Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: What if a "state," of the union was not legally a state?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    What if a "state," of the union was not legally a state?

    I did not know how to best phrase the title.
    But, if states were never admitted into the union legally, what becomes of them if it is recognized that they were never legally states in the first place?

    I got the idea from hearing this bit on the radio.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WR...#axzz4DGGcxqfR
    The truth is that each and every step along Hawaii's path from sovereign and independent nation, to annexed territory, to state, was done in violation of laws and treaties then in effect, without regard to the wishes of the Hawaiian people. Many people, including President Grover Cleveland, opposed the annexation of Hawaii.

    But in the end, simple greed and military interest overrode any concerns of moral right and legality. Hawaii's legitimate government was toppled using threat of American military force. Hawaii was stolen from her people for the benefit of wealthy American plantation owners and military interests, and the justifications for the crime were invented after-the-fact.

    Hawaii's government was overthrown on Jan. 17, 1893, by a relatively small group of men, most of them American by birth or heritage, who seized control of the Islands with the backing of American troops sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor. To this "superior force of the United States of America," Queen Lili`uokalani yielded her throne, under protest, in order to avoid bloodshed, trusting that the United States government would right the wrong that had been done to her and the Hawaiian people.
    So, what would become of Texas and Alaska also? I have heard similar stories about Alaska and Texas also.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Same thing as the fact that the US Constitution was adopted in pure violation of current law at the time.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I did not ask to be born .. so its my mom's fault. Thanks mom.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I did not know how to best phrase the title.
    But, if states were never admitted into the union legally, what becomes of them if it is recognized that they were never legally states in the first place?
    As the Spartans were reputed to say, "IF".
    Is someone going to sue to have recognition of Hawaii's status as a state revoked?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    As the Spartans were reputed to say, "IF".
    Is someone going to sue to have recognition of Hawaii's status as a state revoked?
    I'm not sure whether recognition is the right word.

    I am sure Virginia would have luuuuuved to have its recognition as a state revoked on April 17, 1861.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Humorous Tidbit Barely on Topic

    In one of his books about his experiences on the Mississippi River, Mark Twain relates a very interesting historical event.

    I am going to heavily paraphrase. I may have any or most details wrong. The concept is my point.

    The lower Mississippi River frequently changes its course. You can check this out for yourself with google maps. Then click to satellite view where you can see the trees and so forth. There are just tons of places where you can discern the old river course.

    So, here's the story. I am going to use the state of Mississippi and the state of Arkansas.

    The eastern border of the state of Arkansas was once "to the middle of the navigable channel" of the Mississippi River. The western border of the state of Mississippi at the same time was "to the middle of the Mississippi river."

    So, along comes one of the seasonal Mississippi River floods (this was before the river was tamed with dikes and levees and so forth); as the flood waters receded, the danged river had altered its course, splitting a bit at one particular location. That is to say, an island was created where there was none before.

    Here is the fun part. The navigable channel was now on the Arkansas side of the island. And, the middle of the river was on the Mississippi side of the island. Which is to say, the island lay between the navigable channel and the middle of the river. The island was outside the legal border of both states.

    The island was in neither state!! And, since it was not federal land prior to the river shift--the island wasn't even in the United States!

    Well, somebody figured out how to use this. If I recall, Twain said somebody set up a tavern on the island and sold legally untaxed whisky for a time. Until government got wise to the situation and re-wrote the borders or something, I cannot recall.

    I think the tavern owner erred. I would have called for immigrants and declared a new country.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Back on Topic

    Recently on Wikipedia there was featured an article on hand-cart Mormons. (At one point in their early years in Utah, the church hit on the brilliant idea of encouraging immigrants by supplying hand-carts. Horses and oxen were expensive, you see--poorer folks who couldn't afford a horse team or oxen couldn't immigrate to Utah. Mormon immigration to Utah had subsided. It is an amazing story, well worth reading about for inspiration about sheer guts, faith, and dogged determination.)

    That article sparked some curiosity--there were a few things I did not understand about the LDS church. So, I read further.

    According to the Wikipedia article, the US fedgov forced itself on the Mormons in Utah. Outrage about polygamy, if I recall. Brigham Young was politely invited (forced) to resign leadership of the church by the US Army, and the Mormons were invited to live under the rule of a US territorial governor (and I assume, territorial legislature, if the history of Nevada supplies any example.)

    Now, this is a little different. Utah was "federal territory", unlike Hawaii.

    So, its not exactly like Hawaii.

    But, c'mon. Why force a federal territorial governor (and the resignation the church leader) on the Mormons?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-02-2016 at 06:20 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Read the history of Beaver Island, Michigan, once home to King James Strang and the Strangite Mormon Church.

    Milady Wife and I rode our trikes around Lake Michigan in 2007 that included a trip out to and around Beaver Island. Tourists in our own back yard.

    With all the talk of BREXIT secession, there has long been idle talk of seceding from Wisconsin to Michigan or all of the Island communities banding together.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-02-2016 at 05:35 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    SNIP Read the history of Beaver Island, Michigan, once home to King James Strang and the Strangite Mormon Church.
    Sincere question, not snarky or adversarial.

    If I read that history, will I be able to conclude--rationally, without fallacy--that the fedgov/oligarchy/whatever does what it wants, the law be dammed, using rationalizations of the law to explain away doing whatever it feels like doing?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Nope. History is written by the victors, The Poverty of Historicism is that no conclusions about the future can be logically drawn from the past.

    The Strang story is on the Wikipedia too.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Recently on Wikipedia there was featured an article on hand-cart Mormons. (At one point in their early years in Utah, the church hit on the brilliant idea of encouraging immigrants by supplying hand-carts. Horses and oxen were expensive, you see--poorer folks who couldn't afford a horse team or oxen couldn't immigrate to Utah. Mormon immigration to Utah had subsided. It is an amazing story, well worth reading about for inspiration about sheer guts, faith, and dogged determination.)
    From 1856 to 1860 some 3,000 members of the Church of Latter-day Saints made the trip from Iowa, where the rail line ended, to Salt Lake City using handcarts. These were mostly converts from the British Isles and parts of Europe who lacked the financial means to pay for teams. The Willie and Martin handcart companies departed late and were caught in early snows, resulting in many deaths along the trail and prompting a major rescue effort from Salt Lake.

    Most companies, however, made the trip without undue problems. Those using handcarts comprised only about 10% of all Mormon immigrants. But the sacrifices of leaving homes and nations to gather with the Church in Utah, and making the trek across the plains with the barest of personal belongings and provisions cements the handcart pioneers as symbols of faith and determination.

    After 1860, the Church began sending wagons east from Salt Lake in the spring returning with immigrants over the summer. As the transcontinental railroad pushed west, the distance traveled by wagon grew shorter and shorter. The driving of the Golden Spike completing the transcontinental railroad at Promontory, Utah in 1869 marks the official end of the "Pioneer Era" of the Mormon Church and Utah. Those who came after that time, came via railroad.


    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    According to the Wikipedia article, the US fedgov forced itself on the Mormons in Utah. Outrage about polygamy, if I recall. Brigham Young was politely invited (forced) to resign leadership of the church by the US Army, and the Mormons were invited to live under the rule of a US territorial governor (and I assume, territorial legislature, if the history of Nevada supplies any example.)

    Now, this is a little different. Utah was "federal territory", unlike Hawaii.

    So, its not exactly like Hawaii.

    But, c'mon. Why force a federal territorial governor (and the resignation the church leader) on the Mormons?
    A small correction and some history some may find interesting.

    Brigham Young was not forced to resign from his position as President and Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church"). He was forced out as territorial governor as part of ending the so-called "Utah War" (or "Mormon War"). He remained the President and Prophet of the LDS Church until his death in 1877. He was succeeded in that position by John Taylor.

    When the Mormons were forced out of Nauvoo, Illinois in 1846, after having been forced out of Missouri, Ohio, and New York State previously, Church leadership resolved to emigrate to a location where nobody would bother the Mormons again. The semi-arid basin of the Great Salt Lake was chosen because it was both beyond the territorial borders of the United States and because nobody else wanted it. But by the time the first wagons arrived in the Salt Lake valley on 24 July, 1847, the territory was effectively under the control of the United States. (Despite feeling betrayed by the US Government, some 500 Mormons actually joined the US Army as the "Mormon Battalion" to assist with the Mexican-American. I believe the Battalion still holds the record for the longest march: some 2000 miles.) The war ended a few months after the first Mormon Pioneers arrived in Salt Lake and the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo officially moved the land from Mexican to United States territory.

    The Mormons lived a communitarian lifestyle (known as the United Order) that enabled them to combine labors to create the necessary water-works to effect irrigation and have successful agriculture. For all intents and purposes, the local government was theocratic with Brigham Young sitting at the head. In addition to laying out the well planned city of Salt Lake City, and getting irrigation going, church leaders also sent many groups of settlers into the surrounding and far flung regions to establish various industries necessary for the proposed "State of Deseret" to be self-sufficient.

    (Deseret is a word that appears in one of the Mormon books of Scripture, the "Book of Mormon". It means "honeybee". The honeybee is revered for their industry, thrift, and working together for the benefit of the entire community.)

    Granite and other quarries were established in the mountains around Salt Lake. Lumber operations were set up ~300 miles to the South near the present border with Arizona. Iron, silver, and other mining operations were established. Ranching and farming were established throughout the region. A mostly unsuccessful attempt to raise silk worms and cotton for textiles lead to the establishment of St. George, Utah. In addition to the desire for industry and places for large numbers of converts to live and work, Brigham Young had another motivation. From Salt Lake City, Mormon settlements stretched north to Canada, south into Mexico, and west and south-west to the Pacific ocean. Along the old, pre-Interstate routes, these settlements are spaced 20 to 40 miles apart. A wagon can make 20 miles a day under good conditions. Having been driven from their homes multiple times in the past, often in dead of winter, with no where to go, Brigham Young was convinced that if the members of the Mormon Church ever needed to flee again, they would have some waypoints along their escape route.

    Anyway, the Church was practicing "Plural Marriage" or to be precise, Polygyny (one man having more than one wife at the same time). The 1856 Republican Party platform called for the "eradication of the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy". Non-LDS living in Utah (often former LDS who had left the church and were very hostile to it, sometimes others who came to Utah after the Mormons had demonstrated it was habitable) did their best to stir up problems for the Church and its members including with rumors that the Mormons were not loyal citizens, or that the Mormons were denying due process in favor of secret executions. One fantastical story was of women being taken captive for forced polygamous marriages and held in the Salt Lake Temple where their only escape route was to jump from an upper story window into the Great Salt Lake and a swim to freedom. (Never mind that the Temple sits over 15 miles from the lake.)

    In 1857, President Buchanan sent a military expedition to Utah to put down a supposed Mormon uprising. Fearing the approaching army was intent on genocide, the Mormons prepared for the worst. Innocent civilians were caught in the fear and warmongering and slaughtered at the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

    Brigham Young was removed as territorial governor and replaced by a different presidential appointee. Of course, with the Utah territory being overwhelmingly Mormon, local elected officials were often at odds with the appointed, non-LDS governor. As a territory, Utah had granted women the vote in 1870. Had Utah been a State, it would have been the first State to grant women full suffrage. Congress revoked women's suffrage in 1887 under the Edmunds-Tucker Act as part of the effort to disenfranchise the Mormons and reduce the control exerted by the Mormon Church. A lot of Mormon men were disenfranchised by the earlier Edmunds Anti-Polygamy act of 1882. The 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act not only dis-enfranchised women (the vast majority of whom were LDS and presumed under the control of their husbands and/or church leaders), it also dis-incorporated the LDS Church and Perpetual Emigration Fund and earmarked all seized assets for public education. It required an anti-Polygamy oath to vote, serve in public office, or to serve as a juror. It required a civil marriage license, removed common-law marriage protections against testifying against a spouse and for children to inherit, removed local control of schools, and replaced local judges with federally appointed judges.

    Back when the feds gave a little more credence to the proper separation of powers they realized that as a State, Utah would get to set its own marriage laws, as well as control its own schools. And so Statehood was denied until after the LDS Church ended the practice of polygamy (or more precisely, ended the contracting of new, polygamous marriages). As the "Crossroads of the West" Utah occupies a critical point on the transcontinental railroad and other trade routes. So it isn't like the USA was going to let the Mormons start their own country.

    But as a territory, the feds exercised far more control than if the area was a State. So Utah applied for Statehood and was denied repeatedly. As a condition of Statehood, our State constitution contains a section that cannot be altered except with the consent of congress. Article III of our State Constitution is known as the "Ordinance" section.

    It requires perfect religious freedom, but the perpetual ban on plural marriages. It also requires the State to maintain a free public school system. Supporting this school system financially prevented the members of the LDS Church from also supporting a private Church-run school system. The section also disavows all claim to public lands within the State of Utah.

    Arizona, which was part of the proposed "State of Deseret" and which has a large Mormon population has a similar section in their State constitution. Article 20 of the Arizona State Constitution likewise requires perfect religious freedom but a ban on polygamy, taxpayer support of a free, secular school system, and, interestingly, requires that the schools be conducted in English. Why? Maybe to reduce the influence of Spanish in the region so close to Mexico. Maybe also to prevent the teaching of the Deseret Alphabet which Brigham Young had previously commissioned.

    For all this, the Mormons hold the US Constitution in high regard. In a couple of revelations in another book of LDS Scripture, "The Doctrine and Covenants" the Lord tells us that He established the Constitution by the hands of wise men (DC 101:77-80), and that the members of the church should support constitutional laws (DC 98:5-6). The Book of Mormon is replete with references to the American Continents being choice lands above all others, promised lands.

    So it isn't that the feds forced themselves on Utah or the Mormons. The 19th century Mormons simply believed the government was over-stepping its constitutional authority in restricting the peaceful exercise of sincere religious beliefs.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 07-06-2016 at 03:26 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •