The Secession of North Dakota - Revision history

AzraelBrown at 17:15, 18 February 2011

2011-02-18T17:15:51Z

AzraelBrown: /* Seeds of Secession */

2011-02-18T17:15:18Z

Seeds of Secession

AzraelBrown: /* Voting on the Resolution */

2011-02-18T17:12:33Z

Voting on the Resolution

AzraelBrown: /* Voting on the Resolution */

2011-02-18T17:11:19Z

Voting on the Resolution

AzraelBrown: /* Voting on the Resolution */

2011-02-18T17:10:32Z

Voting on the Resolution

AzraelBrown: /* Pre-Vote Response */

2011-02-18T17:09:01Z

Pre-Vote Response

AzraelBrown: /* Resolution A-5 */

2011-02-18T17:08:26Z

Resolution A-5

AzraelBrown: /* Resolution A-5 */

2011-02-18T17:07:58Z

Resolution A-5

AzraelBrown at 17:07, 18 February 2011

2011-02-18T17:07:26Z

AzraelBrown: /* Pre-Vote Response */

2011-02-18T17:05:05Z

Pre-Vote Response

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 Later, the Senate, realizing the incendiary voice expressed even in publication of Martin's resolution, voted to expunge the resolution from the congressional journal.   The vote was 29 in favor of deletion, 14 against. <ref>[http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/vogel_hard.pdf The Law of Hard Times: Debtor and Farmer Relief Actions of the 1933 North Dakota Legislative Session] - Sarah Vogel, 1933 Congress</ref>
-==William "Wild Bill" Langer's "Secession"==
+==William "Wild Bill" Langer's 1934 Secession==
 William "Wild Bill" Langer was the controversial governor at the time of Martin's resolution; in fact, Langer -- from a hospital room due to serious illness -- took his oath of office only days before Martin took the floor to proposes Resolution A-2.   Only a few months later, Langer was in the courtroom, defending himself against accusation of misappropriation of federal funds.  Langer was found guilty, a felony;  state law required a governor be removed from office if found guilty of committing a felony.  Langer claimed he should not be removed from office until his appeal process was exhausted; the state Supreme Court convened to determine if having been found guilty of a felony by the first judge, regardless of merit, counted towards unseating of the governor.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 '''Declares Secession Talk Is Being Heard'''<br>
-New York Jan 8 - AP - Howard Y Williams of St Paul, Minn, national director of the League of Independent Action said Sunday night that "considerable talk is heard of secession from the union by mid-west states if the depression continues and any effort is made by the huge trade associations formed under the NRA to increase their grip on the country and force an economic dictatorship."<br>
+New York Jan 8 1934 - AP - Howard Y Williams of St Paul, Minn, national director of the League of Independent Action said Sunday night that "considerable talk is heard of secession from the union by mid-west states if the depression continues and any effort is made by the huge trade associations formed under the NRA to increase their grip on the country and force an economic dictatorship."<br>
 "Prominent public officials," he said, "have told me that they would call out the militia if necessary to prevent such control."<br>
 Mid-west farmers, he said, are moving definitely to the Left.<br>

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 Much of the support for Martin's resolution was not a direct intent to secede; Martin was a senior member of the state senate, his sentiment was popular with the public, and votes in favor of the resolution supported its ''publishing'', not necessarily its content.  Objection to the resolution didn't necessarily oppose the content, either, but denounced the motion's inflammatory rhetoric which threatened to obscure the sentiment.
-Those opposing the resolution, however, were presented a conundrum:  if they voted against the publishing of the resolution, Martin still had the opportunity to present the statement of secession as a bill, which would result in it being published regardless of the vote to support it; a winning vote at that time would make Martin's proposal an act of the state legislature, bearing far more weight than the publishing of a resolution in the journal.
+Those opposing the resolution, however, were presented a conundrum:  if they voted against the publishing of the resolution, Martin still had the opportunity to present the statement of secession as a bill, which would result in it being published regardless of the vote to support it.   If the motion passed as a bill, it would make Martin's proposal a full act of the state legislature, bearing far more weight than just the publishing of a resolution in the journal.
 Martin's resolution passed with a vote of 28 to 25; at this point, however, the resolution went before the senate state affairs committee for consideration.

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 The 17th of January brought animated discussion among the senators.  Martin was accused of treason and sedition, both capital offenses.  Detractors submitted a major motion regarded striking a passage which read that the 39 seceding states would be "carrying with us the star spangled banner, and leaving them the stripes which they richly deserve."   The motion to strike this one line from Martin's motion failed by one vote, with Lt. Governor Ole Olson casting the deciding vote.
-Much of the support for Martin's resolution was not a direct intent to secede; Martin was a senior member of the state senate, his sentiment was popular with the public, and votes in favor of the resolution supported its ''publishing'', not necessarily its content.  Objection to the resolution didn't necessarily oppose the content, either, but denounced its inflammatory rhetoric which threatened to obscure the sentiment.
+Much of the support for Martin's resolution was not a direct intent to secede; Martin was a senior member of the state senate, his sentiment was popular with the public, and votes in favor of the resolution supported its ''publishing'', not necessarily its content.  Objection to the resolution didn't necessarily oppose the content, either, but denounced the motion's inflammatory rhetoric which threatened to obscure the sentiment.
 Those opposing the resolution, however, were presented a conundrum:  if they voted against the publishing of the resolution, Martin still had the opportunity to present the statement of secession as a bill, which would result in it being published regardless of the vote to support it; a winning vote at that time would make Martin's proposal an act of the state legislature, bearing far more weight than the publishing of a resolution in the journal.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ===Voting on the Resolution===
-The 17th of January brought animated discussion among the senators.  Martin was accused of treason and sedition, both capital offenses.  The major motion regarded striking a passage which read: the 39 seceding states would be "carrying with us the star spangled banner, and leaving them the stripes which they richly deserve."   The motion to strike the line failed by one vote, with Lt. Governor Ole Olson casting the deciding vote.
+The 17th of January brought animated discussion among the senators.  Martin was accused of treason and sedition, both capital offenses.  Detractors submitted a major motion regarded striking a passage which read that the 39 seceding states would be "carrying with us the star spangled banner, and leaving them the stripes which they richly deserve."   The motion to strike this one line from Martin's motion failed by one vote, with Lt. Governor Ole Olson casting the deciding vote.
 Much of the support for Martin's resolution was not a direct intent to secede; Martin was a senior member of the state senate, his sentiment was popular with the public, and votes in favor of the resolution supported its ''publishing'', not necessarily its content.  Objection to the resolution didn't necessarily oppose the content, either, but denounced its inflammatory rhetoric which threatened to obscure the sentiment.

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 Martin's proposal was not one to take action;  he was requesting that this statement of secession be printed in the senate journal.  Martin himself described his resolution to be for "educational purposes to wake up the people." Other senators agreed that, while they may not agree with the sentiment, Martin was within his free speech rights to request publication by a free and public press.   Once published, copies of the approved resolution were to be distributed to the other 38 'seceding' states.  The vote on Martin's resolution was postponed for the next day.
-On Saturday, January 28th, 1933, Senators Charles Bangert, LP Cain, AW Fowler, and WS Lynch submitted a "corrective" resolution, which was not directed at Martin's motion, exactly.  Time Magazine published a short article covering Martin's secession resolution, and declared that the North Dakota senators "arose and cheered" when Martin finished his statement.  The senators who brought the corrective resolution forward disagreed with Time regarding the amount of enthusiasm Time described in the article, and demanded that Time issue a retraction.  The vote on the retraction demand was postponed until the 30th to allow the senators to familiarize themselves with the magazine article. Time magazine published a copy of the corrective resolution in their 'letters to the editor' section<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745132,00.html Time Letters: Feb. 13, 1933.]</ref>.
+On Saturday, January 28th, 1933, Senators Charles Bangert, LP Cain, AW Fowler, and WS Lynch submitted the "corrective" Senate Resolution A-5, which was not directed at Martin's motion, exactly.  Time Magazine published a short article covering Martin's secession resolution, and declared that the North Dakota senators "arose and cheered" when Martin finished his statement.  The senators who brought the corrective resolution forward disagreed with Time regarding the amount of enthusiasm Time described in the article, and demanded that Time issue a retraction.  The vote on the retraction demand was postponed until the 30th to allow the senators to familiarize themselves with the magazine article. Time magazine published a copy of the corrective resolution in their 'letters to the editor' section<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745132,00.html Time Letters: Feb. 13, 1933.]</ref>.
 ===Senate Resolution A-5===

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 On Saturday, January 28th, 1933, Senators Charles Bangert, LP Cain, AW Fowler, and WS Lynch submitted a "corrective" resolution, which was not directed at Martin's motion, exactly.  Time Magazine published a short article covering Martin's secession resolution, and declared that the North Dakota senators "arose and cheered" when Martin finished his statement.  The senators who brought the corrective resolution forward disagreed with Time regarding the amount of enthusiasm Time described in the article, and demanded that Time issue a retraction.  The vote on the retraction demand was postponed until the 30th to allow the senators to familiarize themselves with the magazine article. Time magazine published a copy of the corrective resolution in their 'letters to the editor' section<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745132,00.html Time Letters: Feb. 13, 1933.]</ref>.
-===Resolution A-5===
+===Senate Resolution A-5===
 <blockquote>
 Introduced by Senators Bangert, Cain, Fowler and Lynch
 <br/><br/>

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 WHEREAS, TIME Magazine holds itself out as a periodical which always adheres strictly to the truth, and
 <br/><br/>
-WHEREAS, said aforesaid statement is not true and correct in that not one of the 48 State Senators arose and cheered but on the contrary upon the substitute motion made ''that said Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal with the language to the effect that the 39 States secede from the Union, and reference to our Flag, be eliminated and that the remainder be printed in the Journal," 24 Senators voted for such substitute motion and 24 Senators against the same and the presiding officer declared the motion lost—as shown upon p. 9 of the Journal of the Senate for Tuesday, Jan. 17, 1933, and upon the motion of Senator Hamilton that Senate Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal, the roll was called and there were Ayes, 28; Nays, 20; absent and not voting, 1; and so the motion was carried.
+WHEREAS, said aforesaid statement is not true and correct in that not one of the 48 State Senators arose and cheered but on the contrary upon the substitute motion made that said Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal with the language to the effect that the 39 States secede from the Union, and reference to our Flag, be eliminated and that the remainder be printed in the Journal," 24 Senators voted for such substitute motion and 24 Senators against the same and the presiding officer declared the motion lost—as shown upon p. 9 of the Journal of the Senate for Tuesday, Jan. 17, 1933, and upon the motion of Senator Hamilton that Senate Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal, the roll was called and there were Ayes, 28; Nays, 20; absent and not voting, 1; and so the motion was carried.
 <br/><br/>
 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in order to set forth the truth this resolution be adopted and the Secretary of the Senate is directed to send a copy hereof to TIME Magazine.
 </blockquote>
 ===Voting on the Resolution===

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 18 February 2011
Line 58:		Line 58:

	On Saturday, January 28th, 1933, Senators Charles Bangert, LP Cain, AW Fowler, and WS Lynch submitted a "corrective" resolution, which was not directed at Martin's motion, exactly. Time Magazine published a short article covering Martin's secession resolution, and declared that the North Dakota senators "arose and cheered" when Martin finished his statement. The senators who brought the corrective resolution forward disagreed with Time regarding the amount of enthusiasm Time described in the article, and demanded that Time issue a retraction. The vote on the retraction demand was postponed until the 30th to allow the senators to familiarize themselves with the magazine article. Time magazine published a copy of the corrective resolution in their 'letters to the editor' section<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745132,00.html Time Letters: Feb. 13, 1933.]</ref>.		On Saturday, January 28th, 1933, Senators Charles Bangert, LP Cain, AW Fowler, and WS Lynch submitted a "corrective" resolution, which was not directed at Martin's motion, exactly. Time Magazine published a short article covering Martin's secession resolution, and declared that the North Dakota senators "arose and cheered" when Martin finished his statement. The senators who brought the corrective resolution forward disagreed with Time regarding the amount of enthusiasm Time described in the article, and demanded that Time issue a retraction. The vote on the retraction demand was postponed until the 30th to allow the senators to familiarize themselves with the magazine article. Time magazine published a copy of the corrective resolution in their 'letters to the editor' section<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745132,00.html Time Letters: Feb. 13, 1933.]</ref>.
		+
		+	===Resolution A-5===
		+
		+
		+	SENATE RESOLUTION A-5
		+
		+	Introduced by Senators Bangert, Cain, Fowler and Lynch
		+
		+	WHEREAS, TIME Magazine in its issue of Jan. 30, 1933, on p. 15 thereof, in connection with its report of the consideration of Concurrent Resolution A-2 introduced by Senator Martin, by the Senate of the State of North Dakota, makes the following statement, viz:
		+
		+	"North Dakota's 48 State Senators meeting in a Bismarck auditorium rose and cheered 83-year-old Senator William Martin last week when for the first time since the Civil War secession was publicly proposed in a State Legislature," and
		+
		+	WHEREAS, TIME Magazine holds itself out as a periodical which always adheres strictly to the truth, and
		+
		+	WHEREAS, said aforesaid statement is not true and correct in that not one of the 48 State Senators arose and cheered but on the contrary upon the substitute motion made ''that said Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal with the language to the effect that the 39 States secede from the Union, and reference to our Flag, be eliminated and that the remainder be printed in the Journal," 24 Senators voted for such substitute motion and 24 Senators against the same and the presiding officer declared the motion lost—as shown upon p. 9 of the Journal of the Senate for Tuesday, Jan. 17, 1933, and upon the motion of Senator Hamilton that Senate Resolution A-2 be printed in the Journal, the roll was called and there were Ayes, 28; Nays, 20; absent and not voting, 1; and so the motion was carried.
		+
		+	NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in order to set forth the truth this resolution be adopted and the Secretary of the Senate is directed to send a copy hereof to TIME Magazine.

	===Voting on the Resolution===		===Voting on the Resolution===