|
 Wang Long I must say, I assumed we already decided to give the franchise to all, but it appeared there were those that disagreed. No matter. I prefer it if the state does not have a say at all on religious matters as it needs to be divorced entirely from that operation. It should follow from that the right to vote be available to all men and as we voted earlier to all women as well. Granted, this may seem to be counter intuitive for me and my people as we are all majority of men, but I realize that civil society needs everyone to be able to fully participate in it. The state must submit to the will of the people and denying half of the population that right to enforce their will is wrong. Nonetheless, there maybe those hesitant to it, but if we can create the conditions to prove to the population that women deserve the right to participate in the political right down the line. We need to, at least, have a strong foundation for it. Therefore, I put my support for 1 and failing that 2. B for unicameral
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
 John C. Frémont General Kearny, I do accept your invitation, and your admission of guilt. There is a lot I could say about that, but instead today I will just say that it is a great honor to be at this most historical constitutional convention in person. Never before have I seen such a beautiful gathering. All of us come from diverse backgrounds, but the very same desire for equality and liberty shines in our hearts. I would like to take this moment to extend my most sincere thanks to all of those who have voted as I have voted -- to create the freest land possible! Today, I say, we shall become a star of democracy that shines even brighter than the US of A! Let us have no artificial force that binds our natural rights! We are free people, and we shall have a free land! But on to the issues! On the matter of division: I have traveled far across this land, and seen with my very own eyes the vast beauties that lie in each territory. Every corner of this magnificent continent has things that cannot be appreciated by people who have not been there! And as such, I have a mighty strong appreciation for the idea of local government! What does the man in Monterrey know about every day life in Utah or Colorado? There are many things that a central government should handle and protect, but there are also things that should be handled by locals. I mean, just take a look at the diversity of peoples we have here! We have Anglos, Californios, Mormons, and more! And naturally, these populations find themselves divided into cities, communities, and regions where they feel at home! And there are some things on which they disagree! I mean, just look at the debate we just had! Is it not wise to allow some degree of self-governance? So, I cast my first in-person vote for option A! Let us have state and federal governments! Let our representatives not just represent the People of California, but the Communities of California! To my liberty-minded fellows who disagree, let me ask this: What would the United States look like if they represented only by population, and not by state? What if America did not protect the small states like Rhode Island or New Hampshire, and just acquiesced to the demands of large states like Virginia? Now, I already here what you say: California is but a land of tens of thousands of people, how can we divide our land like the populous United States? Even when she was born, the USA had millions! And I understand! But is this really a problem? Is there a minimum size a land needs to be to self-govern? Can a city not govern itself with a mayor? Can a town not govern itself either? And, for that matter, can a single household not make their views known? It is of no concern that our states would represent a relatively small amount of people. In fact, that's a good thing! And as for the matter of franchise, my views on the matter are very straightforward. There should be NO restrictions on who should vote! The more people vote, the stronger the power of our democracy is! People may call the idea radical, but so too did they use that word to describe America's constitution when she was founded! I cast my vote very much so for Option 1! Now, I understand that you all may have reason to vote for options, and while I may disagree I do endorse your right to vote as you choose. But I must voice my concern over an option which I believe is more insidious than you all may think. I speak about Option 4. Suffrage to all Christians, including Mormons. It is, on paper, a good and moral option, and I see why you would go for that. But I must ask, aren't we forgetting something important here? Is it really so wise to discriminate so much based on the matter of a man's or woman's religion? Should our government not recognize the very first right which America amended to her constitution? What happened to the idea of Freedom of Religion? I know that the vote in this case is extended to all Christians here, but how safe is that, really? If the United States declared this back when she was founded, would they have found the Mormons to be Christian? If the Indians or Chinese adopt their own form of Christianity, will we say that counts? And whose duty would it be to judge that? The courts? Will we really pose the question of "Who is or is not Christian" to our lawmakers and judges? Do you know who likes to discriminate based on religion? Santa Anna! The tyrannical Mexican government is built upon a foundation of religious discrimination! And so I ask, will we do the same? Mr. Brigham Young! Did you not, earlier, call for this very same Freedom of Religion? Now that your people's rights are established, will you really do something that may jeopardize them at some point in the future? You, of all people, must see the danger here! I cannot tell you what to do, but I implore you to reconsider!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
 Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist It has been articulated to me that the division of the Republic into many states is akin to the division of a population of birds into many flocks. I find this very convincing and will change my vote to A. Enjoy fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
 Samuel Brannan As it seems we shall be adopting a Federal System, I have a rough suggestion for an initial 3 state body. More can certainly be added as we expand and grow as a nation. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
 José Castro When we speak of freedom for all, it must include the franchise lest the rights of any one person be infringed upon. As Fremont so eloquently stated, any size of body can be self governing, and as such we should divide the powers of government lest one body grow too powerful. I declare the federal system to be the right path. Only through this representation will the rights of all, including my Californio brothers be properly defended. Mr. Brannon, I do find that your proposed states seem to divide the south of California into a far smaller segment than the other areas, especially given the terrain they cover. I support your initial states, but the borders will have to be refined to more fairly represent the people. A1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Sigourney Cheevos posted:
Samuel Brannan A limitation entirely of the map I was doodling on - I envision the blue state to extend much further south. If that would pass beyond our borders, of course we may reallocate - moving the border north to encompass the territory populated by the Salinan, and so forth. A mere opening proposal, and I thank you for your support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Commodore Stockton A few quick comments, if I may. Many here have advocated for a federal system based on the United States, with a number of independent states, and a bicameral legislature, where, as in the United States the upper house will be made up of an equal number of representatives from each state. While this is a fine system, and one that served the United States, it may not be appropriate for California. When the United States was first formed and the Constitution first written, it was as a union of independent states whose existence predated the Constitution, and which had rights that needed to be protected. To do anything but act as the drafters of that Constitution did, then, would have been folly, and injustice, for it would have stripped the states of their preexisting rights and freedoms and put them under the subjection of the federal executive. How different, though, is our situation. We come as an independent nation de novo. We are not a union of states, but one of people, free. There is no state sovereignty that needs to be protected. Why then, should we establish independent entities unnecessarily. Indeed, are not many of the problems that now plague the United States come out of the question of the power of the individual states against the power of the national government. and much of the tumult due to rival claims of state power? We have all heard, for instance, of slaves running away from their owners in states like Virginia, and then going to a state like Massachusetts, where slavery is prohibited, and the laws of the State of Massachusetts not at all willing to help the citizen of Virginia recover his property. If we allow multiple states here, will we not lay the basis for a similar conflict, if not about slavery, about some other issue? Better then, that the laws and rights of the people are uniform throughout the nation, rather than being a subject to the whims of multiple jurisdictions and all matter of confusion. Additionally, the population of California is, for all the land we claim, small in number and centralized. The distance from Yerba Buena to the Central Valley, those places being where most of the population dwell, is only 70 miles. To divide the land into multiple states now is to create mini fiefdoms. It would do nothing but further divide the population. This is why I support a unitary state, and reject any arbitrary division into "states" that lack coherence or historic existence. As to the issue of the franchise, I had made my position clear earlier. We must not allow the franchise to fall into the hands of those of alien culture or blood, who would weaken the democratic nature of our nation. The Negro, the Indian, the Chinese have no experience with self government and democracy. It is not in their nature. To extend the franchise to them all would destroy us. So, I repeat my plea to you earlier. Do not sow the seeds of our nation's destruction at its founding. Reject the establishment of separate states, and reject extending the franchise to peoples who lack the natural capacity to vote. B,5
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
A current tally of the percentages of people within the hall supporting various proposals: B 35.4% A 35.5% 1 28.3% 2 11.8% 4 24.9% 5 9.5% Sutter, Hays, Dong and Chu still have not voted on anything, and many persons wait to see where they will cast their votes. Pico has not yet expressed a view on the issue of the franchise. The votes could still go any which way! I will resolve the votes early tomorrow morning and open up two new issues for discussion, stay tuned!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
 Saludos cordiales To say this past half-century of my life has been one of bewildering change is an understatement. I was born a Spaniard and was recently a Mexican. It is an open question indeed as to what I shall be when I no longer draw breath. Whatever the identity assigned to me, I have served and fought valiantly, putting down Estanislao's native revolt in my twenties and I having served recently in the latest conflict that has just concluded. Now I wish to keep as much of my way of life preserved in this turbulent, uncertain time and live as normal life as possible with my dear wife, Francisca Castillo. I pray in the coming days that we can build a nation which serves all our interests - though in my experience that is but a fleeting dream. While I abstain from opinion-making at this juncture, I believe Señor Castro speaks for the interests of us all in his aforementioned vote. Have a good day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:A current tally of the percentages of people within the hall supporting various proposals: Sutter voted for A (but not franchise), and I guess Cham is voting with castro above. JosefStalinator fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Samuel Brannan Gentlemen I must once again strongly protest the notion of a unicameral legislature voted upon by literally anyone. The landowners, the businessmen, the reputable men of this nation who we will rely upon for economic growth and development will hate this notion! A government ruled by popular opinion, voted upon by anyone, strong enough to take away hard earned gains at a whim with no checks or balances? This insane quest for the maximum amount of "liberty" is shortsighted, and if you wish this government to have any legitimacy in the eyes on those whose support we will need, you will seek moderation!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
John C. Frémont Well, then they should vote against it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Takanago posted:
Samuel Brannan Has too much time in jail addled your brain? Not every person so affected by this new government is in this room, you do realize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
John C. Frémont Well that's an interesting point, Mr. Brannan. But we already decided that democracy through representation is the way to go! The idea of a direct, athenian democracy has its possible merits but I believe we've all agreed it wouldn't work. Of course they're not all in this very same room! But they are represented! There are businessmen, landowners, and former men of office right here making their voices heard! That's the cornerstone of our democracy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Takanago posted:
Samuel Brannan But you digress sir, certainly no-one here is suggesting that direct democracy should be entertained in any capacity. I argue only for moderation, and compromise - should every decision of this convention be in favor of the mob, the establishment will see no reason to participate in the resulting state, robbing it of legitimacy when it is needed most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
General Stephen W. Kearny, President pro tempore I was not expecting so many in this room to favor liberty purely for the sake of the matter, with no regard for pragmatism. Perhaps this will garner me a reputation for political instability, but so be it. With so many in the room wishing to put the reigns of the nation in the hands of whomever is in the room, Im afraid my conscious now demands a change in my stance. We cant allow the cause of liberty to be hijacked by the mob. It seems to me now that I must speak in favor of the arbitrary state divides I so earlier scorned. The stability and representation they bring will be needed to quell the fickle nature of the mob. Shifting vote from B to A cxcxxxxx fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
 Dong Reagan (東雷根) The emissary from the God-worshippers of Cathay would like to direct this esteemed assembly of worthies towards history. To the east is the United States, that Anglo titan, which once sought to stride from sea to sea. Yet this leviathan of federalism was dashed by an agéd imperial power whose state is far more central than it. To the south is the Mexico, that land that was once an empire, then a republic de facto, now a republic merely de jure. A constitution built on compromise towards checks and balances were undone by impure spirits, and a warlord has wrested the mandate of the people there. What does this mean? It means that the triumph of power is an unescapable reality, and only it is with Divine Providence and righteous actions under all heaven can any nation establish order. So power should not be shrunk from, should not be feared like a tiger, but instead tamed like a lion dog. So to this end on behalf of the Taiping Mission we present these recommendations to your honorablenesses: The franchise should indeed be open to all worthy persons, of any background. God's Word is available to all, and to accept it is the passing of the first true test of man. But not all are capable of passing it yet, even as it should be the duty of society to educate its subjects to do so. So while we would elect 4 in a better time, for now we must reluctantly stand by 1, but with conditions: moral tests of character should be administered to those seeking to rule, these exams compiled from the common ethics of the traditions of this nation. That way, only the most righteous of men and women may govern, and govern justly; and in this we further recommend that Christianity, as the fulfillment of the ancient covenants of heaven with man, be a key tradition that these tests be based upon. But that is not to exclude other faiths and traditions as well, that similarly provide ample wisdom and virtue. If this country is thusly staffed with the righteous, then it should be armed by power. But here we propose a compromise to allay the fears of those who doubt in this country's capacity for righteousness: synthesize A with B, creating a bicameral legislature coupled with a strong central government. Furthermore, we recommend the establishment of a Censorate body that would supervise and monitor the two houses to ensure morality is not impinged. This body would be composed those of those who have been found to the most righteous and wise, able to root out corruption and decadence in the legislature. This way, the fear of "mob rule" would be allayed by the presence of two houses, and further reinforced by this third body. Finally, this republic would be girded in ways that the United States and Mexico was not, by having a capable central state unopposed by the ambitions of selfish regions, which once crewed by good men and women, could protect this entire land from imperialists abroad and dictators within. Instead of sovereign states, faithful provinces all paying obeisance to one goal, one purpose, one government under one God.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Sutter I vote for 1 of the franchisement proposal. I was ambivalent prior, but due to unforseen circumstances, I felt the need to strike a position. OOC: I was the first vote on A, btw, FSAD. RUDE
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
William Walker Vote changes from 2 to 4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
 Pee Qa Chu As a practical man, I find it imprudent to model our government on one where every other decade it seems a member state threatens secession. A unicameral legislature will insure all interests are fairly and equally accounted for without the petty factionalism and regionalism that so dominantly characterizes the American democratic experiment. Per the commitment to an equitable, democratic system, we also feel that universal suffrage is necessary to properly and correctly gauge the will of the people. Mr. Chu votes [B, 1]
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Brigham Young On the subject of suffrage: I have thought long and hard about the issue of suffrage, as compelling arguments have been made by all regarding the future of our Republic. And while I stand by my conviction that religious liberty is foremost, and that those who believe in God should have the greatest say, I feel I have been neglectful to the female gender. Consulting with my wives, it has become apparent that women are, indeed, deserving of the vote. They have, since 1843, contributed regularly to Mormon prayer circles and matters of faith, and I dare to contend that without the support of the fairer sex, we would never have made it safely to California. Let us also concern ourselves with practical matters - should we restrict the franchise to only men, we would be privileging those here for gold over those here to build a new life. Why should a man who has only just arrived be given the same voting power as a man of virtue who has built a family and toiled upon these lands? As a woman is endowed to her husband, so should she be granted the power to vote alongside him, as an extension of his will. As such, the official position of the church is to endorse options A, 1, with the understanding that there is some minimum age required to vote. We encourage all like-minded individuals and members of the church to change to support our position. OOC: The female population of california has to seriously be overrepresented by Mormons, given than nearly all the new immigrants are males seeking gold, and we are bringing JosefStalinator fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
From the diary of Robert Stockton Sup'd with Jo. Robertson today and discussed the Constitutional Convention. He obs. it has more the character of a tent revival. All sorts of strange proposals about the franchise. Gen. Kearney backing Saml. Cooper's proposal to deny the vote to non-Christians. Another proposal; to let everyone vote, women, madmen, Negroes, even Chinese and Indians. Spoke out against that, but it is gaining real support. The mood in the hall is febrile. Otherwise sensible men have fallen prey to utopianism and fervor, & I fear I shall be a new CASSANDRA, or at the least, Canute. The cry goes up in the hall. Vote! Vote! The mass is tired of debate and wants a resolution to the franchise matter. Only a few more speeches and I expect a vote soon. I fear for its outcome, given the mood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
OOC: I didn't have time this morning and I'm about to head out on a field trip, I will tabulate votes this afternoon. In the meantime, prepare for a vote on citizenship, who gets it, who shouldn't get it, if you guys want to make some proposals about who should or shouldn't be citizens, I will incorporate them into our choices
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Thoughts on citizenship:
Samuel Brannan Citizenship is both a privilege and a responsibility, and should be treated as such. As such it should be accessible to all, regardless of race, religion, or gender, but also carry some simple common requirements. First, and most obviously, it should be restricted to those intending to make permanent residence in California - visitors and those who may migrate beyond our borders would obviously be ineligible. I argue that those already here should be eligible from the start, but future immigrants should have a waiting period, that they may have a chance to properly assimilate, integrate, and prove of good character. An oath of loyalty to the nation should go without question - those who cannot promise to support the state should have no business in running it. While we should certainly not bar the doors to any foreign race, the ability to understand English will be fundamental, as that is the language in which the business of government will likely be conducted. Requiring English also encourages assimilation, a most worthy goal. In closing, as a pragmatic measure, those with special talents or resources should be encouraged to immigrate, that we may build our nation with strong materials. I believe this plan offers a moderate compromise between those who would offer citizenship freely, and those who would restrict it to certain elite subsets of society. sniper4625 fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
 Pío Pico A 1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
With the cry for votes ringing through the halls, the matter of the franchise is made clear first. Despite a relatively close count in the beginning, the widely expanded franchise ends up carrying the day, with more than 57% of the vote, an absolute landslide! It seems that freedom will truly be expanded in California, with a wider franchise than any other place on Earth, and the first true nation to allow women to vote! The vote for the future division of the nation was seemingly closer, but quickly shifts in favor of a nation composed of a number of semi-independent states! 58% of the vote chooses to create states along the American line, perhaps an indication of the strength of the Anglo voting bloc, and only 36.2% of those at the hall voting for a strong federal nation without states. Thus the debate begins to center on the idea of states. Which states should exist, how should they be divided up? What proposals do people have for the various states? People begin to pore over maps, and to create proposals for various states. Some speak up for ethnic states, one for Californios separate from others in the south, others suggest religion might be a meaningful basis for the creation of a state, citing the example of Maryland. To impose some order on the process, the following rules are established for creation of a state proposal: 1. States can not encompass land outside of the region known to the Mexicans as Alta California, from the Pacific on the west, bordered on the north by the 42nd parallel, on the east by the Rocky Mountains and New Mexico, and on the south by the Gila river. 2. States must have a capital, and that capital must currently exist as a settlement. No state can be built upon unsettled lands, that area will remain as unincorporated territory. 3. States should be relatively compact and follow geographic boundaries in some meaningful sense. Mountains, rivers, climate zones, these are the means by which reasonable men create a border. 4. Considering the lack of transportation and infrastructure, no state can extend more than 300 miles in any axis that could be drawn across it, in order to maintain a government well able to meet the needs of its people. OOC: You, the players, shall make up maps based on existing settlements within the game map, with the addition of the Mormon settlement at Moroni (real life Stockton, CA). As soon as we have at least three potential maps, we will vote on them. For those not poring over maps, citizenship in this new Republic is now the issue most pressing. With the sudden arrival of the Chinese, the Mormons, and a veritable flood with the discovery of gold, California must know who is a citizen! With the franchise having been extended to persons of any race, religion or creed, the possibilities for citizenship are relatively narrow. A. "The Brannan Plan" - Citizenship for any permanent resident, upon some waiting time to establish residency; an oath of loyalty; and working knowledge of the English language. Citizenship may be expedited through some service or payments. B. Expansive Citizenship - Everyone who declares, in whatever language, their intent to become a citizen of California may do so! Let the doors open! C. Narrow Citizenship - To establish citizenship in California, one must first reside in the state for ten years, not inclusive of those who currently abide in California. D. Citizenship by Service - To become a citizen of California, one must make some action or service to benefit the Californian state. This might entail multiple means, such as military or government service, corvee labor, or monetary payments. E. No Citizenship - What is the meaning of citizenship except to separate one man from another? Let all the people of Earth be citizens of California, and let us not have any clear line distinguishing men from one-another! Any man who shows his face at a voting place may cast his vote. F. No Citizenship plus Nudism - We agree that there should be no citizenship, and that humans should abide in a natural state, free from the fetters of clothing, we will learn what it means to appreciate one another and the human body once more. Fall Sick and Die fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Samuel Brannan I will, of course, vote for my own plan, and I encourage all to do the same. A fair compromise between the madness of free citizenship, and perhaps a more overly restrictive approach. A
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist D: My experience fighting for the Roman Republic has taught me that predators are ever standing ready to invade one's nest, kill one's young and dash one's eggs across the forest floor like so much refuse. We will need every citizen to do his duty to the Republic and fight in its armies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Samuel Brannan My plan, as you can plainly see, contains provisos for just such service! I fully agree that service to the state is to be encouraged, but to make it mandatory is an infringement on the liberty of the individual. Let us encourage such service, not compel it! Besides, what of women and the infirm? Are they to be enlisted into our armies as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist Behold the barbarism of the fanatic Mormon reactionary. Your sick cult may treat women as chattel, but civilisation defends and protects them. Of course women and the infirm should not have to fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Samuel Brannan Are all Frenchmen so rude when newcomers to a land? Of the options provided, only government service might be suitable for the women and the infirm - unless you suggest that we force them to perform corvee labor. Shall we have a government comprised of nothing but the above? Why do you seek to limit their options, when we have so recently been so expansive with the franchise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
sniper4625 posted:
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist A woman's citizenship should be derived from her husband or father.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Brigham Young On the Subject of States People of the Republic! We had originally advocated for a total of three states, but our hand has been forced to make more. Let is be known that we had not intended to create any state for ourselves, but we were informed by the powers that be that such a creation would be required for our Republic. As such, we propose the following states: EDIT: Map withdrawn! State of Cumorah, capital at Zion (SF) State of Laish, capital at Gomorrah (New Helvetia) State of Nimrod, capital at Moroni (Stockton) State of Nephi, capital at Monterrey State of Alma, capital at Los Angeles JosefStalinator fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist The advantages of this proposal are manifold: Each state has access to the sea for migrants to arrive from the Old World Each state has a single major settlement to be its capital so that there is no rivalry between cities Each state is roughly the same size, to allow room for expansion of settlements and for farming Most of the states border the Rocky Mountains, where gold can be discovered and mined Most of the states have a body of fresh water or a river, for the construction of reservoirs in the future The states are divided by mountain ranges (the Klamath range, the Rockies) or by rivers 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Samuel Brannan That you would considering bisection by mountains to be a good thing perplexes me, for it seems like nothing but an impediment to communication and converse. A very European map, I must say, and one I must strenuously oppose. At least Prophet Young's map makes sense geographically, without needless extra subdivisions for subdivisions sake. I certainly invite other submissions more in that line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist My map also has the advantage of confining the Mormons of Moroni to a small area of land, rather than allowing them unhindered access to the fertile valleys of the interior.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Brigham Young This map offends the aesthetic sensibilities of the Church, but most importantly, violates rule 3: quote:3. States should be relatively compact and follow geographic boundaries in some meaningful sense. Mountains, rivers, climate zones, these are the means by which reasonable men create a border. Monterrey State, for example, would be difficult to traverse. The time from the Sierra Nevada to Monterrey would be longer than the bottom of the Valley to Moroni!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Charles Lucien Bonaparte Ornithologist If the Mormons were so concerned about pretty borders, perhaps they should not have situated their den of infamy at the gateway to the most habitable areas of the Republic
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Samuel Brannan Your bigotry is an affront to all men. Do you think that A) Mormons can't cross state boundaries to leave and B) non-Momons can't settle in the valley? Ridiculous! Mormons have been here far longer than yourself, and given your apparent track records at Republics we should keep you far away from ours!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
John C. Frémont I will have a map out in due time. As a man who has charted out much of the west, I consider this an expertise of mine! It shall be fair, equitable, reasonable, and most importantly aesthetically pleasing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:00
|
|