woodpusher quoting:
"Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
At 596:
Vermont was admitted as a free and independent state."
Only a free and independent state can be admitted as a free and independent state." That ruling is from 1933, not 1791.
There is no contemporaneous equivalent document.
And the 1933 SCOTUS claim that Vermont was "recognized" by NH, MA & NY, bears some scrutiny -- were ambassadors exchanged?
Were treaties negotiated?
Were tariffs imposed?
So what, exactly, did such "recognition" consist of?
If it was nothing more than withdrawal of their own claims to Vermont territory, that is hardly the same thing as officially recognizing Vermont as a separate country, free & independent from the United States.
woodpusher "Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3.
You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied.
It did not.
Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Vermont was explicitly found to have been admitted under clause 1."
In 1933!!
There is no contemporaneous document verifying any distinction of the sort.
See, for example here.
But I think we can cut to the chase, if we simply compare Vermont to Texas.
Texas was a recognized independent country, with all the trappings & courtesies afforded a real country by foreign powers, including the United States.
Vermont achieved no such status, it called itself a "state" or "commonwealth", its chief executive was a "governor" and it only failed admission to the United States because New York opposed it, pending settlement of boundary claims.
Once those claims were settled -- Vermont paid $30,000 to settle -- then Vermont was quickly admitted, without any navel-gazing over whether clause 1 or clause 2 applied!
So why does this even matter?
Because our Lost Causers love, love to claim examples of successful secession from the United States and Vermont seems an ideal candidate, to them.
But in fact, Vermont was never officially recognized as a country separate from the United States, and it applied & became a US state at the first possible opportunity. ![]()
woodpusher quoting: "Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933)
At 596:
Vermont was admitted as a free and independent state."
Only a free and independent state can be admitted as a free and independent state."
That ruling is from 1933, not 1791.
There is no contemporaneous equivalent document.
And the 1933 SCOTUS claim that Vermont was "recognized" by NH, MA & NY, bears some scrutiny -- were ambassadors exchanged?
Were treaties negotiated?
Were tariffs imposed?
So what, exactly, did such "recognition" consist of?
If it was nothing more than withdrawal of their own claims to Vermont territory, that is hardly the same thing as officially recognizing Vermont as a separate country, free & independent from the United States.
Your argument that the ruling is from 1933 has no legal significance or relevance whatsoever.
In 1933, in deciding a boundary dispute, it was necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the status Vermont held in 1791, at the time of entry into the Union. Being a necessity to deciding the issues of the case, it was a holding.
Your argument about there not being a contemporary equivalent document is equally without legal merit or relevance. The holding of the Court in 1933 is the binding legal pronouncement of the highest court on the status of Vermont in 1791, at the time of joining the Union, and how that came to pass from successful revolution in 1777.
The Supreme Court decided that Vermont was a free and independent state from 1777 to 1791.
The Supreme Court decided that Vermont was NOT admitted as a new state formed out of the territory of New York.
The Supreme Court decided that Vermont WAS admitted under Article IV, § 3, as an independent revolutionary state with self-constituted borders.
It is quite true that the Supreme Court holding, as well as American history, contradicts the the ridiculous statements of President Lincoln while marketing his unlawful and unconstitutional wartime acts.
President Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress.
What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county? [...]
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.
As is well known and undeniable, the Supreme Court and Ronald Reagan were correct, President Reagan famously stating:
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
It is self-evident from the Articles of Confederate and the Constitution that the states created the Union, not the other way around. It is self-evident that Virginia declared its independence from Great Britain in June 1776. The historical records of the Congress make it self-evident that for a period of time of six months to more than a year during 1789-90, North Carolina and Rhode Island were not part of the Union. It is self-evident that a state is made up of counties or parishes (Louisiana), and that a county does not contain little counties or parishes. It is self-evident that a state legislature has the power to enact statute laws, and a county legislature does not. When there is a case captioned The People vs. Orenthal .J. Simpson, it is needless to state what people. It is the people of the state of California because it cannot possibly be the people of Los Angeles county. State exericse sovereign powers, counties have no such powers to exercise.
The United States Supreme Court decided, as a matter of law, that Vermont existed as a free and independent state from 1777 to 1791. The Court appointed a Special Master to study and report on "the history of the subject from the creaton of New York and New Hampshire as adjoining Royal Provinces to the admission of Vermont into the Union as an independent State, and also the subsequent acts and claims of Vermont and New Hampshire respecting the subject down to the present time," the present time being 1933 as they spoke.
The colonies werecreated by royal grants from the king of England, e.g., the Royal Grant to the Duke of York in 1664 and 1674. When the original states declared their independence, their status changed from colonies to free states. When Vermont declared independence and waged a successful revolution, it became a free state. So sayeth the United States Supreme Court in a case directly on point.
woodpusher "Vermont was explicitly NOT admitted under Clause 2 of Article 4, Sec 3.
You keep prattling on as if Clause 2 applied.
It did not.
Vermont was admitted and a free and independent state which achieved that status by their successful revolution of 1777.
Vermont was explicitly found to have been admitted under clause 1."
In 1933!!
There is no contemporaneous document verifying any distinction of the sort.
See, for example here.
As noted above, the United States Supreme Court, in a case directly on point, held as a matter of law, that from 1777 to 1791, Vermont was a free and independent State, by virtue of successful revolution, and that in 1791 Vermont joined the Union as a free and independent state, with self-appointed borders, and not as a carve out of territory of New York.
The information at your link is nothing more than the approval of Vermont's petition to become a new and entire member of the Union. Note that it states, "The state of Vermont having petitioned the Congress...." The petition was submitted by a free and independent state. When it petitioned, and before it joined the Union, it was already a state.
But I think we can cut to the chase, if we simply compare Vermont to Texas.
Texas was a recognized independent country, with all the trappings & courtesies afforded a real country by foreign powers, including the United States.
Vermont achieved no such status, it called itself a "state" or "commonwealth", its chief executive was a "governor" and it only failed admission to the United States because New York opposed it, pending settlement of boundary claims.
Once those claims were settled -- Vermont paid $30,000 to settle -- then Vermont was quickly admitted, without any navel-gazing over whether clause 1 or clause 2 applied!
Texas cannot be compared to any other state. It was not admitted to the Union. It was annexed.
While your navel-gazing about clause one holds you in thrall, the United States Supreme Court, as a matter of law, in a case directly on point, held that Vermont was NOT admitted pursuant to Clause 1, but was admitted pursuant to Clause 2, as a free and independent state with self-appointed borders.
A commonwealth is "an independent country or community, esp. a demorcratic republic," also "a formal title of some of the states of the U.S., esp. Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia." A governor is "the elected executive head of a state of the U.S.; an official appointed to govern a town or region; the representative of the British Crown in a colony or Commonwealth state that regards the monarch as a head of state."
Whether a state chooses the title of state or commonwealth changes nothing. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is still a state. Whether an independent state chooses to call its chief executive Governor, Grand Poobah, is irrelevant. Whether a state has parishes or counties is irrelevant.
The United States Supreme Court decided the issue with a holding directly on point. That is relevant.
So why does this even matter?
Because our Lost Causers love, love to claim examples of successful secession from the United States and Vermont seems an ideal candidate, to them.
But in fact, Vermont was never officially recognized as a country separate from the United States, and it applied & became a US state at the first possible opportunity.
It matters because some Lincoln idolators cannot admit that their idol lied his ass off and frequently violated the constitution and the statute law. Even when Lincoln's proclamation flies in the face of history and the founding era documents, they will tie themselves in knots trying to defend his most patent falsehoods.
They deny Lincoln used the N-word, but there multiple examples of his usage of that term in public speeches.
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, page 495
Speech at Elwood, Kansas
December 1 [November 30?], 1859
People often ask, "why make such a fuss about a few *******?"
It matters because a false narrative of history is not history.