posted April 19, 2003 07:14 PM               

In the over 100+ Civil War biographies, memoirs, etc., in the last 4 years, I've run across MANY references to the Southern Celtic mindset...

Still wonderin' if we were separated at birth...!?@#

posted April 20, 2003 10:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Nichols:
Into Left and Right halves, I assume.

-Scott

---

I never, never, see the "good ones" comin'!
Ouch, Scott, ouch!

LOL

Carlo, the (far!) Right half!D

posted April 20, 2003 11:56 PM            

Revisiting the Civil War question, I understand the desire to study history and have empathy with historical figures. I certainly think it's possible to admire Southern Civil War military figures for their characters, or for the role they played, without necessarily looking at the bigger question of whether the South was on the right side of the war. I also believe it's difficult to judge historical figures by modern mores. I'm not one of those, to use N.I.'s example, who would condemn Washington for owning slaves. It's certainly appalling in hindsight, but you do have to judge him by the context of his life and times, at least to an extent. But I don't think making points like this are responsive to my question of why a modern person would express love or admiration for the cause of the South in the Civil War.

I think James came the closest to answering my question when he wrote of how easy it is to appreciate a lost cause. I do think there's a certain poignancy and respect involved in looking back on historical figures who lost a conflict but did so with honor and courage. That's true as far as it goes.

But getting back to the broader question of fondness for the Civil War South as a whole, and not for any specific historical figures, I think that by any reasonable or objective standard we can apply (granted, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) that the South was on the wrong side of the Civil War. The North had its faults, too, and the South had some redeeming qualities. But I'd suggest that by any reasonable measure our country is better off today because the North won that war and stopped both slavery and secession.

I haven't heard anyone argue that they long for the return of slavery, and don't expect to hear that argument. Likewise, I have yet to hear anyone argue that the southern states of today, or America as a whole today, would be better off if we had split into two separate nations (N.I.'s argument is different, and I'll address that in my next post). I highly doubt a majority of current Southerners would wish to divorce themselves from the rest of America. Quite the contrary, I'd perceive that the South is a hotbed of patriotism currently (as witness the earlier posts from our man Carlo).

So it seems to me it's one thing to have a fondness for a historical period (the Civil War or any other) and another thing to keep alive the idea of the Confederacy as an active force in modern life. I can appreciate the antebellum South as a fascinating historical period, but I wouldn't argue that I'd want it duplicated in today's world, or that I admire the position the South took during the Civil War. I don't see the need to fly the Confederate flag over state capitols, for instance, as I just saw in Columbia, South Carolina on a recent trip there.

To use myself as an example, I lived in Italy for a year and have a great fondness for Italian history, particularly the period of the Roman Empire. Emperors like Hadrian were tyrants by modern standards, but at the time were progressive compared to fellow emperors like Nero. It is fascinating to try and place yourself in their shoes as you read their histories. But I wouldn't argue, or even imply, for a second that the Roman Empire is a form of government the Italy of today should try and emulate, or laud in any way as a positive example of government.

The Roman Empire went into the dustbin of history for a reason and deserves to stay there, along with the Confederacy, Communism, Nazism, and other attempts at government which failed for good reason. To pretend otherwise, to overly romanticize the period, seems wrongheaded and perhaps even dangerous. True, a Carlo or Marty living in Germany in 1943 might've been a loyal German soldier out of love for the fatherland. But should Carlo or Marty in 2003, with the benefit of hindsight, walk around sporting a swastika or pining for the grand old days of the Nazi Empire?

posted April 21, 2003 12:21 AM            

In abstract, intellectual theory, I agree with N.I.. A truly free country should honor the freedom to leave the country if you desire. I remember several years ago during the flag-burning debate hearing comedian A. Whitney Brown on Saturday Night Live say something to the effect that a country which loves its people enough to let them burn its flag is a lot like a God who loves his people enough to let them kill his Son.

The problem is that there's a huge difference in scale between respecting the rights of individuals to leave the country and respecting the rights of states to leave the union. While the principles may still hold true, the enormity of scale is such that I don't think secession can ever be realistically accomplished. It's kind of like communism may be a good idea in theory, but we've seen it just doesn't work in reality. The idea that states have the freedom to secede sounds good in theory, but the real world is just too complicated for it to work.

N.I. himself, in one of his posts, acknowledged a couple of the primary reasons for this (but then blew right past them). One is that any decision to secede has to be a free and voluntary decision of all the people within that state or territory. In the case of the Confederacy, which brought up the whole subject as some have argued for the South's right to secede, those slaves weren't getting a vote. For that matter, I don't think all the white people were getting a vote (not the women or poor people, at least). But even if you posit a situation wherein 60% of the populace votes to secede, should the 40% really be held to the tyranny of the majority? One of the beauties of our law is that it acknowledges individual rights and preserves them from the tyranny of the majority. Your right to free speech, for instance, is sacred (in theory, at least) regardless of how many people disagree with you. Any attempt at secession would have to be really overwhelming to be credible.

The second point N.I. rightly mentioned was the fact that seceding states would need to honor their debts and obligations to neighboring states and the federal government. To the best of my knowledge, this wasn't seriously contemplated by the Confederacy, at least not to the satisfaction of the North. To make the argument more abstract, suppose Nebraska decided to split off and form its own country. What about those federal roads going through Nebraska, and any other items federal money's built up there over the years? What about the residents of neighboring states who want to travel through Nebraska and suddenly have to go around or get Nebraska's version of a visa, whatever they decide to be? You could go on and on with questions like this; the obvious point is that the debts and obligations Nebraska would have to satisfy are so great I doubt they ever could be honorably satisfied. A rule of thumb I find useful in analzying Constitutional law is that generally the law allows you the right to do as you please until your exercise of your right starts interfering with somebody else's rights. With state secession, they may have the right to try secession, but the exercise of that right will start interfering with other people's rights pretty quickly and pretty dramatically.

Also, keep in mind that most states after the first 13 or so are pretty much creations of the federal government in the first place. American states are differently situated than some of the examples N.I. uses, such as the Czechs and the Slovaks, where disparate peoples were argubly forced together against their will originally and just bound that way by tyranny for years. The American states are more like free and voluntary business partners. When you've committed to work with partners voluntarily, your debts and obligations are that much greater; you can't just take your ball and go home all of a sudden.

posted April 21, 2003 02:37 AM            

quote:

---

Marty said:
But even if you posit a situation wherein 60% of the populace votes to secede, should the 40% really be held to the tyranny of the majority?

---

Well, this is the age-old flaw of democracy. No matter which way a vote goes, somebody gets screwed. Should the 40% be allowed to hold the 60% to an untenable situation? Should the 60% drag the 40% with them? There are problems, no matter which way it goes. There isn't an easy way around this.

quote:

---

Marty said:
One of the beauties of our law is that it acknowledges individual rights and preserves them from the tyranny of the majority. Your right to free speech, for instance, is sacred (in theory, at least) regardless of how many people disagree with you. Any attempt at secession would have to be really overwhelming to be credible.

---

This is why individuals can't secede. It would cause complete chaos, to have a nation fragment in 150,000 sovereign nations. Furthermore, in the case of the U.S., the argument is purely constituional. The largely ignored 10th Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States [the federal gov't] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Constitution is silent regarding secession, it must be a power reserved to the States.

quote:

---

Marty said:
The second point N.I. rightly mentioned was the fact that seceding states would need to honor their debts and obligations to neighboring states and the federal government. ... To make the argument more abstract, suppose Nebraska decided to split off and form its own country. What about those federal roads going through Nebraska, and any other items federal money's built up there over the years? What about the residents of neighboring states who want to travel through Nebraska and suddenly have to go around or get Nebraska's version of a visa, whatever they decide to be? You could go on and on with questions like this; the obvious point is that the debts and obligations Nebraska would have to satisfy are so great I doubt they ever could be honorably satisfied. A rule of thumb I find useful in analzying Constitutional law is that generally the law allows you the right to do as you please until your exercise of your right starts interfering with somebody else's rights. With state secession, they may have the right to try secession, but the exercise of that right will start interfering with other people's rights pretty quickly and pretty dramatically.

---

For most federal works, the state can rightly make a claim that its share of tax dollars built said works. Things such as highways, federal courthouses, average military facilities, etc. These things should be a wash. It is the unique, extraordinary federal facilities that would require compensation. Things like the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, or Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, or Hanford Nuclear reservation in Washington, or Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Also, items that span state borders, such as dams.

The fact that interstate commerce would now need to route around Nebraska isn't much of an arguement. You don't have the right to travel the shortest distance possible. You don't even have the right to be able to travel without passing through another country. Ever been to Point Roberts, WA? The kids in Point Roberts have to pass through Canada to go to school in Blaine. People in Kansas can learn to go around on their way to Mt. Rushmore.

Regarding the balance of rights, here's my rule of thumb: Thou shalt not be too vexing; thou shalt not be too easily vexed. I find too many people are too easily vexed (including most would-be secessionists). The point remains, if the people of a state (say Hawaii) feel thay have little in common with the rest of the country, and desire to leave, I shouldn't stand in their way because it would make travel there more difficult. My right to a week's happiness is trumped by their right to a lifetime's happiness.

quote:

---

Marty said:
Also, keep in mind that most states after the first 13 or so are pretty much creations of the federal government in the first place. ... The American states are more like free and voluntary business partners. When you've committed to work with partners voluntarily, your debts and obligations are that much greater; you can't just take your ball and go home all of a sudden.

---

Businesses go out of business all the time. Marriages are undone all the time. Why should nations be any different? All are (or should be) voluntary associations of people with a common interest. When there is no longer a common interest, the association loses its reason to be. I'd much rather the dissolution be by a negotiated secession than a civil war or revolution to impose the aggrieved party's interest on the rest.

And the fact that the US is largely an artificial construct doesn't mean that regional difference don't develop. If you haven't noticed, the politics of the nation have become largely regionalized in the last few decades, with the west coast and northeast being strongly Democratic and the rest of the nation being strongly Republican. Most states have a further division, with large urban areas being Democratic and the suburbs/small towns/rural areas being Republican. This pronounced geographic division is prime breeding ground for sessionist rhetoric. If the support the various parties had were more geographically homogeneous, we wouldn't see the militia movements and ecoterrorist and the like to the same degree. It's when the majority in a community feel alienated that they tend to act in such an extreme manner. For less extreme, but still interesting efforts, see the san Fernando valley secession movement (split from L.A.) or the State of Jefferson movement (the northern counties of CA trying to split from the rest of CA) or the Alaska and Hawaii and Puerto Rico independence movements. All are defined geographic areas that are trying to split from a non-responsive/oppressive (in their opinions) parent government.

quote:

---

Marty said:
So, the bottom line is it might be interesting to talk about secession as a theoretical freedom states have, but the only way it could ever be exercised responsibly in reality would be over years and for millions of dollars. As such, I don't think there's any real chance responsible, honorable secession would ever occur (and I don't think the South was on the verge of accomplishing that goal during the Civil War before the evil North came in and tyrannically controlled them).

---

Rule number 1: No nation lasts forever. Neither will the US. When the decline and rot eventually sets in, the more prosperous rats will jump ship. Either that, or we disolve amid a new civil war, or get conquered. The fourth choice is that we merge into a larger, more stable entitiy, such as a unified world government. I don't see any other outcome. I'd rather avoid getting conquered and a civil war, so it's either peaceful fragmentation or peaceful agglomeration. I'm a "small is beautiful" kinda guy, so I'd be happiest with fragmentation.

Regarding the South and negotiation, I don't think they were considering that either, but then, federal works were on a much smaller scale back then. They may have seen no need to negotiate, and the Revolution was still firmly in everyone's mind. Negotiations didn't work with the oppressor then, why would they now? In truth, Lincoln never considered negotiation to be an option, and acted as such. Had he said, "Let's talk", the South may have indeed paid a compensation. We'll never know.

Regarding the continuation of slavery had the South successfully seceded, all I can say is that there is much evil in the world, and there is little that can be done about it. Unless you are willing to send in the army. See the Confederacy, 1861; Iraq, 2003. Yet we allow effective slave-sates such as China, Cuba, and North Korea to continue to treat their peoples (or some of them, at least) as badly as the Confederacy treated slaves. The only difference between the Confederacy and Communists is the Confederacy looked at your skin while the Communists looked at your thoughts. Look wrong or think wrong, you are in for a world of hurt.

P.S.
Thanks for your thoughts. I enjoy a good discussion, and you are holding up your end wonderfully!

Also, let it be known that I don't always believe everything I post. I'll often take a position and try to follow it as far as it will go. Sometimes I like where I end up. Sometimes I don't. I've changed my mind on some issues that way. Other times, my position gets solidified as it gets tested and I can defend it successfully.

posted April 21, 2003 03:43 AM               

It's, somewhat simplified, just this:
If things hadn't happened as they happened, we wouldn't be alive now.
Other people would be here instead. But my parents, your parents, etc., even if they'd been born (doubtful if the historical divergence happened much before their births) probably would never have met, and even if they had, probably would have conceived different children. We're the products of particular individual sperm and particular eggs, and also of particular environments. Change any of that, and you have literally different individuals.
So if the English hadn't brutalized Ireland for eight hundred years, I wouldn't be alive now. I wouldn't just be living in Ireland--I would never have been born.
If the slave trade had never happened, no African American now living would ever have existed.
If the European conquest and genocides in this hemisphere had never taken place, no presently living Native American would be alive now. The native peoples of the Americas wouldn't have been conquered--but no one now alive would be here to enjoy that freedom. Other people would be here instead.
The same thing applies to people who have been born after every horror and massive injustice ever perpetrated, from Cro-Magnons wiping out Neanderthals (if that's what happened) to the European Holocaust. We all stand not only on the shoulders of the generations that came before us, but on their corpses as well.
It's not a reason to be grateful that one's ancestors and their people were subjected to tyranny or murder, still less to tolerate those things in the present. But it gives one pause....

That line of thought doesn't really lead anywhere, but I thought I'd type it out anyway. I love speculation about might-have-beens, but it's good to remember that none of them could ever have included any of us.

posted April 21, 2003 04:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marty Raap:
As a final aside, one of the things I'm surprised about so far is that I seem to be the only one speaking up for the radical proposition that the South was on the wrong side of the Civil War. Are you kidding me? Maybe most of you see that as such a settled issue that there's no need to weigh in on it?

---

Well now, that depends on what you consider the war to have been "about".

Slavery? Nope.
It was time for slavery to go, I agree.
But that wasn't what Lincoln decided to fight the war about. He had to be talked into the Emancipation proclamation, and when he signed it, it was a tactic to weaken the Confederacy and encourage slave uprisings! Sure, he knew declaring the slaves in the South (which he didn't control at the time--big risk!) to be free was the right thing to do, but that wasn't why he did it.
He fought to prevent secession, which, as I said earlier, was assumed by many of the people who wrote the Constitution in the first place, including Madison, to be a built in right. The issue was settled by force, not by law. I can't support that.

Many States first came under US jurisdiction as already-existing political entities, and the rest were all granted equal status with the original 13 anyway at the time of their admission to the Union, so it's correct in law, it seems to me, to claim that the federal government is a creature of the States (all of them) rather than vice versa, or some one way and some the other.
Why shouldn't an entity be able to voluntarily leave a federation which it voluntarily joined?
It's a moot point now, of course. But as I say, it was settled by force, not by law, and the passage of time has changed the terms in which we think of the federal relationship, so that the way things are seems to us, incorrectly, to be the only way they could ever have been.

posted April 21, 2003 01:53 PM               

Marty's suggests the South as "hotbed of patriotism"...

I'd think very true indeed, Mart. I'm sure I couldn't match wits with Shelby Foote or James McPherson on a Civil War panel, but an examination of the Southern Cause is FILLED with references and allusions to the Civil War as another "war for independence". One of the countless names for the period is the "Southern War for Independence". Writings/speeches by Louis T. Wigwall (Texas), Robert Barnwell Rhett (SoCarolina), and too many others often bore witness to their view as the SOUTH as being "true" to the Intent of the Constitution and Founding Fathers (core members, of course, Sons of Virginia!). Lincoln was often likened to a "new" King George the Third - a tyrant, with despotic designs. Shelby Foote offers the logic that before the war the "language" was the "UNITED STATES ARE...". After the war, which solidified the concept of Union, we became an "IS" (the united states IS a blah blah...) Nice semantic play, I think.

Southern fears of rule by the "tyranny of the majority" was also an interesting, if flawed concept. Certainly, when the South had an edge in House/Senate, things were different, huh? Did the South "take its ball and go home"? Hmmm...

James rightly outlines the useless Emancipation Proclamation as a mere military device - only "played" after the face-saving "draw" at Sharpsburg/Antietam. See Lincoln's open-letter to Horace Greeley for his, perhaps, true "concern" for the Africans. Also note his colonization efforts. Ah yes, "Father" Abraham!

The constant chimera of Foreign Intervention was also of note at this time. Was the South always just "one big victory" away from recognition? Certain peace overtures from Northern peace-factions suggested a possible "joint" Confederate/Federal military advance into Mexico to thwart possible/actual Monroe Doctrine violations by France/Mexico.

The South "better" off since "those people" won? That strikes me as the often used logic of Northern textbooks and My Side Won Psychology. It took Northern virtue to "enlighten" the South? Again, ol' buddy Friel (I think) made the comment of the South becoming a "colony" of the North. Well said. No Marshall Plan here. The "erring sisters" would indeed be punished.

Of more interest, many see the Tilden/Hayes election as the final VICTORY of the South! The moral "high ground" of the Abolitionist/Republican cause is witnessed by the virtual return to white-planter aristocratic rule in return for the appropriate committee votes needed to "give" Hayes the election. I was always tickled by the Gore/Bush controversy. Hell, I thought "they" owed us for 1877!
The New Slavery was share-cropping and tenant farming -for blacks and whites!

Please, Marty and others, don't judge me too harshly. I try to look at all this with an "intellectual detatchment". I can only assure you I don't pine for the days of having an ol' darky named Jefferson cutting my lawn, nor having Etta, the houseslave "mindin'" my children. I don't applaud Waco Texas extremists, nor guys who blow up buildings in Oklahoma City. Don't misread my "passion" for intellectual study of a topic.

Hell, this is getting like a term paper, and I'm tired of point/counterpoint anywhoo!

Now if anyone can explain how I've been a New York YANKEE fan since boyhood...!@>?#

posted April 21, 2003 03:16 PM               

Maybe my only excuse is that Mickey Mantle was from Oklahoma...uh...er...and maybe a teenytiny bit of hope that should Okla been a state then it may have been the 14th star on the ol' St. Andrew's Cross!>?<gulp!>

Er...ahem, hence my "roots" were with the Mick!?
Nah, yer right! I don't work!

posted April 21, 2003 03:42 PM               

Everybody wants to be Cavaliers, nobody wants to be Roundheads.

posted April 21, 2003 04:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sk8maven:
...the English Civil War (the one that cost Charles I his crown and his head), in that the losing side was Wrong but Romantic, while the winning side was Right but Repusive.

---

Both Repulsive and Wrong if you happen to be Irish.

posted April 21, 2003 06:15 PM            

But this content makes me think of something else--which anyone is free to skim since it's only slightly related to the current discussion (as it has unfolded).

Last week, Jean Charest led the provincial Liberals to power in Quebec. There was a collective sigh of relief from English speaking Canada, and our prime minister, Jean Chretien, could hardly contain his joy. Everyone is now asking "Is separatism dead?"

My immediate answer: good gracious I hope not!

Let me say I'm against separatism, but resigned to it. I have met up with enough Quebeckers to know that this is a passionate subject with them. For the 49% of Quebeckers who want to separate, reasonable argument is no use. This is a matter of the heart. All nationalism is a matter of the heart.

I also think that there are many countries where there is a central question tied to history which pushes all other questions aside. In the United States it's slavery and the issues surrounding that. In Canada it's the French fact. In Great Britain it's Ireland. In France--I don't know, but I'd guess it's royalism or Napoleonism. In Germany (the New Germany, and therefore a new country) it's Nazism I would imagine.

In Canada and the U.S. we should all be talking about aboriginal rights. But the matters of indigenous people are pushed aside by our fixation on these other questions.

A friend of mine used to sigh about the Quebec nationalism--how 19th century she would say--and she was right. These matters of nationalism belong to the 19th century and the First World War should have ended them. Nationalism is pointless in a global village. We all need to work together for the collective good, and it's pointless to get bogged down in nationalism. But the people who say this have already gotten through their own nationalism. They've been liberated and now want to join together with other nations in a confederated movement for global prosperity. The people of Quebec have never enjoyed true nationhood and they yearn for it. Until they have it, they won't be able give it up for a higher ideal.

Nationhood should have been offered to Quebec almost three decades ago when the Parti Quebecois (the separatist party in Quebec) won their first election in the province. Voters knew what the party stood for and yet they voted them in. That, in my mind, was a clear mandate to separate. Our prime minister at the time, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, should have called up the new Premiere, Rene Levesque, and said "Let's talk." But Trudeau was not the man who make such an offer. And so we've had three referendums (two in Quebec, one in all of Canada) and three constitutional debates. These exercises are hard on the economy and put everyone in the dominion through great psychological pain.

Quebec had the mandate to separate and there should have been discussion way back then. But the discussions would have involved aboriginal land rights and federal land rights. When Quebec was made a province it gained more land, but it never won the right to rule over aboriginal people. Aboriginal rights, by their very nature, precede all provincial rights. So it's likely the discussion between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada (and hopefullyt he First Nations as well) would have taken a long time--but in the end after all the discussions, and only when both parties had reached a tentative agreement in principle--the agreement should have been put before the people and voted on in a referendum.

This is the civil way to do things, the diplomatic solution. That's why I'm glad of the separatist debate in my country because it reminds me what a hopeful country this is. We don't use gunboat diplomacy--we talk everything out. We don't always get it right, but at least we don't go killing each other when we get it wrong (at least not much).

posted April 21, 2003 06:49 PM            

Question: What was the processes that expanded Quebec (and Ontario and Manitoba) from the original small to the contemporary large? Can such a process be undone?

I ask, because I remember at the last referendum, the Native communities of northern Quebec said they wanted to stay with Canada. Should Quebec secede, how will boundaries be determined? I can imagine that many along the St. Lawrence would scream if a single hectare were "left behind", but I imagine most of the screamers have never been further north than the line from Val-d-Or to Chicoutimi.

Nationalism is an interesting beast. In many respects, it is nothing more than a desire to be comfortable. People want to associate with their own kind, and feel uncomfartable as a minority in a larger entity. Especially when the circumstances made them a minority by force of arms, rather than a voluntary union.

Once that comfort has been acheived, the new nation can then choose to reintegrate, but this time on mutually acceptable terms. Look at Europe: the Czechs and Slovaks are now joining NATO and the EU. Having given up one conglomeration (Czechoslovakia), they are willfully joining others. Granted, the EU is nothing like a nation-state yet, but it is still a severe restriction on unilateral action. The same goes for the Baltics and Slovenia. Out of involuntary unions, into voluntary ones.

Somday, when Ireland and the UK are tightly bound in the EU, will the Northern Ireland issue matter? When most decisions are made in Brussels, will it matter if the taxes are first routed through London or Dublin?

posted April 21, 2003 07:22 PM            

My understanding is that the northern land was given to Quebec as part of the deal of Confederation. But the question is how much land did the newly created Federal government have the right to give? It's arguable that aboriginal people held title to all that land, or at least much of it.

And now Quebec gets a lot of money from exploiting that land for hydro-electric power which it sells to New York and other American states.

President Bush, in between posturing about weapons of mass destruction, has made some noises about the American right to hydro-electricity and fresh water.

Since both of these flow from Canada, it's quite possible that if the free flow of these resources were threatened in the course of political arguments over collective constitutional rights, the United States would assert its right to these resources (under NAFTA) and would take them by force if necessary.

posted April 21, 2003 07:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Utley:
I strongly suspect that our survival as a species depends upon our learning, and soon, to think and behave globally.)

---

posted April 21, 2003 07:36 PM               

You have to understand American constitutional and republican theory to understand why a state like Alabama is just as sovereign and able to secede as one of the original 13. Yes, all the land outside the limits of the original 13 was federal land, some of it (such as the Louisiana Purchase) was bought with federal dollars, other of (California, for example) won in wars fought by the United States. But those areas, while U. S. territories, were open to settlement by any person in the United States who wanted to move there. Once a critical mass of populations was achieved (the formula was in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance), the voters would elect a territorial assembly to frame a state constitution and apply for statehood. This act of writing a state constitution was the formation of the social contract--those settlers in each case formed themselves into a polity and chose to join the United States (just as the original 13 chose to join by ratifying the Constitution). Once they were admitted to statehood, they were equal in status with the original 13 (every state has 2 senators, each state has the same legal privileges, etc.)

When Oklahoma was admitted to the Union in 1907, Congress in the admission act specified that the Oklahomans could not move their capital from Guthrie. (Guthrie was the territorial capital, and Congress wanted it to stay the capital--i don't know why, maybe as part of the deal to make Oklahoma Territory and Indian Territory into a single state?) The Oklahomans acquiesced, they were admitted, and then in short order they moved their capital to Oklahoma City. The federal govt. tried to stop them, but the courts said every state had the same right and sovereignty to decide those domestic political questions for themselves without federal interference.

posted April 21, 2003 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NecessaryImpurity:
I wish to hell we'd learn to think extra-terrestrially. Eggs in one basket, and all that.

---

One step at a time, amigo.

posted April 21, 2003 09:42 PM               

Back attcha', suh!