Saintonge235 (talk | contribs) →east of the Rio Grande?: Added some Texas and Mexican history. |
Saintonge235 (talk | contribs) →Second Image: new section |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
Is there a good reason for the crop on the lead image? ([[:File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg|orig]] vs. [[:File:Henry Clay Senate3 crop.jpg|crop]]) The work really should be presented in its entirety, especially since we aren't simply illustrating Henry Clay here. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
Is there a good reason for the crop on the lead image? ([[:File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg|orig]] vs. [[:File:Henry Clay Senate3 crop.jpg|crop]]) The work really should be presented in its entirety, especially since we aren't simply illustrating Henry Clay here. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Reverted back to full version. Discuss here if anyone disagrees. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
:Reverted back to full version. Discuss here if anyone disagrees. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Second Image == |
|||
The second image, the map showing the Missouri Compromise line, is highly misleading. It shows Nevada and Oregon as states, Kansas as a territory, and West Virginia as part of Virginia. Oregon became a state in 1859, Kansas in 1861, West Virginia in 1863, and Nevada in 1864. Oregon and Nevada were not states in 1850, and Nevada was never a state when Kansas was a territory or West Virginia was part of Virginia. |
|||
Further, the map shows the Utah Territory as not permitting slavery. This is simply wrong. Though there were never many slaves in Utah, the Territory did permit it until the Congress outlawed territorial slavery in 1862. |
|||
Another error is that the borders shown for the Kansas and Utah Territories are incorrect. This is minor (someone obviously adapted the map from a U.S. States map), but Nevada Territory was initially part of Utah Territory. We need a better image here. [[User:Saintonge235|Saintonge235]] ([[User talk:Saintonge235|talk]]) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:21, 29 January 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dudu head faqqot
|
California and the Missouri Compromise
During the Martin Billtmore of the compromise of 1850, was it ever proposed that California be cut in half, along the Missouri Compromise 36°30' line? That would have allowed another northern (free) state and another southern (slave) state to be admitted. Kingturtle 20:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that, but it is possible. Henry Clay always made compromises and some of his propositions never made it into the final "compromise." Alexandros
Yes. Senator Foote proposed cutting California along a line slightly south of 36°30' ("Foote's line" is discussed in Frehling's The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1.), and the idea of extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, and making it part of the Constitution, came up frequently in 1860-61, during the secession crisis. I've also read that some inhabitants of southern California wished to divide the state, and were working to get it accomplished. The northern portion didn't care, iirc, and were willing to go along. Saintonge235 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
There was discussion of extending the 36-30 line to the Pacific Ocean, which would have divided California in half. It is discussed in Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," and other places. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought, though. But anyway, the statement, "Known as the "Great Debate," this debate produced the three senators (Clay, Calhoun, and Webster) who are arguably our nations three greatest senators in history." They were already famous before this debate, I don't think it works to say it produced them. Juan Ponderas 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed, Clay died very shortly after this- most of his work was behind him (Treaty of Ghent, forming the Whig Party, and all of that jazz).--Deridolus 10:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Still, we have yet to answer, why wasn't California just cut into two halves? Kingturtle 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Probably due to minimum population requirements, my dear. LochNessDonkey 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact a Southern California slave state (or territory eventually becoming a slave state) was a principal Southern demand and perhaps the biggest single issue in the whole controversy over slavery in the new territories. The North refused to agree to it to restrict the growth of slave territory, not simply as a mechanical application of population requirements. --[User:JWB|JWB]] (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The South was more interested in other things, like a tougher fugitive slave law. Most of the population of California was in the northern portion of the state, and they'd applied for admission to the Union as a free state. In exchange for California coming in as a free state, the Utah Territory was allowed to be organized for slavery. Further, the South had begun to assert that Congress had no Constitutional right to prohibit slavery in the Territories; instead, only the population of a Territory could prohibit slavery, and then only when it became a state. They couldn't quite bring themselves to assert that there could be slaves in any Territory, and then ask California be divided along the Missouri Compromise line, when the California inhabitants were requesting that it be a free state. Later, they probably wished they had, but by then everyone was past compromise on the territorial slavery issue. Saintonge235 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
east of the Rio Grande?
The article states that Texas relinquished claims to lands east of the Rio Grande. Shouldn't that be west of the Rio Grande?
Another note: The article talks about what to do with various other mexican areas, and says this territory included parts of Vermont, New Jersey.....somehow I don't think that is correct.because mexico was one of the best country in the world
Obviously it is west of the Rio Grande, becuase New Mexico IS west of Texas, not east. And Mexico is not one of the best countries in the world. Besides, what does it have to do with mexico being great?
yes it would —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.218.162 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article CORRECTLY refers to lands EAST of the Rio Grande. Specifically to the teritory between the Rio Grande and the 103rd meridian, north of latitude 32 degrees. This encompasses more than half of the modern state of New Mexico, including most of Albuquerque (which straddles the Rio Grande). The 103 meridian became the western boundary of Texas, which had previously claimed ALL lands north and east of the Rio Grande, to its headwaters. Texas lost a substantial amount of claimed territory by the compromise, although at the time it was not felt by many Texans to be very valuable land that they were losing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.144.148 (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was enough of an issue to nearly start the Civil War early - see Compromise of 1850 for references on the confrontation and military threats by the State of Texas and the U.S. government. However Texas never had any control or even presence whatsoever in New Mexico; the closest they got was the failed Texas Santa Fe Expedition of 1841. The capture of Santa Fe was by the Army of the West (1846) from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas which was closer to Santa Fe and connected by the well-traveled Santa Fe Trail, unlike Texas which was widely separated from New Mexico by the hostile Comancheria that beat the Republic of Texas and was only subdued by the U.S. Army after annexation to the U.S. The claim was strictly a fantastic assertion by Texas and had no more basis in actual occupation than the claim to the Californias that the Republic of Texas Congress also asserted in a fit of pique after the failure of the Santa Fe Expedition. El Paso was the only part of New Mexico that Texas persuaded to accept Texas government in 1850, and only due to the talents of the more conciliatory Robert Neighbors who was later murdered by other Texans for being too friendly to Indians. --JWB (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
When Mexico revolted against Spain, in 1821, the rebels captured the Spanish viceroy, put a proclamation of Mexican independence in front of him, put a gun to his head, and told him he choose what would be on the document, his signature or his brains. He signed.
When Sam Houston captured Santa Anna after the Battle of San Jacinto, he put a gun to Santa Anna's head and a proclamation of Texan independence, with the Rio Grande as it's southern and western border, and gave Santa Anna the 'viceroy's choice.' Santa Anna signed.
When the U.S. annexed Texas, Mexico simultaneously refused to recognize the annexation, and objected that the southern and western border of Texas ran up the Nueces river from the Gulf, and then zig-zagged north to what is now the Texas panhandle. The disputed area, known as the Nueces strip, compromised almost all of what is now western Texas, eastern New Mexico, and part of Colorado and Wyoming. It was about half the territory Texas claimed as its own. President Polk tried to negotiate its status with Mexico, but the negotiations failed.
After the War with Mexico, the territory was definitely in the U.S. At the time, the Texas state govt. was broke. The state agreed to surrender title to the land in exchange for the Federal govt. taking over the state's debt. Saintonge235 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Changes between 2009-06-18 and 06-24
I think the massive changes in this period left a worse article, not a better one. Details about the final bills, stripped of much context and written in a voluminous and archaic style, were put up front and now make up most of the sections of the article. Discussion of the causes, context and debates has been relegated to the end of the article, out of chronological order. The changed text also uncritically endorsed the Texas claims to northwestern territories, obscuring much of what the debates were about. --JWB (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I've added and revised more since then but would like to consider taking out some more of the stilted, inflated prose, which I suspect may have been plagiarized from some old law book. --JWB (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Fourth image
It's missing a caption, and I don't know what it's about and so can't fix it, because it's missing a caption. Circular (il)logic hurts. Dude1818 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it illustrates all boundary changes of the continental US. It's relevant to various points in the article. See also Territorial evolution of the United States. --JWB (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Lead image
Is there a good reason for the crop on the lead image? (orig vs. crop) The work really should be presented in its entirety, especially since we aren't simply illustrating Henry Clay here. Jujutacular T · C 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reverted back to full version. Discuss here if anyone disagrees. Jujutacular T · C 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Second Image
The second image, the map showing the Missouri Compromise line, is highly misleading. It shows Nevada and Oregon as states, Kansas as a territory, and West Virginia as part of Virginia. Oregon became a state in 1859, Kansas in 1861, West Virginia in 1863, and Nevada in 1864. Oregon and Nevada were not states in 1850, and Nevada was never a state when Kansas was a territory or West Virginia was part of Virginia.
Further, the map shows the Utah Territory as not permitting slavery. This is simply wrong. Though there were never many slaves in Utah, the Territory did permit it until the Congress outlawed territorial slavery in 1862.
Another error is that the borders shown for the Kansas and Utah Territories are incorrect. This is minor (someone obviously adapted the map from a U.S. States map), but Nevada Territory was initially part of Utah Territory. We need a better image here. Saintonge235 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)