DOCSLIB.ORG

Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination, and the US Statehood Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination, and the US Statehood Process Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 13 | Issue 2 1981 Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination, and the U.S. Statehood Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis Luis R. Davila-Colon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Luis R. Davila-Colon, Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination, and the U.S. Statehood Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 13 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 315 (1981) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol13/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Equal Citizenship, Self-Determination, and the U.S. Statehood Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis* by Luis R. Ddvila-Col6nt I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATION T HROUGHOUT THE LAST two centuries, five provisions have been incorporated into the United States Constitution which are funda- mental to the process of admitting new States into the American federation. As a summary, the first of these provisions empowers Congress to admit new members into the Union;1 the second permits it to regulate, administer and dispose of the national territory;2 the third compels that body to insure a republican form of government for the citizens of each state in the Nation;s and the fourth is a broad delineation of American Federalism and the limits of federal authority vis-a-vis the State's indi- vidual sovereignty;" and the fifth provides the basis for a right to state- hood founded on the principles of equal citizenship and equal protection under the laws.8 It is within this constitutional framework that an at- tempt will be made to review the legal parameters of the American state- hood process and the historical guidelines traditionally followed by Con- gress when admitting a territory into the Union. II. THE POWER TO ADMIT NEW STATES INTO THE UNION The earliest provision pertaining to the admission of new States into the Union dates back to 1777 with the enactment of Article XI of the * An abridged version of G.T.P., Inc., Breakthrough from Colonialism: An Inter- disciplinary History of American Statehood (to be published by the Univ. of Puerto Rico Press in 1982). t Law Offices of Gerardo A. Carlo, Old San Juan, Puerto Rico. B.A., Marquette Univer- sity (1974); J.D., University of Puerto Rico (1977). Member of the Inter-American Bar Association. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 3 U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4. 4 U.S. CONST. amend. X. 5 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. Vol. 13:315 Articles of Confederation.6 This article provided for the admission of other colonies if nine States supported the proposal.' However, the even- tual establishment of new States (other than the British colonies) within the limits of the Confederation seems to have been overlooked by the framers of that instrument.8 The Articles do not contain a clause author- izing the Continental Congress or any other body to admit new States or to govern territories. As a matter of fact, these omissions were regarded as serious defects by Madison, who felt that the Northwest Ordinances were illegal enactments by a Congress whose acts had extended far beyond its constitutional authority. Certainly, the decade of the 1780's evidenced the urgent need for an express constitutional mandate that would have vested Congress with am- ple authority to administer the new western territory and to accept new members into the sisterhood of States. The congressional Resolution of 1780,10 which reflected a compromise between the small landless states and those having claims over large portions of western territories, virtu- ally assured the inclusion of territorial and admission clauses as future amendments to the Articles, or subsequent Constitution: Some of the States most interested in the vacant and unpatented west- ern territory at length yielded to the earnest solicitations of Congress on this subject. To induce them to make liberal cessions, Congress declared that the ceded territory should be disposed of for the common benefit of the Union, and formed into republican States, with the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other States; to be of a suitable extent of territory, not less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square ... 11 Although no express authority can be found, the power to admit new States into the Confederation was consistently reaffirmed by the Conti- nental Congress through the passage of the Northwest Ordinances in 1784, 1785 and 1787.' s These enactments have provided for the admission of those States which were carved out of the ceded northwest lands on "an equal footing with the original States."' 8 For this reason the framers of the Constitution in 1787 immediately proceeded to legitimize this * Articles of Confederation, art. XI, reprinted in 1 Stat. 8 (1845). 7 Id. 8 THE FEDERALiST Nos. 38, 42, 43 (J. Madison). 9 Id. 10 See Resolve of Oct. 10, 1780, 3 JOURNALS OF THE AMERICAN CONGRESS 535 (Washing- ton, 1823). 1 2 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, 195-96 (1891). " See 1 DOCUMENTS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, 121, 123, 128. (H. Commager ed. 1966) re- printing the Ordinances. Is Northwest Ordinance of 1787, reprinted in 1 Stat. 50, 51 n.(a) (1789). 1981 EQUAL CITIZENSHIP extra-legal state of affairs by unequivocally affirming that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union'.. ,,.14 Undoubtedly, Congress has the primary power to admit territories into the Union. The language of the State's admission clause is clear as to the breadth of discretion granted to Congress to accept new members into the Federation. The discretion to admit also encompasses the Congres- sional prerogative to delay admission for as long as deemed necessary, as well as the corollary power to reject or deny admission based on estab- lished constitutional limitations. Thus, the Federal Constitution vests in Congress the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as long as such means are framed within its vested powers. Throughout the last two centuries Congress has positively exercised this power with 37 political entities beginning in 1791 with the admission of Vermont 5 and up until recently with the admission of Hawaii in 1959.6 Conversely, Congress has also used its power in delaying, for various reasons, the admission of most States into the Union. However, we should point out that neither house of Congress has ever voted to reject or deny admission to the Union by any State which had petitioned it. If Congress had issued blanket denial, it would have been invalid because no Congress can bind a succeeding or future Congress. In 1850, congressional action approached such a denial when New Mexico's Tennessee Plan petition for admission was side- tracked with the passage of an unwarranted organic act.1" This procedural maneuver may be viewed as a factor contributing to the ensuing 62 years of colonialism which undermined the efforts of the people in that region.' Despite the perceived tone of rejection in this one instance, Congress has never actually denied admission to the Union to any entity that has re- quested entrance.' The early drafts of the clause pertaining to admission, which were submitted to the Constitutional Convention, varied in some respects from the present clause. This disparity is especially noticeable in the section 14 U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1. 1 Act of Feb. 18, 1791, ch. VII, 1 Stat. 191. '6 Act of Mar. 18, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4. ,7 Act of Sept. 9, 1850, ch. XLIX, 9 Stat. 446. '8 New Mexico's petiton ran on the coattails of California's swift and unprecedented admission, but still it reached Congress right after the Compromise Measures of 1850 had been signed. New Mexico, which had drawn a "State" constitution forbidding slavery, fell victim to the rancor coming from the slave States, which bitterly and successfully opposed its admission. See G. LEHLEITNER, THE TENNESSEE PLAN: How THE BOLD BECAME STATES, 11-12 (1956). 19 However, it should be noted that the petitions of some territories (e.g., Hawaii) were repeatedly tabled or ignored by one or both Houses of Congress (by the Senate in the case of Hawaii in 1947, 1950, and 1953) before finally attaining assent. CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. Vol. 13:315 which initially required the consent of two-thirds of the members present in each House for the admission of any new State. As we have seen, this two-thirds voting requirement was discarded by the delegates to the con- vention in favor of the present text which grants Congress almost unlim- ited discretion as to the terms upon which it may admit States.2 0 Thus, since 1789, formal admission has required only the passage of enabling or admission legislation by a simple majority of the members present and voting in both Houses of Congress as well as the approval of the Execu- tive, as is required by any other congressional enactment.2 1 III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION Although the power to admit new states into the Union has been ex- pressly delegated to Congress, it is also true that the concomitant power to erect and create new states has been expressly reserved to the people by the language of the Tenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Knoll, J. Not on Panel. Rule IV, Part 2, Section 3. Editor's Note: Revised
    Editor’s note: Revised Opinion 7/26/00; Original Opinion Released July 6, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-KA-0606 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MITCHELL SMITH On Appeal from the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Honorable Patrick G. Quinlan, Judge c/w No. 99-KA-2015 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LISA M. GARRETT On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Honorable Frank A. Marullo, Jr. Judge c/w NO. 99-KA-2019 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MELANIE VARNADO On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Honorable Arthur L. Hunter, Judge NO. 99-KA-2094 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KELLY A. BARON On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Honorable Calvin Johnson, Judge TRAYLOR, Justice* FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 24, 1995, the alleged victim and Mitchell Smith began talking while consuming *Knoll, J. not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, Section 3. alcohol at Brewski’s Lounge in Chalmette. After at least one cocktail together, Mr. Smith asked her to accompany him to another bar, and the two left and went to Gabby’s, a bar in New Orleans East. While at Gabby’s, the alleged victim felt sick, apparently from consuming alcohol while taking epilepsy medicine. Although she testified that she told Mr. Smith she wanted to go home, Mr. Smith convinced her to go to a motel with him to “rest.” She claimed she hesitantly agreed after insisting that nothing was going to happen between them. Mr. Smith testified that he asked her to “fool around” and she agreed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate Over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, 33 Santa Clara L
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 33 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-1993 Restoring the Grand Security: The eD bate over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792 John P. Kaminski Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John P. Kaminski, Restoring the Grand Security: The Debate over a Federal Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, 33 Santa Clara L. Rev. 887 (1993). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESTORING THE GRAND SECURITY: THE DEBATE OVER A FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS, 1787-1792 John P. Kaminski From 1763 until 1791, Americans debated the nature of govern- ment and how best to preserve liberty.' Halfway through this de- bate, most Americans decided that their liberties could best be pre- served outside of the British Empire.2 In rebelling against the British government, Americans did not turn their backs on government in general. On the contrary, they fervently believed that government was essential in protecting the rights of individuals. This captivation with government found its way into the fundamental documents of the new states.3 The propriety, and indeed, necessity, of a bill of rights protect- ing individual freedoms and liberties was a much less clear-cut issue during this time.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. House of Representatives Hearing Regarding the Admission
    TABLE OF CONTENTS House of Representatives Uashington, D. C. Subcommittee on Territorial February 23, 1960 and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. PAGE Statement of Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii............. ... ............ ....... ...... 4 Statement of J. Monroe Sullivan, Vice President, Pacific American Steamship Association. ......... 10 Statement of Honorable Hiram L. Fong, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii ....... 17 Statement of Honorable Oren L. Long, a United States Senator from the State of Hawaii.......... 19 Statement of Wilbur K. Watkins, Jr., a Deputy Attorney General of the State of Hawaii ........ 22 Statement of Harold Seidman, Assistant Chief, Office of Management and Organization, Bureau of the Budget (Accompanied by HoWard Schnoor, Management Analyst, Bureau of the Budget, and Mrs. Ruth Van Cleve, Act'ng Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Interior..................... 25 Statement of John F. Donelan, Kahulul Railroad Company, Maui, Hawaii. .............. ......... 67 ,....2~ C i. .E~*L'. ' C" 'i TI'Cyll.-(~ * - . * J~h~i ~rr?~ '---- ~7ur~w--' ley- 1 ttle H. R. 10434, H. R. 10443, E. R. 10456, H. R. 10463, and H. R. 10475 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1960 House of Represontatives, Subcommittee on Terri.orial and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Xnterior and :'Pular Affairs, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:48 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Honorable Leo W. O'Brien, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. O'Brien, The Subcommittee on Territorial and In- sular Affairs will be in order for hearing on the several bills to amend certain laws of the United States providing for admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union and for other purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Admission of Nebraska Into the Union
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society Nebraska State Historical Society 1885 Admission of Nebraska into the Union Charles Gere Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebhisttrans Part of the History Commons Gere, Charles, "Admission of Nebraska into the Union" (1885). Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society. 26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebhisttrans/26 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska State Historical Society at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions and Reports, Nebraska State Historical Society by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 162 NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA INTO THE UNION. ADDRESS OF HON. CHARLES H. GERE, January, 1880. To discuss the events of'1866 and 1867 at this time has seemed to me presumptuous. Barely a dozen years have elapsed since Nebraska turned the sharp corner from territorial dependency to state sov­ ereignty, apd, as in all sharp historical turns, there was a blaze of ex­ citement, a bitter political contest, accompanied by more than the usual amount of bumptiousness and belligerency, of heart-burnings and jealousy, over which fourteen years may have deposited a thin layer of forgetfulness, through which a foolhardy explorer might break, to the discomfiture of himself and the revival of volcanic mem­ ories. But, pressed by your esteemed President for a paper upon the admission of Nebraska to the Union, and unable, from present expe­ rience and observation, to go back farther than that period, I have .consented to take up this subject, and trust that I may handle it with sufficient discretion to obtain your pardon for.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution: Historical and Contemporary Issues Robert P
    No. 871 Delivered February 17, 2005 April 11, 2005 Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution: Historical and Contemporary Issues Robert P. George Judicial power can be used, and has been used, for both good and ill. However, in a basically just demo- Talking Points cratic republic, judicial power should never be exer- • Decisions in which the courts usurp the cised lawlessly—even for desirable ends. Judges are authority of the people are not merely incor- not legislators. The legitimacy of their decisions, par- rect; they are themselves unconstitutional. ticularly those decisions that displace legislative judg- ments, depends entirely on the truth of the judicial • Until now, a social consensus regarding the basic definition of marriage meant that claim that the court was authorized by law to settle we did not need to resolve the question at the matter. When this claim is false, a judicial edict is the federal level. not redeemed by its good consequences, for any such edict constitutes a usurpation of the just authority of • The judicial redefinition of marriage is a crime with two victims. The first and obvi- the people to govern themselves through the consti- ous victim is the institution of marriage tutional procedures of deliberative democracy. Deci- itself, and the second is the system of delib- sions in which the courts usurp the authority of the erative democracy. However, there will people are not merely incorrect; they are themselves likely be a third victim—namely, federalism. unconstitutional. And they are unjust. • If we do not have a federal marriage The First Test amendment, then marriage will erode quickly by judicial imposition or by the There were, and are, scholars and statesmen who gradual integration into the formal and believe that courts should not be granted the power informal institutions of society of same-sex to invalidate legislation in the name of the Constitu- couples.
    [Show full text]
  • Llttroduction the Section of Louisiana
    area between the two northe111 boundaries \llhich the English had established was in dispute between the new United States and Spain, who again owned the rest of llTTRODUCTION Flo~ida - both East and West - as a result of the lat­ est Treaty of Paris. This dispute continued until 1798, when the United States waS finally put in The section of Louisiana known today as the pos~ession of the area to the thirty-first parallel "Florida Parishes" -- consisting of the eight (the lower boundary line), which waS re-established parishes of East and West Feliciana, East Baton Rouge, as the northern boundar,y of West Florida. st. Helena, Livingston, Tangipahoa, Washington, and When the United States purchased from France in St. Tammany -- was included in the area known as the 1803 the real estate west of the Mississippi River province of I1Louisiana" claimed by France until 1763· kno"m as the "Louisiana Purchase," the United States Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris which in that mad~ feeble claims on the area of West Florida re­ year ended the Seven Years War, or the French and maining to Spain. Indian Wax, this territory became English along with Meantime, several abortive attempts at all the territory east of the Mississippi River ex­ reb~llion against Spain were made within the area. cept the Isle of Orleans*. Even the Spanish province On 23 September 1810 a successful armed revolt of "Florida" (approximately the present state of OCC1.trred, and for a short time the "Republic of Florida) became English at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. House Report 32 for H.R. 4221
    2d Session No. 1564 AMENDING CERTAIN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION OF TIlE STATE OF HAWAII INTO THE UNION MAY 2, 1960.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. O'BRIEN of New York, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 116021 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H.R. 11602) to amend certain laws of the United States in light of the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. INTRODUCTION IT.R. 11602 was introduced by Representative Inouye after hearings on five predecessor bills (H.R. 10434 by Representative. Aspinall, H.R. 10443 by Congressman Inouye, H.R. 10456 by Representative O'Brien of New York, H.R. 10463 by Representative Saylor, and H.R. 10475 by Representative Westland). H.R. 11602 includes the amend- ments agreed upon in committee when H.R. 10443 was marked up. All of the predecessor bills except H.R. 10443 were identical and were introduced as a result of an executive communication from the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget dated February 12, 1960, en- closing a draft of a bill which he recommended be enacted. This draft bill had been prepared after consultation with all agencies of t.th executive branch administering Federal statutes which were, or might be thought to have been, affected by the admission of Iawaii into the Union on August 24, 1959.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 19-5807 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THEDRICK EDWARDS, Petitioner, versus DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF LOUISIANA PROFESSORS OF LAW AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HERBERT V. L ARSON, JR. Senior Professor of Practice TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 6329 Freret Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 (504) 865-5839 [email protected] Louisiana Bar No. 8052 Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................... 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN LOUISIANA – 1804-1861 .......................... 4 II. THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN LOUISIANA – 1868-1880 .......................... 12 III. THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN
    [Show full text]
  • Determining the Constitutionality of Public Aid to Parochial Schools After Espinoza
    Sigma: Journal of Political and International Studies Volume 38 Article 9 5-2021 Determining the Constitutionality of Public Aid to Parochial Schools after Espinoza Anna Bryner Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sigma Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Bryner, Anna (2021) "Determining the Constitutionality of Public Aid to Parochial Schools after Espinoza," Sigma: Journal of Political and International Studies: Vol. 38 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sigma/vol38/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sigma: Journal of Political and International Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Determining the Constitutionality of Public Aid to Parochial Schools after Espinoza Anna Bryner March 5, 2021 Sigma The Supreme Court provided a new consideration to the longstanding debate about public aid to parochial schools in its June 2020 decision of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. In Espinoza, the Supreme Court injected demands of the Free Exercise Clause into a debate historically governed by Establishment Clause concerns. The Court did this by relying on precedent in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017), which says that the Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that impose religious status discrimination unless those laws pass strict scrutiny. Applying this precedent to Espinoza, the Court held that the application of Montana’s constitutional provision preventing public aid from arriving at parochial schools was a form of religious status discrimination that did not pass strict scrutiny; therefore, it was unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Us States Admission Order
    Us States Admission Order Is Kellen muciferous or undefeated after notochordal Olaf te-heed so anyplace? Hollow-eyed and preachier Jeth never rack-rent his brills! Coccal and pointless Garwood still con his summariness covertly. West virginia bar admission order set forth in both new community founded for our classroom resources for admission listed in the office of puerto rico DC statehood The US almost tore itself through to crank to 50 Vox. United states use this period for us about whether congress. Nationals visiting the US They brought your admission to the United States even if eligible your travel documents including your visa are custom order. Often omit the Enabling Act Congress specified a fit of conditions that the proposed state had ever meet in bed for admission to occur. Gold in order will remain a virtual or used. Most feared as you can count on. Some error or used ceremonial pipes that each applicant has been procedurally legal employment references by which maine were admitted state after him or illegal use. Bar admissions instructions before its composition was admitted. Women and children were also employed in the mines. Share its admissions administrator under us make written motion, but there were used on a call for hospital. The treatment and football in secessionist counties did you are competent legal. List of US states by woman of statehood. Equal Footing cases postdate Reconstruction. There were no large abolitionist groups in West Virginia, as there were in Delaware and Maryland. Choose a date and chemistry to set myself a create or telephone appointment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Medley of Cultures: Louisiana History at the Cabildo
    A Medley of Cultures: Louisiana History at the Cabildo Chapter 1 Introduction This book is the result of research conducted for an exhibition on Louisiana history prepared by the Louisiana State Museum and presented within the walls of the historic Spanish Cabildo, constructed in the 1790s. All the words written for the exhibition script would not fit on those walls, however, so these pages augment that text. The exhibition presents a chronological and thematic view of Louisiana history from early contact between American Indians and Europeans through the era of Reconstruction. One of the main themes is the long history of ethnic and racial diversity that shaped Louisiana. Thus, the exhibition—and this book—are heavily social and economic, rather than political, in their subject matter. They incorporate the findings of the "new" social history to examine the everyday lives of "common folk" rather than concentrate solely upon the historical markers of "great white men." In this work I chose a topical, rather than a chronological, approach to Louisiana's history. Each chapter focuses on a particular subject such as recreation and leisure, disease and death, ethnicity and race, or education. In addition, individual chapters look at three major events in Louisiana history: the Battle of New Orleans, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Organization by topic allows the reader to peruse the entire work or look in depth only at subjects of special interest. For readers interested in learning even more about a particular topic, a list of additional readings follows each chapter. Before we journey into the social and economic past of Louisiana, let us look briefly at the state's political history.
    [Show full text]
  • William CC Claiborne and the Creation Of
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses 5-15-2009 "An Ardent Military Spirit": William C. C. Claiborne and the Creation of the Orleans Territorial Militia, 1803-1805 Joseph F. Stolz III University of New Orleans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Recommended Citation Stolz, Joseph F. III, ""An Ardent Military Spirit": William C. C. Claiborne and the Creation of the Orleans Territorial Militia, 1803-1805" (2009). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 944. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/944 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “An Ardent Military Spirit”: William C. C. Claiborne and the Creation of the Orleans Territorial Militia, 1803-1805 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in History Public History Concentration (Military History) By Joseph Stoltz III B.A., The University of New Orleans, 2007 May, 2009 Dedication To my father, Joe Stoltz Jr., 1951-2005 You would have gotten a kick out of this… ii Acknowledgements Many people played a hand in the completion of this work, and my education.
    [Show full text]