State Sovereignty Question

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The U.S. was created by two acts of revolution. The first was from Britain. The second was a revolution to overturn the Articles of Confederation. Otherwise there was no legal way they could make the changes they made.
Was it ever ruled not legal by a court?

Looks like in the following case there no revolution, one government simply superseded the other in a normal legal manner.

Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820)


ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Syllabus

The present Constitution of the United States did not commence its operation until the first Wednesday in March 1789, and the provision in the Constitution that "no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts" does not extend to a state law enacted before that day and operating upon the rights of property vested before that time.
The books of a corporation, established for public purposes, are evidence of its acts and proceedings.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an ejectment brought by the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky to recover a lot of ground lying in Bardstown.
Page 18 U. S. 421
This town was laid off in 1780, on a tract of land consisting of 1,000 acres, for which, in 1785, a patent was issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Bard and Owings. In 1788, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act vesting 100 acres, part of this tract, in trustees, to be laid off in lots, some of them to be given to settlers and others to be sold for the benefit of the proprietors. The cause depends mainly on the validity of this act. It is contended to be a violation of that part of the Constitution of the United States which forbids a state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
Much reason is furnished by the record for presuming the consent of the proprietors to this law, but the circuit court has decided the question independently of this consent, and that decision is now to be reviewed.
Before we determine on the construction of the Constitution in relation to a question of this description, it is necessary to inquire whether the provisions of that instrument apply to any acts of the state legislatures which were of the date with that which it is now proposed to consider.
This act was passed in the session of 1788. Did the Constitution of the United States then operate upon it?
In September, 1787, after completing the great work in which they had been engaged, the Convention resolved that the Constitution should be laid before the Congress of the United States, to be submitted by that body to Conventions of the several states to be convened by their respective legislatures,
Page 18 U. S. 422
and expressed the opinion that as soon as it should be ratified by the Conventions of nine states, Congress should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states, a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for President and Vice President, "and the time and place for commencing proceedings under this Constitution."
The conventions of nine states having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention and appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, "for commencing proceedings under the Constitution."
Both governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new government did not commence until the old government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution's being ratified by the ninth state, for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November by the successive disappearance of its members. It existed potentially until 2 March, the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.
The resolution of the Convention might originally
Page 18 U. S. 423
have suggested a doubt, whether the government could be in operation for every purpose before the choice of a President; but this doubt has been long solved, and were it otherwise, its discussion would be useless, since it is apparent that its operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March, 1789, before which time Virginia had passed the act which is alleged to violate the Constitution.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
Was it ever ruled not legal by a court?

Looks like in the following case there no revolution, one government simply superseded the other in a normal legal manner.

Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820)


ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Syllabus

The present Constitution of the United States did not commence its operation until the first Wednesday in March 1789, and the provision in the Constitution that "no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts" does not extend to a state law enacted before that day and operating upon the rights of property vested before that time.
The books of a corporation, established for public purposes, are evidence of its acts and proceedings.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an ejectment brought by the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky to recover a lot of ground lying in Bardstown.
Page 18 U. S. 421
This town was laid off in 1780, on a tract of land consisting of 1,000 acres, for which, in 1785, a patent was issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Bard and Owings. In 1788, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act vesting 100 acres, part of this tract, in trustees, to be laid off in lots, some of them to be given to settlers and others to be sold for the benefit of the proprietors. The cause depends mainly on the validity of this act. It is contended to be a violation of that part of the Constitution of the United States which forbids a state to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
Much reason is furnished by the record for presuming the consent of the proprietors to this law, but the circuit court has decided the question independently of this consent, and that decision is now to be reviewed.
Before we determine on the construction of the Constitution in relation to a question of this description, it is necessary to inquire whether the provisions of that instrument apply to any acts of the state legislatures which were of the date with that which it is now proposed to consider.
This act was passed in the session of 1788. Did the Constitution of the United States then operate upon it?
In September, 1787, after completing the great work in which they had been engaged, the Convention resolved that the Constitution should be laid before the Congress of the United States, to be submitted by that body to Conventions of the several states to be convened by their respective legislatures,
Page 18 U. S. 422
and expressed the opinion that as soon as it should be ratified by the Conventions of nine states, Congress should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states, a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for President and Vice President, "and the time and place for commencing proceedings under this Constitution."
The conventions of nine states having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention and appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, "for commencing proceedings under the Constitution."
Both governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The new government did not commence until the old government expired. It is apparent that the government did not commence on the Constitution's being ratified by the ninth state, for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a government until it dissolved on the first of November by the successive disappearance of its members. It existed potentially until 2 March, the day preceding that on which the members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.
The resolution of the Convention might originally
Page 18 U. S. 423
have suggested a doubt, whether the government could be in operation for every purpose before the choice of a President; but this doubt has been long solved, and were it otherwise, its discussion would be useless, since it is apparent that its operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March, 1789, before which time Virginia had passed the act which is alleged to violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion that established the time frame of Virginia's obligations under the Constitution.
Within that time frame the ruling claims the "old government" expired. And, that expiration was due to the "disappearance of its members", and the "old government" was replaced by the "new Congress" as it first assembled.
What the ruling does is establish the Commonwealth of Virginia's obligations, or lack of obligations under the Constitution at a point when the General Assembly made dispositions of some land. This was appropriate, as Marshall's competency to deliver such a ruling was based entirely on the Constitution and Virginia's ratification of it.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,123
Explore, yes, but to put into action was folly.

Kevin Dally





No doubt about it, IMO. The secessionist theorists, knew that theirs was not the only theory of the relationship of states and the Constitution, and, they knew that their view was in the minority. That fact does not, of course, argue against the majority being wrong, but, in the world of reality, it would argue caution and no little amount of tact and discretion.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
The nut gets cracked over the question of the nature of state sovereignty. President Lincoln made the claim that states had no sovereignty outside the Union. That was curious, as an independent country, Texas, had become a state less than 20 years previous.
How could Lincoln justify this assertion?
How does a state have the sovereignty to accept the Constitution, but not reject it later?
I believe the thinking for 200 years has been too linear to find the proper answers.
Mr. Lincoln's may be admired for being largely self taught, but he learned what he wanted to learn, not always what there was to be learned. If, somehow, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois decided to reject the Constitution they might fairly and reasonably be treated by the US Congress as territories, as that is what they were before becoming US States. Territories controlled by Congress on behave of the US people. The only sovereignty such territories might have would be that allowed by Congress.
All states are equal under the Constitution.....that is, as states in union under the Constitution. I do not think there is any argument about this.
However, if New York determined to leave the Union, another situation would be in play. Along with the original 13 states, plus Vermont, Texas and maybe California, New York entered the Union on its own sovereignty, its own hook. New York was never a U S territory.
President Lincoln may well have used this distinction to assist in defeating secession. He would not have had to fool with South Carolina. He could have directly informed the 4 states that had declared secession and had been U S territories before union that they faced (perhaps after 1 August 1861) devolution back to territories. Make any conflict a matter of reclaiming these territories and hunfreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The nut gets cracked over the question of the nature of state sovereignty. President Lincoln made the claim that states had no sovereignty outside the Union. That was curious, as an independent country, Texas, had become a state less than 20 years previous.
How could Lincoln justify this assertion?
How does a state have the sovereignty to accept the Constitution, but not reject it later?
I believe the thinking for 200 years has been too linear to find the proper answers.
Mr. Lincoln's may be admired for being largely self taught, but he learned what he wanted to learn, not always what there was to be learned. If, somehow, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois decided to reject the Constitution they might fairly and reasonably be treated by the US Congress as territories, as that is what they were before becoming US States. Territories controlled by Congress on behave of the US people. The only sovereignty such territories might have would be that allowed by Congress.
All states are equal under the Constitution.....that is, as states in union under the Constitution. I do not think there is any argument about this.
However, if New York determined to leave the Union, another situation would be in play. Along with the original 13 states, plus Vermont, Texas and maybe California, New York entered the Union on its own sovereignty, its own hook. New York was never a U S territory.
President Lincoln may well have used this distinction to assist in defeating secession. He would not have had to fool with South Carolina. He could have directly informed the 4 states that had declared secession and had been U S territories before union that they faced (perhaps after 1 August 1861) devolution back to territories. Make any conflict a matter of reclaiming these territories and hunfreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
Interesting, but how about quoting that Lincoln claim. I believe you have interesting opinions but quotes and references would be nice.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,728
The nut gets cracked over the question of the nature of state sovereignty. President Lincoln made the claim that states had no sovereignty outside the Union. That was curious, as an independent country, Texas, had become a state less than 20 years previous.
How could Lincoln justify this assertion?
Because Texas had sovereignty BEFORE joining the Union. Once in the Union, it no longer had (or has) sovereignty.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
The nut gets cracked over the question of the nature of state sovereignty. President Lincoln made the claim that states had no sovereignty outside the Union. That was curious, as an independent country, Texas, had become a state less than 20 years previous.
How could Lincoln justify this assertion?
Can you post the assertion so we may see it in context?

How does a state have the sovereignty to accept the Constitution, but not reject it later?
See the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshal that have been posted in this forum time after time.



If, somehow, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois decided to reject the Constitution they might fairly and reasonably be treated by the US Congress as territories, as that is what they were before becoming US States. Territories controlled by Congress on behave of the US people. The only sovereignty such territories might have would be that allowed by Congress.
All states are equal under the Constitution.....that is, as states in union under the Constitution. I do not think there is any argument about this.
However, if New York determined to leave the Union, another situation would be in play. Along with the original 13 states, plus Vermont, Texas and maybe California, New York entered the Union on its own sovereignty, its own hook. New York was never a U S territory.
President Lincoln may well have used this distinction to assist in defeating secession. He would not have had to fool with South Carolina. He could have directly informed the 4 states that had declared secession and had been U S territories before union that they faced (perhaps after 1 August 1861) devolution back to territories. Make any conflict a matter of reclaiming these territories and hunfreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
As no state can leave the union on its own, the above conjecture really doesn't apply.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
[Q UOTE="WJC, post: 1977360, member: 15567"]Because Texas had sovereignty BEFORE joining the Union. Once in the Union, it no longer had (or has) sovereignty.[/QUOTE]
As info.


Avalon Project - The Treaty of Annexation - Texas; April 12, 1844--Note the people of Texas not the government of Texas as the ultimate sovereigns.
The people of Texas having, at the time of adopting their constitution, expressed by an almost unanimous vote, their desire to be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and being still desirous of the same with equal unanimity, in order to provide more effectually for their security and prosperity; and the United States, actuated solely by the desire to add to their own security and prosperity, and to meet the wishes of the Government and people of Texas, have determined to accomplish, by treaty, objects so important to their mutual and permanent welfare:​
For that purpose, the President of the United States has given full Powers to John C. Calhoun, Secretary of State of the said United States, and the President of the Republic of Texas has appointed, with like powers, Isaac Van Zandt and J. Pinckney Henderson, citizens of the said Republic: and the said plenipotentiaries, after exchanging their full powers, have agreed on and concluded the following articles:​
ARTICLE I.
The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories. This cession includes all public lots and squares, vacant lands, mines, minerals, salt lakes and springs, public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbours, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments and accoutrements, archives and public documents, public funds debts, taxes and dues unpaid at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty.​
ARTICLE II.
The citizens of Texas shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property and admitted, as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.​
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
Interesting, but how about quoting that Lincoln claim. I believe you have interesting opinions but quotes and references would be nice.
"The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of ``State rights,'' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the ``sovereignty'' of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a ``sovereignty,'' in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it ``A political community, without a political superior''? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. "

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:741?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Lincoln's message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861.
While Lincoln almost excepts Texas, he cannot , the lawyer in him prevailed. Lincoln makes a good lawyer's case here, if not a good legal one. I put the most relevant statement in bold type.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
"The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of ``State rights,'' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the ``sovereignty'' of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a ``sovereignty,'' in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it ``A political community, without a political superior''? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. "

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:741?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Lincoln's message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861.
While Lincoln almost excepts Texas, he cannot , the lawyer in him prevailed. Lincoln makes a good lawyer's case here, if not a good legal one. I put the most relevant statement in bold type.
Looks to me Lincoln's assertion is absolutely right beyond any reasonable doubt as a precedent in any litigation before the US Supreme Court.
What next?
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
"The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of ``State rights,'' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the ``sovereignty'' of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a ``sovereignty,'' in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it ``A political community, without a political superior''? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. "

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:741?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Lincoln's message to the special session of Congress, July 4, 1861.
While Lincoln almost excepts Texas, he cannot , the lawyer in him prevailed. Lincoln makes a good lawyer's case here, if not a good legal one. I put the most relevant statement in bold type.
Lincoln specifically addressed your point about Texas.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
Looks to me Lincoln's assertion is absolutely right beyond any reasonable doubt as a precedent in any litigation before the US Supreme Court.
What next?
I agree, if one accepts the "facts" as President Lincoln stated them with no other "facts" involved. Among other points, Lincoln seems not to have a definition of "sovereignty". He was summing up before a jury, with no case actually before it. It worked because he was largely preaching to the choir. As to "what next?", I think it is obvious that the issues in this thread boil down to opinions and, Lincoln very successfully and lawyerly impressed his opinions on those he needed to impress to prosecute a war.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I agree, if one accepts the "facts" as President Lincoln stated them with no other "facts" involved. Among other points, Lincoln seems not to have a definition of "sovereignty". He was summing up before a jury, with no case actually before it. It worked because he was largely preaching to the choir. As to "what next?", I think it is obvious that the issues in this thread boil down to opinions and, Lincoln very successfully and lawyerly impressed his opinions on those he needed to impress to prosecute a war.
Except for Lincoln's becoming law and policy.

The first question is what is your definition of sovereignty because all discussion with you will hinge on that.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
Except for Lincoln's becoming law and policy.

The first question is what is your definition of sovereignty because all discussion with you will hinge on that


Lincoln rhetorically inquired what the definition of sovereignty might be.The Cambridge Dictionary offers: the power of a country to control its own government ...I would accept that.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Except for Lincoln's becoming law and policy.

The first question is what is your definition of sovereignty because all discussion with you will hinge on that


Lincoln rhetorically inquired what the definition of sovereignty might be.The Cambridge Dictionary offers: the power of a country to control its own government ...I would accept that.
Fully Sovereign then is a fully independent entity with no treaties, because of the fact that treaties diminish the ability to control its own government. Did any of the original 13 have full independent sovereignty?
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
218
Fully Sovereign then is a fully independent entity with no treaties, because of the fact that treaties diminish the ability to control its own government. Did any of the original 13 have full independent sovereignty?
This sort of question makes US history so vexing:
Leaving Hastings and his company among the Cherokee, Moore returned to Charles Town in the spring of 1716 and later continued on to North Carolina. The end of the Yamassee War soon followed, though occasional raids took place for some time. The Yamassee were already in Florida and the easternmost Creek moved farther west away from the white settlements. A treaty with them was completed the following year. The Catawba and lesser Siouan tribes followed the example of the Cherokee and made peace. Only the Cheraw remained hostile and they became a problem of North Carolina.

p43 While the potential danger to North Carolina had been great, the Yamassee War had little direct effect in that area. At the outbreak, a patrol was established between the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers. In addition, efforts were made to prevent inhabitants from fleeting the colony and weakening it as had been done in the Tuscarora War. In June, 1715, "strange" Indians were reported on the upper Neuse, occupying the fortifications abandoned by the enemy Tuscarora after their defeat. Unwisely, the colonists had not destroyed the structures. These Indians were probably the Cheraw and their allies who fled northward after their defeat on the Santee River. A military company of colonists and friendly Indians was sent out to investigate, but the danger was not ended. Raids were made against the local natives and a number of Cape Fear Indians were killed before they joined in the war against the whites. A wave of fear swept over the settlers that they too would be attacked. A small white settlement on the Cape Fear River was destroyed. The destruction might have been done by the same Cape Fear and Waccamaw warriors who planned to ambush Maurice Moore and his company. In either case, another attempt of the whites to occupy the Cape Fear country was ended by Indian violence. In the autumn of 1715, the Coree, and probably the Matchapunga also, took up arms but were again at peace by the following spring. The principal threat to the colony continued to be the Cheraw.

Soon after their defeat at the Santee River, the Cheraw sought to make peace with the South Carolina government through Governor Spotswood of Virginia. Because South Carolina officials resented Spotswood's interference, the peace offer was refused. Soon afterwards, the Cheraw escaped p44 a possible crushing defeat when, as we have seen, Craven's expedition against them was abandoned.

Spotswood's interest in the Cheraw and in their trade continued, and in August, 1716, he requested the North Carolina government to allow them to settle, along with two other small bodies of Indians, at Eno Town, on the upper Neuse River. There were about 500 of the Indians. Because of the nearness to the white settlements and because of their hostile nature, the request was refused. North Carolina, instead, declared war on the Cheraw. Part, or all, of that tribe were already on the North Carolina frontier and a military unit of whites and friendly Indians was sent out to attack them. The Cheraw were found to be well armed, and it was suspected that they were receiving the guns and ammunition from Virginia traders. The Virginia government was asked to end such trade until the tribe had made peace with both North and South Carolina. An appeal was also made to Virginia for aid in the Cheraw War, but the appeal was denied.

In the spring of 1717, the Cheraw once more requested peace with South Carolina, but their peace offering was considered insufficient and was refused. As a result, they continued on the upper Neuse. Living in constant fear of attack by these Indians, the Tuscarora asked that they be moved from their land on the Pamlico to a more secure reservation on the Roanoke River. The request was made to the North Carolina government and was granted.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer..._States/North_Carolina/_Texts/LEEIWNC/6*.html

Prior to some point after the Colonies were made Crown Colonies, these provinces were remarkably self governing. A body of thought has it that the Revolution was no more than an attempt to restore that self governance. The question asked is very vexing as the only answers will be opinion. There is a great deal of material to be considered.
In 1778 George Rogers Clark led an expedition on the lands west and north of Virginia. He militarily secured a huge territory that later became the U S Northwest Territories. But he did so on behave of Virginia, under Gov. Patrick Henry's orders. Opinions vary on this, but at the time, Virginia accepted that this territory was part of Virginia, and George Washington seemed to have no problem with that.
There is nothing easy here.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
This sort of question makes US history so vexing:
Leaving Hastings and his company among the Cherokee, Moore returned to Charles Town in the spring of 1716 and later continued on to North Carolina. The end of the Yamassee War soon followed, though occasional raids took place for some time. The Yamassee were already in Florida and the easternmost Creek moved farther west away from the white settlements. A treaty with them was completed the following year. The Catawba and lesser Siouan tribes followed the example of the Cherokee and made peace. Only the Cheraw remained hostile and they became a problem of North Carolina.

p43 While the potential danger to North Carolina had been great, the Yamassee War had little direct effect in that area. At the outbreak, a patrol was established between the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers. In addition, efforts were made to prevent inhabitants from fleeting the colony and weakening it as had been done in the Tuscarora War. In June, 1715, "strange" Indians were reported on the upper Neuse, occupying the fortifications abandoned by the enemy Tuscarora after their defeat. Unwisely, the colonists had not destroyed the structures. These Indians were probably the Cheraw and their allies who fled northward after their defeat on the Santee River. A military company of colonists and friendly Indians was sent out to investigate, but the danger was not ended. Raids were made against the local natives and a number of Cape Fear Indians were killed before they joined in the war against the whites. A wave of fear swept over the settlers that they too would be attacked. A small white settlement on the Cape Fear River was destroyed. The destruction might have been done by the same Cape Fear and Waccamaw warriors who planned to ambush Maurice Moore and his company. In either case, another attempt of the whites to occupy the Cape Fear country was ended by Indian violence. In the autumn of 1715, the Coree, and probably the Matchapunga also, took up arms but were again at peace by the following spring. The principal threat to the colony continued to be the Cheraw.

Soon after their defeat at the Santee River, the Cheraw sought to make peace with the South Carolina government through Governor Spotswood of Virginia. Because South Carolina officials resented Spotswood's interference, the peace offer was refused. Soon afterwards, the Cheraw escaped p44 a possible crushing defeat when, as we have seen, Craven's expedition against them was abandoned.

Spotswood's interest in the Cheraw and in their trade continued, and in August, 1716, he requested the North Carolina government to allow them to settle, along with two other small bodies of Indians, at Eno Town, on the upper Neuse River. There were about 500 of the Indians. Because of the nearness to the white settlements and because of their hostile nature, the request was refused. North Carolina, instead, declared war on the Cheraw. Part, or all, of that tribe were already on the North Carolina frontier and a military unit of whites and friendly Indians was sent out to attack them. The Cheraw were found to be well armed, and it was suspected that they were receiving the guns and ammunition from Virginia traders. The Virginia government was asked to end such trade until the tribe had made peace with both North and South Carolina. An appeal was also made to Virginia for aid in the Cheraw War, but the appeal was denied.

In the spring of 1717, the Cheraw once more requested peace with South Carolina, but their peace offering was considered insufficient and was refused. As a result, they continued on the upper Neuse. Living in constant fear of attack by these Indians, the Tuscarora asked that they be moved from their land on the Pamlico to a more secure reservation on the Roanoke River. The request was made to the North Carolina government and was granted.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer..._States/North_Carolina/_Texts/LEEIWNC/6*.html

Prior to some point after the Colonies were made Crown Colonies, these provinces were remarkably self governing. A body of thought has it that the Revolution was no more than an attempt to restore that self governance. The question asked is very vexing as the only answers will be opinion. There is a great deal of material to be considered.
In 1778 George Rogers Clark led an expedition on the lands west and north of Virginia. He militarily secured a huge territory that later became the U S Northwest Territories. But he did so on behave of Virginia, under Gov. Patrick Henry's orders. Opinions vary on this, but at the time, Virginia accepted that this territory was part of Virginia, and George Washington seemed to have no problem with that.
There is nothing easy here.
Interesting quote from Indian Wars in North Carolina, 1663-1763
Please limit your qoutes of copyrighted material to about 3 paragraphs. Thanks
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top