Talk:State of Franklin/Archive 1

Franklin State Flag
Can someone provide some sources for this section? As it stands, it sounds rather dubious. Kaldari 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it now. It was a horror when I found it this morning.  I'm trying to put its misunderstood, ill-fated, fell-through-sorority-rush ducks in a row.  Poor little Franklin.  Iamvered 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed non-encyclopedic argument from article: The purported "flag of the State of Franklin" that is available on the internet is clearly a hoax, borrowing heavily from the current flag of Tennessee, which was designed at the turn of the 20th century by Leroy Reeves. Better suited here. GenQuest (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

State capitol disappeared?
This sentence seems strange: "The original state capitol of Franklin disappeared while being moved from the Tennessee Centennial and International Exposition. Only the key still remains"

How can you lose a state capitol? --Awiseman 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Gage?
Everything I have read says that it was William Cage (not Gage) and Landon Carter who led the House and Senate, respectively. The same Cage's of Cage's Bend (Cumberland), and the father of William Cage, the sheriff of Sumner County.

David Campbell
Was linked to a disambiguation page, but none of the David Campbells listed there appear to be this fellow. (I'm not listed there either, not that I would have expected to be.) ;-) --Davecampbell 21:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
does anyone know the country that would later become the state of Franklin????

please help!!! — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.83.205 (talk • contribs).

Added band under trivia section
I added the band "Lost State of Franklin" under trivia. They're not from TN/NC, but have southern roots and rockabilly style, so it seems relevant enough. Plus, I followed a link to this article looking for info on them.Jebbo 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it. I was thinking something along the lines of Franklin (Historic U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Franklin that currently exists. --Champaign 08:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not real strong reasoning: Joan of Arc doesn't currently exist, but we wouldn't rename the article on her Joan of Arc (historic person). Plus, calling Franklin a "historic U.S. state" is technically incorrect: Franklin was never a U.S. state. As seen from this online source, "State of Franklin" was the correct title for this article and it should not have been moved. I see from your talk page that you did a whole slew of ill-advised page moves. :-( —Kevin Myers 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. All correct.  I'm reverting this.  "Franklin" is ambiguous, and everyone who refers to this particular historical territory or movement calls it "The State of Franklin." Iamvered 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. You guys were right. Although some of you (not naming names) are like broken clocks which happen to be right in this case, but for all the wrong reasons! People, and bots, like you are why there are still people out there that don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information!!! and why there are many people out there who would be willing to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia but don't bother because they're afraid doing so would be a complete waste of their time!!! To the rest of you, sorry, my sincerest apologies! Champaign (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote for State of Franklin. Calling it a historical state suggests that it was a state and is no longer. Ground Zero | t 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iamvered's attempt to move the page back was unsuccessful. I've added a request on Requested moves to move this page back to State of Franklin. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support move back to State of Franklin. Needs to be listed IMO, but I don't think the outcome is in any doubt. Andrewa 10:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The move has been completed. Ground Zero | t 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally hd a rough time finding this article because I was looking for the "Free Republic of Franklin". Was this not the title given to the land? Since the land was not actually admitted as a "state", I believe calling it such is a bit inappropriate. csmdad 16 November 2008


 * Are there reliable sources that refer to it as the "Free Republic of Franklin"? There are quite a lot of high quality sources that describe it as the State of Franklin. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of the "Free Republic of Franklin", but I've heard and read plenty about the State of Franklin. --Orlady (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon Carter
The LC mentioned on this page is clearly not the LC of "Diary of Landon Carter" repute, so I have removed the wikilink. You can confirm this by comparison of years of date/birth: cf. http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=C043 Sluggy 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Financial Reasons Behind the Foundation of The State of Franklin
I grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, and (like everyone else in school there at that time) had a one-hour class daily in junior high school (8th grade) on the subject of North Carolina History. I was in this class in 1956-57 and my teacher was a certain Mr. Lee (I have no idea what the rest of his name was). I wrote a term paper later that discussed the State of Franklin. I did research for the paper in the Charlotte Public Library, and my research included conversations with older North Carolina residents as well. I remember quite clearly that many of my respondents repeated this same story about money and Franklin, although it could not have been from personal experience.

One of the most important financial reasons for the State of Franklin's formation was the loss of farming revenue through taxes levied by the State of North Carolina on corn alcohol produced in Franklin. The problem for the Franklinites was that transporting corn as grain out of the mountains from the Franklin area was prohibitively expensive (it took a lot of wagons to move all the corn, actually more wagon than were available). Their solution was to turn the grain into alcohol ("white lightning" today, I suppose) which they could transport with only a few wagons, and still get a reasonable return for their grain. That was the case until the State of North Carolina was running out of money and started taxing the Franklin liquid corn. The Franklinites became so angry that they almost succeeded in seceding from North Carolina.

That is the (uncorroborated) story that I learned in school and from my non-scientific research.

JimmyCraig (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm new here, and this landed in a completely "foreign" article the first time I submitted it. I'm still not sure how. Sorry!

JimmyCraig (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's true that trans-Appalachian frontiersmen liked to convert their corn into alcohol for ease of transportation, the dispute that provoked the formation of the State of Franklin was primarily over land claims. If you find a source for the role of whiskey, feel free to edit the article or post it here.  Bms4880 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

History of North Carolina
Why isn't this mentioned at History of North Carolina? It seems a fairly significant part of their history. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

State of Franklin in Pacific Northwest (proposed)
This came up in some notes I just wrote on alternate boundaries in the Pacific Northwest ; during agitation for a northward annexation in the days of the gold rushes of the mid-1900s, the name that got bandied about for what is now British Columbia, or that par of it northward from Washington (Idaho and Montana were to get their chunks too; nb this was all newspaper/speechifying bluster, never govt policy, except maybe for US Consul Nugent in Victoria in those days...long story; I'm noting this here as a possible dab, though I guess the best place to post it is on the US state pages and such...one idea in Wikipedia always seems to turn into twenty or thirty more....maybe it was State of Jefferson I'm thinking about, but that's also now means somewhere else. US-BC history is shadowy, never really written up jointly, as some modern historians have finally gotten around to noting in their forewords..., I'm always impressed by the depth and range of US historical and heritage articles...(I'm Canadian, from British Columbia).Skookum1 (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was called Franklin too, I believe, skookum.Hypatea (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Secessionist & Ceded
I object to the classification of the State of Franklin as a "Secessionist" movement. The State of North Carolina abandoned it's claim to the area, therefore there was no secession from North Carolina. Subsequent attempts to regain the area by North Carolina would classified as either a border dispute or an invasion. The Franklin government applied for statehood to the United States so this action certainly cannot be considered secessionist.

--DareorTruth (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DareorTruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by DareorTruth (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. NC offered it to the federal government who did not accept it...they never abandoned their area and the article tells you that. It was a secessionist movement. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything I find says that is incorrect.
 * Everything I find says that is incorrect.


 * "Ceded" does not require force. It is a legal term simply meaning to give up rights. "The act of cession, or to cede, is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty. Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines cession as "a surrender; a yielding; a giving up."


 * North Carolina legislature actually ceded the Western District in April of 1784, with the stipulation that the Federal government must assume governmental control within a two year period. When it became apparent that this was not going to occur due to the new federal government's focus elsewhere, the newly elected North Carolina assembly rescinded the cession in August, 1784. It was by then too late, as far as the Franklinites were concerned.


 * Please see:
 * http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/99/entry


 * The provisions of the North Carolina land act of 1783 favored those with prior knowledge of its passage. These individuals, including many of the most prominent and influential members of the North Carolina legislature, quickly claimed over four million acres of western lands in what came to be called the "Great Land Grab" of 1783. Having thus secured title to most of the area that would eventually become Tennessee, these lawmakers now gave their support to the western land cession. In 1784 North Carolina passed an act to cede its western lands to Congress with the stipulation that all land titles would remain valid. (Note: They were going to make a killing selling the land either to settlers or the federal government.)


 * Please see:
 * http://www.mytennesseegenealogy.com/tn-franklin.html


 * If you require more citations, I will be happy to provide them. If you have citations stating the document of cession was indeed only an "offer", I would ask that you post them here for additional discussion.


 * In the meantime, I have reverted your edit of (ceded=>offer).


 * Regards,
 * GenQuest (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in your cites which changes anything. What North Carolinians thought they were doing is different than what happened. They can make a document and say that they are ceding but if it isn't accepted (and it wasn't) then no cession occurred. What happened is that they offered cession but it didn't occur as is witnessed by their reestablished claim. If they had ceded then they couldn't have made that claim legally. You should consider clarifying within the article that cession was offered. I can offer to give you something but if you never accept it then I never gave it to you, right? :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see your point. But it is a historic fact the cession occurred, for whatever reason.


 * Background: The land-speculators in North Carolina had had free-reign in the state's congress, and, as is human nature, they were trying to take advantage ($$$$) of their influence. Thus, "freeing" the lands to federal government claim represented a veritable gold mine to these legislator-cum-land barons. To that end, they passed the cession act (&mdash;fact of law). After these scoundrels were soundly turned out of office in the ensuing elections (spring or summer of 1784 &mdash;I don't remember when, exactly) the newly elected government tried to undo the damage, but it was too late for NC, too. The territory offices at Jonesborough had been immediately closed upon cession, and, basically, all the administrative staff had been let go. There wasn't even a NC military presence trans-Appalachia. The Washington District, at the time, was a huge, huge drain on NC's government as well as its coffers. Many North Carolinians(?) were still glad to be rid of it and the responsibility/expense of protecting and serving the area's people. Even so, the new legislature moved to repeal the law half a year later, but it was too little, too late. (It would also be over a year later (fall-1785) that they even re-sent administrative bureaucrats into Jonesborough.) The Franklanders, not wanting to be seen as just a bunch of individual settlements waiting to be picked off one-by-one by their many enemies (Indians), had been busy securing their lands. They had already united to form their government and weren't about to undo the work they had started (they viewed themselves as having been abandoned by NC). When the NC legislature moved to legally rescind the cession, the folks in Frankland (at the time) declared themselves free of NC (but not U.S.) rule. That's where the duel "ceded", "secessionist" descriptions of the "state" came in.


 * Again, I'll re-emphasize, the word "ceded" does not necessarily imply a coercive action, and has no negativity associated with it (see Historic regions of the United States).


 * That said, I can compromise, and will see what I can come up with as far as re-wording the article to indicate "offer to cede" or it's approximate. I can live with that if you can. ;)


 * Sincerely, <font color="Purple">GenQuest  (Talk contribs) 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

never met the Union admission requirements
This statement, while technically correct, is certainly misleading. The petition for statehood did meet all of the requirements for petition, however it was not accepted by the required majority of states. This statement implies that the State of Franklin was somehow not qualified to become a state when the reality is that the petition was simply not approved.

--DareorTruth (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)