Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 03-21-2009, 02:31 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,493,154 times
Reputation: 11351

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Illegally as it turn out. If you squat on my land and I go to court to evict you. The fact that you stayed during the legal dispute doesn't give you rights to the land.
No at the time it was legal. NY tried to illegally retroactively apply the 1764 border decree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2009, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,232 posts, read 46,654,488 times
Reputation: 11084
A man with a gun thinks of himself as a little god. Give him a badge, and it's ten times worse. Police, security, prison guards...all the refuges of the high school bully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,065,889 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
No at the time it was legal. NY tried to illegally retroactively apply the 1764 border decree.
Unsupportable position. It was not legal and Wentworth acknowledged at the time of the first grant that his claim of sovereignty over land west of the Connecticut was in ambiguous at best. The court ruled that New Hampshire had no right to make the grants. Wentworth sold land he didn't own. It's that simple.

The "Vermonter" did even get upset until 6 years later when they lost a case over land grants in New York court. In 1775 the "Vermonters" were talking about the advisability of seeking independence from New York. Independence from New York is the key term there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 03:39 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,493,154 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Unsupportable position. It was not legal and Wentworth acknowledged at the time of the first grant that his claim of sovereignty over land west of the Connecticut was in ambiguous at best. The court ruled that New Hampshire had no right to make the grants. Wentworth sold land he didn't own. It's that simple.

The "Vermonter" did even get upset until 6 years later when they lost a case over land grants in New York court. In 1775 the "Vermonters" were talking about the advisability of seeking independence from New York. Independence from New York is the key term there.
The NH grants were not illegal. What NY did amounted to ex-post facto laws when they applied the 1764 boundary of NH retroactively, and then tried seizing both property and people who had already settled there.

What started as independence from NY became independence from everyone for a time. You can argue all day against the legitimacy of the causes for independence if you wish but the fact is VT became an independent republic until it was allowed to join the U.S.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,065,889 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The NH grants were not illegal. What NY did amounted to ex-post facto laws when they applied the 1764 boundary of NH retroactively, and then tried seizing both property and people who had already settled there.

What started as independence from NY became independence from everyone for a time. You can argue all day against the legitimacy of the causes for independence if you wish but the fact is VT became an independent republic until it was allowed to join the U.S.
What court of law has affirmed this position? The answer is NONE. It's your singular interpretation -- historian my a$$.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 04:01 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,493,154 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
What court of law has affirmed this position? The answer is NONE. It's your singular interpretation -- historian my a$$.
The court of public opinion. The idea there would have been a fair trial of this matter in a NY court in the 1760's or 70's is laughable at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,854 posts, read 51,179,793 times
Reputation: 58749
Montana talks of leaving the Union over gun rights !

Good. I have another state of my list that is actually still American in nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,922 posts, read 8,065,889 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The court of public opinion. The idea there would have been a fair trial of this matter in a NY court in the 1760's or 70's is laughable at best.
First honest statement "Mob rule is best". Thanks for your endorsement of anarchy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 07:48 PM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 27,008,828 times
Reputation: 15645
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
A man with a gun thinks of himself as a little god. Give him a badge, and it's ten times worse. Police, security, prison guards...all the refuges of the high school bully.
Don't forget D.C.!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 07:54 PM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 27,008,828 times
Reputation: 15645
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Oh, Montana hasn't left yet?
Well, where's the action, or is this threat only words?
You can leave the stimulus check uncashed.
Actually we'd love to unfortunately we've got a democrat for a govenor who hasn't yet learned to "just say no". There's been some uproar about how the idiots want to spend it like expanding some dumb a$$ museum instead of paving dirt roads thereby reducing dust... Typical liberal agenda, we need more art that'll benefit the chardonay crowd and less dust that would benefit everyone.
As for action or words who really knows? If the prodding keeps up we'll both find out won't we?
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 AM.

© 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