Forum: Story Recommendations

go for it....you know there will be a lot of coments when you post...good luck

You missed 'Escape from Lexington' also by Fantasy Lover.

I can see "historical," but why did you code it as "western" if it's not?

I can see "western" if the story takes place on the western frontier of a younger United States.

There would be some cultural differences from a classical western, but they would be quite similar.

200 years ago Ohio was the wild west, as was Alabama.

But it takes place in the east.

In what is now considered the east, but was at one time (the time in which as I understand it, the story in question was set) the western frontier.

The traditional setting of Most westerns, the area that eventually became California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, about half of New Mexico and bits of Colorado and Wyoming we didn't even get from Mexico until 1848, not even two decades before the Civil War.

From around the end of the revolutionary war to 1812 (Louisianan Purchase), and possibly later (if you go by admission of the states rather than acquisition of territory further to the west), most of the area from the Appalachian mountains west to the Mississippi River would have been the western frontier of the US.

Those states were admitted to the union at various dates between 1800 and 1850. Not counting West Virgina*, Wisconsin was the last state west of the Mississippi to be admitted to the Union in 1848

Not counting West Virgina*, Wisconsin was the last state west of the Mississippi to be admitted to the Union in 1848

I suspect the asterisk after West Virginia is because all its area was part of the Union well before 1848. It was part of Virgina, one of the original 13 states. And it isn't west of the Mississippi River. Maybe east of the Mississippi was the author's intention also concerning Wisconsin.

The Territory of Wisconsin was much larger than the State turned out to be. The Territory did extend beyond the Mississippi River (to the west of it). But the parts west of the river were not part of the State.

Maybe east of the Mississippi was the author's intention also concerning Wisconsin.

Yep, that was a typo, should have been east of the Mississippi.

West Virginia is a bit more complicated. When Virginia Seceded from the union to join the Confederacy, West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union. West Virginia was granted state hood in 1863, during the Civil War.

When Virginia Seceded from the union to join the Confederacy, West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union. West Virginia was granted state hood in 1863, during the Civil War.

Though not legal under the U.S. Constitution it was still allowed to occur.

Though not legal under the U.S. Constitution it was still allowed to occur.

Actually, no, it wasn't barred by the US Constitution, even as a technicality.

The constitution bars creating a new state from the territory of another state (without the original state's consent).

However, at the time that West Virginia was granted state hood, Virginia was a Confederate state, not a US state. The constitutional provision described above simply didn't apply.

The southern states seceded in 1860. The Civil War started in 1861. West Virginia was granted statehood in 1863. The Civil war didn't end until 1868.

The Civil war didn't end until 1868.

"On August 20, 1866, in acknowledgement of Texas' new state government, Johnson was able to finally proclaim that "said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole United States of America." His proclamation may have meant that the Civil War, by any definition, was finally over—but the arduous process of Reconstruction was only beginning."

Not sure why Dominions Son picked 1868 as the end of the war.

Not sure why Dominions Son picked 1868 as the end of the war.

Typo and/or misread the source I was looking the time-line up from.

In any case, 1863 is still in the middle of the civil war, so the error in the year it ended doesn't affect the point I was making.

However, at the time that West Virginia was granted state hood, Virginia was a Confederate state, not a US state. The constitutional provision described above simply didn't apply.

This argument gives credibility to the claims that the Civil War was a war of conquest of a foreign nation, not putting down an insurrection.

This argument gives credibility to the claims that the Civil War was a war of conquest of a foreign nation, not putting down an insurrection.

Arguably it was both.

On the one side you have states purporting to have seceded from the Union and to have formed a new nation. On the other hand you have the Union government saying, no, you can't do that.

As to the issue of West Virginia's admission to the Union, only the people / government of Virginia would have had standing to object. However, The people/government of Virginia were the one's claiming to have left the union.

To make the claim that the admission of West Virginia was in violation of the US constitution, Virginia would have had to admit (at the time) that their secession was invalid.

Though not legal under the U.S. Constitution it was still allowed to occur.

I believe that when texas was admitted to the union it was allowed to split up to five ways, it never happened, but it could have. The U. P. of michigan has had several petition drives to secede from Michigan and become the state of Superior. It could happen, and in my reading of the constitution, I find no prohibition of that action.

There is a story that when the Alaskan pipeline was being built a lot of Texans went up to work on it, and being Texans they had to brag about how big Texas is, finally the Alaskans got tired of this and told the Texans that if they didn't shut up about it the Alaskans would divide Alaska into two states and make Texas the third largest state.

I believe that when texas was admitted to the union it was allowed to split up to five ways, it never happened, but it could have.

It's a different issue when a new state is admitted to the union.

The constitution only prohibits creating a new state from the territory of an existing state without the approval of the state the territory is taken from.

In the west ward expansion, when territories gained state hood it was not unusual for a territory to be carved up and some of the territory given to an existing state or to other territories seeking statehood in the same time frame.

Virginia claimed not to be a US state at the time West Virginia was was admitted, which is why there wasn't a constitutional issue.

The U. P. of michigan has had several petition drives to secede from Michigan and become the state of Superior.

Even assuming that they were allowed to secede from Michigan, Superior could not become a US state without sign-off from the Michigan legislature.

The Territory of Wisconsin was much larger than the State turned out to be

I have faint recollection of hearing about a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a territorial boundary dispute - maybe between Ohio and Michigan. Michigan lost the case, but the Supreme Court in its order gave Michigan a consolation prize of the Upper Peninsula - taking it from Wisconsin. I may have the details wrong.

No Michigan won, Ohio got Toledo

have faint recollection of hearing about a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a territorial boundary dispute - maybe between Ohio and Michigan.

It wasn't a court case at any level, even the Supreme court wouldn't have the power to carve up territories like that.

The US state of Ohio and the territory of Michigan kind of fought a war over Toledo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo_War

The US Congress, which did/does have the authority to alter territorial (but not state) boundaries intervened, and proposed granting Michigan state hood and 3/4ths of the UP in exchange for Michigan giving up it's claim on Toledo.

"Last of the Mohicans" definitely isn't a Western.

If anything its an Eastern.
I would consider such stories Colonial. Different tech, for example whites used war clubs during some of the earlier Indian wars. Firearms were single shot. Colt received his revolver patent in 1836, it wasn't till the 1870s that large caliber cartridge revolvers were available, which could be kept constantly loaded in all weather. Bessemer steel didn't exist before the 1850s.

The environment was more constrained, forests and mountains rather than plains.
There was a different political environment, the old aristocratic families that America pretends not to have were more public in their power, the nation had not been ripped apart by civil war. Different Indians too, with established towns and farms, not landless refugees and plains nomads.

I would consider such stories Colonial.

Colonial stories would set in the American Colonies. In other words the setting would be from before the American Revolution (at least ones set in what is now the US).

Stories set in the US or on the then US frontier in a time period between 1788 and 1830 would not be colonial.