What did Arizonans experience while a territory which thus influenced or shaped certain provisions in the prop
83501
still no answers? not an advert, just trying to share info.\ngovernment explained simply,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=98\nmoney,\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\neducation,\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/taylor_stream.html\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/gatto_stream.html\nww1 wilson,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\n\nhttp://www.philipdru.com\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com\nhttp://thestressblog.com\nhttp://www.antiwar.com\nhttp://www.kaos959.com
100731
The Mexican Cession is a historical name for the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican-American War. The cession of this territory from Mexico was a condition for the end of the war. For the 38 years between 1810, when Mexico declared its independence from Spain, and 1848, the region had formed approximately one-third of the territory of Mexico; prior to that, it had been a part – albeit a remote one, largely without European settlement – of the Spanish colony of New Spain for some three centuries.\n\nIt includes all of the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as the portions of:\n\nArizona excluding the region later annexed in the Gadsden Purchase \nColorado west of the boundary of the former Republic of Texas \nNew Mexico west of the Rio Grande and excluding the Gadsden Purchase \nWyoming west of the former Republic of Texas boundary and south of the 42nd parallel. \nThe treaty also specified the U.S.-Mexican border as being at the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte). Previously the portion of Texas between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande had remained disputed throughout the existence of the Republic of Texas. The United States had already claimed the area as part of the Texas Annexation in 1845.
923759
I'll give you enough info to get started.\n\nThe Supremacy Clause is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."\n\nThis effectively prevents state and local governments from exercising powers that are specifically reserved to the federal government, and restrictions conferred by the Constitution upon the States are enforcable, even if it would contradict state/local law.\n\nThis clause, combined with the rest of the constitution, and amendments, places limits on state and local governments, such as the 14th Amendment, Section 1:\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
718937
While the immediate effect of the Missouri Compromise was to continue to equality between slave and free states in the Senate (Missouri and Maine), it reserved a vast majority of the area of the Louisiana Purchase into territories where slavery would be barred by federal law, and set the precedent of the northern access of slavery being on a designated parallel. This would have tremendous consequences because of the growing paranoia of slave-holding gentry in the South.\n\nWhen the slave-holding power in the South realized the actual consequences of the agreement, there would be a growing movement to not only marginalize federal power but to then force the acceptance of slavery as an institution into the psyche of people in the North. This would be seen in the Kansas - Nebraska act, in the Fugitive Slave Law, in the Compromise of 1850, etc. Slavery would go from the "Peculiar Institution," (an odd lifestyle but far away and not our business) to a forced acceptance (people in free states are forced through their taxes and law enforcement to help maintain slavery).\n\nThe people in the North had been led to believe that the problem was solved by the Southern acceptance of the Missouri Compromise, then they found they had been lied to and the problem began to get worse.
468002
It applies to the Northwest Territory (now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota).  It basically broke the territory up into 6mi by 6mi sections (36 square miles).  The government would sell no less than 1 square mile (640 acres) at no less than $1 per acre.\n  It made the Northwest Territory one political unit ruled by a governor and judges appointed by Congress.  When 5,000 male adults lived in the territory, it could organize a bicameral legislature and send a delegate to Congress, who could speak but not vote in Congress.  A state required 60,000 people.  \n  It forbade slavery and ensured public education support and freedom or religion.  The new states would be considered equal to the first 13.\n\nHope that helps ;)
1185261
The Russians had Alaska by right of conquest, in effect.  They sold it (Seward's Folly) to the U.S., and no one else having a claim, the sale was valid.  The same argument can be raised on virtually any piece of land which has ever been conquered.
319311
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/info/brochures/landlord.htm\n\ntry that i think that you will find it helpful
431629
Manifest Destiny was the term given to the belief that America was destined to settle and populate the US to the west coast, and that any action to that led to that outcome was justified by the fact that it was destined.\n\nFor example, it was used to justify the Mexican-American war, as well as to displace Indians from their land. A classic example would be the "Utes Must Go" campaign in Colorado. The Utes were given undesirable land in Colorado and Utah - as soon as gold and other useful minerals were found, the Governor and newspapers in the state immediately began agitating to kick the Utes off the land - that they literally had just agreed was theirs.\n\nFrom Wikipedia:\n"A series of treaties established a small reservation in 1864 in NE Utah, and a reservation in 1868 which included the western third of modern Colorado, and included land actually claimed by other tribes, and then whittled that land away until only the modern reservations are left: a large cession of land in 1873 transferred the gold-rich San Juan area, and was followed in 1879 by the loss of most of the remaining land."\n\nAn excellent source would be "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown.
326885
The Wikipedia entry gives a good little background summary, something like this: \n\nIn late 1828, the state of Georgia was afraid the federal government would not be able to follow through on their promise to remove the Cherokee Nation from Georgia. So the state started taking steps to strip the Cherokee Nation of their rights, in the hopes of forcing them out. In the usual manner of things (lawsuits, lobbying, etc.), the case wound up in the Supreme Court.\n\nA Cherokee delegation selected William Wirt as their defense, and asked for -- and here I'm going to quote Wiki directly as it's hard to paraphrase ...\n\n"an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislature had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society". Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law..." and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee territory on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.\n\nThe injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a domestic dependent nation, over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdication in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee."\n\nThe other site I've linked to looks like the official ruling on the case. (With all its lovely legalese)
498646
nobody was exactly a founder of the state America annexed the land and it was a territory like oregon and than became state u had to fill a certain quota to become state
657367
Dependent areas of the USA = American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island \nnote: from 18 July 1947 until 1 October 1994, the US administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; it entered into a political relationship with all four political units: the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth in political union with the US (effective 3 November 1986); the Republic of the Marshall Islands signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 21 October 1986); the Federated States of Micronesia signed a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 3 November 1986); Palau concluded a Compact of Free Association with the US (effective 1 October 1994)
551127
The Louisiana Purchase brought in many states north and west of Louisiana. MN, IA, MO, AK, LS, ND, SD, NB, OK, MT, WY, CO +/-.  The Gadson Purchase bought parts of New Mexico and Arizona.  Alaska was purchased.
439546
I found this on the Arizona state incorporation webpage:
233516
It was ceded to the US in 1819 (Adams-Onis Treaty).  The Spanish turned it over after the US renounced all its claims to Texas.
309143
A large number live at or below the poverty level.\n\nSome prefer to live the traditional lifestyle.\n\nMost are kept poor by tribal law.\n\nTribal law is guranteed by a TREATY with the US.  The "Indian Nations" are separate "NATIONS"  and our Treaty with them has more authority than the Constitution.\n\nAs a result, there is NO Constitutional law on the Reservation.\n\nIn most cases, the Chief or Council control all of the tribes assets, essentially making them dictatorships.\n\nLike all dictatorships, a large number of people are not on the inside and, as a result, live in poverty.
1000440
All Native american tribes had borders before the colonization by the puritans.\n      We had no fences but we all knew where our boundaries were, and if you chose to tresspass upon another tribes territory,you did so at your own peril.  The consequences for trespassing were usually forfeiture of your life.  Just thought you would all like to know...and they called US savages!
635486
In a nutshell:  While the United States was fulfilling their belief in Manifest Destiny and expanding westward, arguments arose over whether slavery should be allowed or banned in new territories.  Southern states felt that it was a question of popular sovereignty -- literally that the people should decide.  When the decision was settled by compromises reached in Congress, tempers began to really flare.  Eventually, the southern states chose to secede, citing states' rights issues.