When Utah was admited to the Union, why was it not allowed a Secretary of State?
468845
Utah was admitted to the Union January 4, 1896. I have not heard about it not being allowed a Secretary of State.
109979
First of all, William Seward wasn't nominated, and there were 4 candidates. At the time of 1860 election, the party system was fracturing, as there were many people who disagreed with the Democrats on certain issues, like spreading slavery, etc., but did not agree with the Republicans either, and did not want to fracture the union. Thus, 4 major parties had nominees for the presidency, Lincoln for the Republicans, Douglas for the Democrats, John Breckenridge for the Southern Democrats (who took a stronger view on states rights than the Democrats), and John Bell for the Constitutional Union Party.
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.
926174
That was not really a problem with the writing of it. It was ONE of the problems faced regarding how the states would be represented in Congress. The other problem regarding representation was the Great Compromise. That compromise created a bicameral legislature.
1065242
George Washington did not create the cabinet, but he did urge Congress to recognize the deparments of foreign affairs, treasury and war. Once Congress approved of the President's request, Washington appointed the first members to serve in that executive branch capacity.\n\nThey included:\n\nThomas Jefferson (Sec'y of Foreign Affairs, though the name was quickly changed to Secretary of State)\n\nAlexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury)\n\nHenry Knox (Secretary of War)\n\nEdmund Randolph (Attorney General)\n\nIn the original cabinet, the Attorney General was not the head of the Department of Justice
48850
church and state were intermingled at the time of, and after, the writing of the constitution.  Obviously our forefarthers did not mean to have a God-free society like liberals would like to have.
1169260
Believe it or not, that was actually considered during the framing of the U.S. Constitution. Following the demise of the Articles of Confederation for having too weak of a central federal government, there was alot of argument that took place on this subject. Most notably, The Federalist Papers argued for this setup. The decision was made, I think wisely, that it was in the best interest of the US to have a strong central figure. The president should be the representative of the people an speak for the people. If you have two presidents, that authority is necessarily diminished.
657768
Yes, you can move and start a sheep farm in Utah. Under federal multiple spouses is illegal however, there is a splinter group of the Mormon Church that does it(wives only  i think) still.Research it and see if you can join. Peace.
183020
bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration. The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled toward the Civil War
1087004
Our system of Government was set up as a Republic.  they were well afraid of too strong of Federal Government and sit the nation up as individual states and the Federal Government to only have that power that was given it, \n\nBasicly each state was to have the right and ability to be self governing.\n\nWell that went to >>>> in a handbasket before too long and that was one of the main issues of the civil war, with the south supporting state rights and the union supporting a much stronger and powerful federal government.\n\nSo now we have federal income tax ( which is actually unconstitutional) but who listens to me.  And a Federal Army, not merley each state supply troops for a Federal defense.\n\nBut some issues like capital punishment,  murder laws, theft laws, and of course Probate laws, have been left alone for now, since I guess there is not enouigh money in them for the feds to want to be invovled.
1167101
It was in fact done on purpose! When Montana was being considered admittance to the Union the President said that it was too ugly to be a state. So the people of Montana decided to reshape their state to look like a friendly face. Since the people of Montana had never seen a friendly face they chose the next best thing, a rectangle!
427801
Interesting question.  Frankly, in his early career, Lincoln supported the rights of the states to secede from the Union.  Apparently he changed his position after attaining the presidency.  If I were to characterize his response, it would be this; He saved the Union at the expense of the Republic, and ushered in what many call the "imperial presidency", expanding the powers of the president over the legislature in regard to war making powers, etc..  You can argue day and night about the reasons for the War Between the States, but Lincoln eventually bought into the concept of the "perpetual Union", and he used the military to enforce it.
187150
I don't think any state does. I think it's a federal law that they can't. Some states however can get civil unions.\n\nMy opinion is that not allowing gays and lesbians to be married is steping on our constitutional rights. The only way they can justify why they can't get married is what. Due to thier beliefs that it should only be man and woman. I'm sorry but this sounds like a religious view to me; and in the U.S. we have freedom of religion. We also have Seperation of church and state, so what is thier reason for this.
135230
the south wanted to secede from the union and pres lincoln just wasnt gunna have it
669133
The union could not make people act certain ways to the African American population. It would have cost to much of the governments money to order troops to be stationed in every city in the CSA (Confederate States of America) to insure the equality of African Americans. Also on the other hand the US government tried to hard to give them equality such as giving African Americans land that was taken from former slave owners. This made the former slave owners mad because their land was being taken by force so that didn't help relations. In addition African Americans were us to working a farm no managing it making most of the African Americans to lose their farms due to bankruptcy and move out of the south.
213450
If the state legislature can do it, then by virtue of the fact that a city a sub-entity of the state they can do it also.  Remember unlike the difference between the states and the federal government were the federal government can not dissolve a state, that a state creates and can dissolve a city.  Therefore a city is truly for all purposes a "department" within the state whos jurisdiction is not limited by the issue (unless the state says they can't) but rather by geography.
219694
The right of a state to leave the Union, and the lack of the ability to compromise