the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas [not the Republic of Texas] to that Union, which resolutions were offered by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845; and

Whereas,
the President of the United States has submitted to Texas the first and second sections of said resolutions, as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of the said Union; and

Whereas,
the existing Government of the Republic of Texas, has assented to the proposals thus made, --the terms and conditions of which are as follows:

"Joint Resolutions for annexing Texas to the United States

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2nd. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited."

Now in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic, as required in the above recited portions of said resolutions, we the deputies of the people of Texas, in convention assembled, in their name and by their authority, do ordain and declare, that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions and guarantees, contained in the first and second sections of the Resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names

Thomas J. Rusk
President

I think that the language of the Ordinance of Admission that was passed by the People of Texas makes it pretty clear that the People of Texas dissolved the Republic of Texas and submitted itself as a state of the United States without any special privileges including the right of secession which is not provided for by the Constitution. I also point out the numerous times the document uses the term, the People, and not the Republic of Texas because the Constitution is not a compact between the states and the national government but rather a compact between the various people of the United States.

Well said and exactly correct. The states did not create the Fed Govt, the people of the states acting together created the US Govt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2014, 08:37 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
Well said and exactly correct. The states did not create the Fed Govt, the people of the states acting together created the US Govt.
As usual, t77, you make the most ridiculous and unsupportable arguments. Even in disagreement, I will acknowledge that some "northern partisans", at least make them in a way that can make historical sense.

Your argument is exactly like the specious one offered by Lincoln. The Treaty of Paris recognized the 13 colonies as sovereign states...with all that implies. A "state" is understood to be an entity with definite borders, a population, government, and power to govern itself internally.

The only difference in the "state" of France and the "state" of South Carolina", is that -- recognizing none of the above were -- alone -- economically nor militarily powerful enough to compete with the states of Europe. Thus, they banded into a confederation of their own with only limited and specified powers delegated to the central government. All those not spelled out, were reserved for the individual states themselves (thus the 9th and 10th Amendments).

I am going to post it again later, but here is a link, that I don't expect you to understand given your hostility to the South that goes far beyond normal historical disagreement....but that others might read. It is very lengthy, thus just the link itself:


Southern Side of the Civil War
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 09:27 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
I think you may be oversimplifying the range of people's views on the war. People who believe it is strictly a morality play about slavery would be people who are relatively unschooled in history. But they would also not be people inclined to frequent and contribute to a history forum.

Northern economy absolutely benefited from slavery in the antebellum years. There was a growing abolitionist movement that wanted to end slavery on moral grounds. There was a sense some had that continuing slavery may have reflected poorly and led to pressure from European trade partners who had basically abolished the chattel system previously. There was also the matter of federally owed property that became occupied by the Confederacy.

It was a complicated issue, and few here are arguing that it was solely a morality play.
*nods in appreciation of your general point*

Yes, I am oversimplifying it -- but only in the way that historical summaries (as in textbooks, for instance), have to be simplified. The thing is though, that the "northern simplification" is the one that generally gets the attention. Only recently has the "Southern side" been given much exposure.

You are correct in that only "relatively unschooled" people put it in terms of a "morality play." But that is the central point and supports mine. As in saying that "most people" do not get their historical information from sources other than the texts they have been taught from in school and/or what is presented in the mainstream media...all of which has a decidedly northern slant, focusing on the "freeing the slaves" aspect.

True, there are quite a few books out there that present the "Southern side", but generally, most people are not serious historians, and have little reasons to really research at all...so just accept the "main" in the same way, say, that I have just always accepted the American side of what we know as the American Revolution. And nothing wrong with that...it is perfectly natural...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 09:45 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
Well said and exactly correct. The states did not create the Fed Govt, the people of the states acting together created the US Govt.
No, once again, that was Lincoln's completely spurious argument and is immediately torn apart by the simple fact that it took quite a few years for all sovereign states to agree to a constitution that all could ratify. The notion that the "federal government' predates the states is perhaps the least supportable of all.

For one thing? If such was so? Then why would a Bill of Rights have been needed at all? The "People" meant the "people" of the individual states in a sovereign capacity.

While I cannot deny that Lincoln was a man of iron will and probably a good heart, this particular argument he made was just grasping a straws...

And it also goes back to the it is simply beyond comprehension that anyone could seriously believe that the sovereign states -- having just seceded from England -- would have entered into an alliance of their own in which they knew aforehand they could never get out of. No offence, but such a notion is just historically outrageous...

Not for the least of reasons it would have gone against the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence (largely written by Southern men), that, in summary:

Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed...

On a related tangent? The Southern people/states, in seceding, did not wish to separate themselves from the ideals/principles of the DOI or Constitution...only from a social/political connection with northern states which kept the name "United States" only by default...for reasons that went far beyond slavery and had been brewing for years....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:07 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,919,204 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Your argument is exactly like the specious one offered by Lincoln. The Treaty of Paris recognized the 13 colonies as sovereign states...with all that implies. A "state" is understood to be an entity with definite borders, a population, government, and power to govern itself internally.
Talk about ridiculous.

The Treaty of Paris (1883) was between the Great Britain and the United States which at the time was constituted by the Articles of Confederation (AC), but guess what, the Articles of confederation were scraped and tossed into the dust bin of history by the U.S. Constitution, and herein lies the problem with the confederates, and their later day apologist. Either all the above either didn't read the Constitution, didn't understand it, or blithely ignore the differences between the two when it is inconvenient.

The Preamble of the Articles of Confederation:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [please note that the first reference to United the "U" is capitalized denoting a proper noun not an adjective].

The Articles of Confederation establishes that:

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The U.S. Constitution alternately does not recognize such a broad grant of sovereignty to the states, holding for itself that "the Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby." And despite the tortured attempts to twist the Article X into resembling anything approaching the breath of Article II of the Articles of Confederation where the Constitution recognizes the that states retain certain rights while at the same time prohibiting others. No where in the Constitution does it grant any state the right or powers conferred upon them as was granted under the Articles of Confederation.

So spare us the the epistemological gymnastics of trying to define a state in the broadest meaning possible outside of the context of how a state is defined within the U.S. Constitution; a limited sovereignty geographical political division within the broader sovereignty of the national government call otherwise known as the United States of America.

Last edited by ovcatto; 04-27-2014 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:11 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=ovcatto;34429468]Yeah, Texans thought that too, they were wrong.
So says you. What were they wrong about? I am a native Texan of quite a few generations, so am curious where you come up with all this..?

Quote:
I think that the language of the Ordinance of Admission that was passed by the People of Texas makes it pretty clear that the People of Texas dissolved the Republic of Texas and submitted itself as a state of the United States without any special privileges including the right of secession which is not provided for by the Constitution. I also point out the numerous times the document uses the term, the People, and not the Republic of Texas because the Constitution is not a compact between the states and the national government but rather a compact between the various people of the United States.
Ahhh, geez. Ovcatto? I know you are a fan of Lincoln, which is fine...but at least don't try to be so obvious in your re-wording...

For one thing? It was an Annexation Resolution, not an "Ordinance of Admission, and was agreed upon by the people of Texas acting thru proper legislative means.. In the same way they did later on by acting thru the same in peacefully deciding to repeal the same. Hell, in fact, Texas would have been the least likely of any state to have entered into an agreement of "admission" (as you put it it)...that would have nulled and voided any claim to soverienty, and submission to a central authority. Oh man...

Yes, I realize you are a committed Marxist. And hey, I can respect that if that is your philosophy. Only issue I have is when it begins to apply the term "the people" as being a collective, rather than what the obvious writings of the founding fathers show them to be...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:21 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=ovcatto;34556467]Talk about ridiculous.

The Treaty of Paris (1883) was between the Great Britain and the United States which at the time was constituted by the Articles of Confederation (AC), but guess what, the Articles of confederation were scraped and tossed into the dust bin of history by the U.S. Constitution, and herein lies the problem with the confederates, and their later day apologist. Either all the above either didn't read the Constitution, didn't understand it, or blithely ignore the differences between the two when it is inconvenient.

The Preamble of the Articles of Confederation:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [please note that the first reference to United the "U" is capitalized denoting a proper noun not an adjective].

The Articles of Confederation establishes that:

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

The U.S. Constitution alternately does not recognize such a broad grant of sovereignty to the states, holding for itself that the "Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby." And despite the tortured attempts to twist the Article X into resembling anything approaching the breath of Article II of the Articles of Confederation when it states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." clearly supporting the supremacy of the national government.

As for what you think is so ridiculous, go back and read the Ordinance of Admission paying particular attention to the diminution of the Republic of Texas to that of state. And please spare us the rhetorical gymnastics by tiring to shoe horn the most generic definition of state into the context of the U.S. Constitution.

LOL OK, Ovcatto....have it your way if you want to delude yourself. In a nutshell, there is no way in hell -- and common historical sense indicates it -- that the individual sovereign states -- or those later admitted -- would have possibly entered into a federation/confederation, they could have never gotton out of. This, again, defies anything that could, at the same time, square with the reasons for fighting the American Revolution and the basic principles of the same.

And again, it was NOT an "ordinance of admission". At least get the terminology straight, fer gosh sakes, because if you don't, it screws up your own credibility. It was annexation, and there is a big difference in the nuance...

Anyway, I don't have tonight unlimited time, so I am going to hit the sack. But once again, I AM going to post -- next -- a link and excerpt (which those interested can read if they wish)

Last edited by TexasReb; 04-27-2014 at 10:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:31 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,523,976 times
Reputation: 5943
Default Southern side

Ok, here is a good concise (albeit lengthy) summation of the "Civil War" from the Southern point of view.

Note that the writer admits himself that he never really knew much until his own historical curiosity compelled him to explore it on his own...

So for those who might want to look it over and/or read it piecemeal in y'alls own time? Here it is:

Soon after I began to study the Civil War, I realized that much of what I had been taught about it in school was either wrong or incomplete. It has been said that history is written by the victors. This is especially true when it comes to the Civil War. The Southern viewpoint is rarely presented fairly in our public schools and textbooks today. I believe it is important that we as Americans know the whole truth about the Civil War. The purpose of this article is to present the Southern side of the story.


The version of the Civil War that’s taught in nearly all textbooks goes something like this: “The only reason the South wanted to leave the Union was to protect slavery. The South had no right to secede. The South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. The war was fought over slavery. The defeat of the South was a victory for democratic government, for government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ The North’s triumph brought about a new birth of liberty in America.” This is the version of the war that I accepted for most of my life.


Southern Side of the Civil War

Anyway, all us Old Rebs gotta eat too, so I am gonna sign off for the night! Have a good one, everyone!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:34 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,799 posts, read 21,395,525 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
It happened after Obama won the presdential election. And most recently Wisconson Republicans are threatening it at a convention.Why?

States petition to secede from union - CBS News

Wisconsin Republicans to vote on secession from the union next month [VIDEO] - UPI.com

Don't they like being part of the USA? Do they really think (with the exception of Texas) that they can financially survive on their own ? Or how weird it would be to partition America into separate countries?

I have studied a bit about the civil war though by no means an expert. It is a great tragedy in American history, over 600,000 lives lost . Entire small towns wiped out of a generation of young men. I was born in new england and moved to the south as a child. I do think many in the south still have strong feelings about the civil war.

The south made a big mistake threatening to secede and starting the war. They never had a chance against the north because all the weapons were manufactured up there. Cotten and tobacco are profitable crops but they won't win a war. The war lasted much longer then it should have because northern generals were stupid and made many mistakes and southern generals were brilliant and took full advantage of those mistakes, but that meant the war dragged on for years longer than it should have resulting in more death and suffering. Wouldnt the south have been better off just giving into the north's demands on slavery ? They ended up having to anyway and by then their towns were destroyed. It's all so heartbreaking for America

How do we finally heal from the civil war?

Why the U.S. Is Still Fighting the Civil War - TIME

Dixie Outfitters is still fighting the Civil War - Salon.com

4 ways we're still fighting the Civil War - CNN.com
Why do you pick a small sample of people to represent a whole region?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2014, 10:35 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,919,204 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LOL OK, Ovcatto....have it your way if you want to delude yourself. In a nutshell, there is no way in hell -- and common historical sense indicates it -- that the individual sovereign states -- or those later admitted -- would have possibly entered into a federation/confederation, they could have never gotton out of.
Laugh all you like, eleven tried and failed.

Quote:
And again, it was NOT an "ordinance of admission". At least get the terminology straight, fer gosh sakes...
How can a multi-generational Texan be so ignorant of their own history?

What I posted was verbatim, the exact and proper title was and is "Ordinance of Annexation"

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt...4july1845.html

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/...annex-doc.html

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt...4july1845.html

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan03.asp

Sleep is the best retreat from a failed argument.

Last edited by ovcatto; 04-27-2014 at 10:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top