This is the transcript of a chat I had with ChatGPT on September 17, 2023.
What is the size of Nevada in square miles?
Nevada is approximately 110,567 square miles in size.
How many acres is that?
There are 640 acres in a square mile, so to convert 110,567 square miles to acres, you would multiply by 640. Therefore, Nevada is approximately 70,763,680 acres.
When did Nevada become a state?
Nevada became a state on October 31, 1864. It is often referred to as the "Battle Born State" because it achieved statehood during the Civil War.
What was the population of Nevada at the time it became a state?
At the time Nevada became a state in 1864, its population was approximately 42,941. It was, and still is, one of the least populous states in the United States.
What is the population of Nevada today?
As of 2023, the population of Nevada is estimated to be around 3.15 million people. However, it's always good to check the most recent census or population estimate for the most current information.
How many slaves were there at the time of the civil war?
At the start of the Civil War in 1861, there were approximately 4 million slaves in the United States, all located in the Southern states. It's worth noting that the number of slaves had grown significantly over the preceding decades; there were around 700,000 slaves in the US at the time of the American Revolution, and around 1.2 million by 1810.
How many acres of federally owned landed exist in Nevada?
Nevada has the highest percentage of federally owned land of any state in the USA. Approximately 85% of the land in Nevada, or about 60 million acres, is federally owned. This includes land managed by various federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service.
How many descendants of American slavery currently are living in the United States?
It's difficult to give a precise number for the descendants of American slavery currently living in the United States. However, it's estimated that there are around 40-45 million African Americans living in the US today, and a significant majority of them are descendants of slaves. This is a rough estimate as many records from the slavery era are incomplete or non-existent, and there has been significant migration and mixing of populations since that time.
Can you explain to me what was special order number 15?
Special Field Orders, No. 15 were a series of orders issued during the American Civil War on January 16, 1865, by General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi of the United States Army. They provided for the confiscation of 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and the dividing of it into parcels of not more than 40 acres (0.16 km2), on which were to be settled approximately 18,000 freed slave families and other Black Americans already living in the area. This is where the phrase "40 acres and a mule" originates, although the order did not actually promise mules. It is one of the most famous and controversial orders of the Civil War, as it addressed the question of what was to happen to the freed slaves after the war, a question that was still very much unsettled at the time. The order was later revoked by President Andrew Johnson in the fall of 1865.
Were the 400,000 acres contiguous or discontiguous?
The 400,000 acres specified in Special Field Orders, No. 15 were a continuous strip of land along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. It included the Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast. This area was chosen because it had been largely abandoned by white plantation owners and was already being farmed by black people who had been freed or had escaped from slavery. The idea was to grant each family a plot of not more than 40 acres, thereby allowing them a start to a new, independent life.
About how many slave families existed at the time of the Civil War?
At the start of the Civil War, there were approximately 4 million enslaved people in the United States, all in the southern states. The average enslaved family size is estimated to have been around 5-6 people, so a rough estimate of the number of enslaved families would be around 666,667 to 800,000. However, it's important to note that enslaved people often did not live in traditional nuclear families. Many families were broken apart by the sale of family members, and others were created by the forced union of individuals from different places and backgrounds.
So, did 40 acres and a mule actually happen?
The policy of "40 acres and a mule" was never officially implemented across the South. It originated with Special Field Orders, No. 15, issued by General Sherman in January 1865, which allocated land along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to be given to freed slaves. However, after President Lincoln's assassination, his successor, Andrew Johnson, quickly rescinded the order and returned the land to its former white owners.
There were a few instances where freed slaves received land, and some were even provided with mules by the Army, but these were the exception rather than the rule. The vast majority of freed slaves were left without any land or resources and had to find work as laborers or sharecroppers, often under very exploitative conditions.
I want to talk about special orders number 15. Do you know the text of it?
Yes, Special Field Orders, No. 15, issued by General William T. Sherman on January 16, 1865, consisted of two parts. The first part dealt with the allocation of land to freed slaves, and the second part dealt with the army's operations in South Carolina.
The relevant section, which deals with the allocation of land, reads as follows:
"III. The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the negroes [sic] now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States.
IV. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, St. Augustine and Jacksonville, the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations--but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress. By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the negro [sic] is free and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may prescribe. Domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters and other mechanics, will be free to select their own work and residence but the young and able-bodied negroes [sic] must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share towards maintaining their own freedom, and securing their rights as citizens of the United States.
V. Negroes [sic] so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions and regiments, under the orders of the United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, cattle, clothing, and food, and in securing land under the laws now in force, and without delay."
Did the order, special order number 15, restrict white people from owning or policing any of the land that was set aside for the freed slave families?
Yes, Special Field Orders, No. 15, specifically restricted white people from residing on the land that was set aside for freed slaves. Section IV of the order states:
"but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress."
This section clearly indicates that white people, except for military personnel on duty, were not allowed to reside in the designated areas, and the management of affairs in those areas would be left to the freed people, subject to military authority and Congressional acts.
Did the order, special order number 15, restrict white people from owning or policing any of the land that was set aside for the freed slave families?
Special Field Orders, No. 15, did not explicitly address land ownership, but it did specify that no white people, except for military personnel on duty, would be permitted to reside in the designated areas. It also stated that the "sole and exclusive management of affairs" in those areas would be left to the freed people, subject to military authority and Congressional acts.
This implies that white people would not be able to own or police the land since they were not allowed to reside there, and the management of affairs was to be left to the freed people. However, the order did not explicitly address the issue of land ownership or policing. Ultimately, the order was rescinded later that year by President Andrew Johnson, and the land was returned to its former white owners.
Is Israel an independent state?
Yes, Israel is an independent state. It declared independence on May 14, 1948, and this was followed by the establishment of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948. Israel is a member of the United Nations and has diplomatic relations with most of the world's countries. However, its independence and existence are still not recognized by some countries, mainly due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
Who did Israel declare independence from in 1948?
Israel declared independence from the British Mandate of Palestine. The British had control over Palestine since 1917, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration, in November 1947. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, and the US and Soviet Union recognized the new nation. The next day, forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded, starting the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949, also known as the War of Independence.
Are you saying that the territory or area that we know today as Israel used to be a part of a larger territorial area that would have been known as Palestine?
Yes, that is correct. The area now known as Israel was part of a larger territorial area known as Palestine. The region was under the control of the Ottoman Empire for several centuries before coming under British control after World War I. The British administered the area under the British Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1948. The United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states in 1947, and the State of Israel was established in part of the territory in 1948. The remaining parts of the territory were occupied by Egypt (the Gaza Strip) and Jordan (the West Bank) after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, until Israel captured those territories in the 1967 Six-Day War. The status of these territories remains a key issue in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
So the partition plan that you are referring to is largely a religious partition?
The UN partition plan was more ethnic than religious, as it aimed to address the claims of both Jewish and Arab national movements. However, religion is closely tied to ethnicity in this region. The plan was to create separate states for the region's two main ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs. The Jewish state would be for the Jewish inhabitants and immigrants, and the Arab state would be for the Arab inhabitants. Jerusalem, which is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, was to be placed under international administration due to its religious significance. The partition was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1947, but it was rejected by the Arab countries and the Palestinian Arab leadership.
Let's shift to the United States. Is it possible for new territorial areas to become a part of the United States, and specifically to become states of the United States?
Yes, it is possible for new territories to become part of the United States and specifically to become states. The process for admitting new states is outlined in the U.S. Constitution, in Article IV, Section 3. Congress has the authority to admit new states into the Union.
For a territory to become a state, Congress typically requires the territory to have a certain population, adopt a state constitution, and have a government in place that can function as a state government. Then, Congress can admit the territory as a state through an act of Congress. This process has been used to admit most of the U.S. states.
There are currently five inhabited U.S. territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Puerto Rico has held several non-binding referendums on statehood, and a majority of voters supported statehood in the most recent one in 2020. However, the decision ultimately lies with Congress, and as of 2023, Puerto Rico has not been admitted as a state.
What does the United States Constitution say is the process for admitting a new state?
The United States Constitution addresses the admission of new states in Article IV, Section 3, which states:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
This means that Congress has the power to admit new states, but it cannot create a new state within the jurisdiction of another state, nor can it create a new state by joining two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the state legislatures and Congress.
In practice, the process for admitting a new state usually involves the territory having a certain population, adopting a state constitution, and having a functioning government. Then, Congress can pass an act admitting the territory as a state. This process has varied somewhat over time and with each territory, but these are the general steps that have been followed for most states.
But is a specific population required?
The U.S. Constitution does not specify a population requirement for a territory to become a state, and there is no fixed population requirement in U.S. law. However, Congress has typically required territories to have a certain population before they are admitted as states. This population requirement has varied over time and from territory to territory. For example, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which governed the admission of new states in the Northwest Territory, required a territory to have a population of at least 60,000 free inhabitants before it could be admitted as a state. Today, there is no specific population requirement, but Congress would likely consider the population of a territory as one of many factors when deciding whether to admit it as a state.
Does the Constitution permit a new state to be carved out of territory of an existing state?
Yes, the Constitution does permit a new state to be carved out of the territory of an existing state, but it sets specific conditions for this to happen. According to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution:
"... no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
So, a new state can be created out of the territory of an existing state, but it requires the consent of both the state legislature(s) of the state(s) concerned and the Congress. This process was used, for example, when West Virginia was created out of the territory of Virginia during the Civil War.
Good point. Let's talk about West Virginia. Please tell me when West Virginia was created, why it was created, and how, meaning the process by which it was created.
West Virginia was created during the American Civil War due to differences between the western and eastern regions of Virginia. The western region of Virginia was largely anti-slavery and supported the Union, while the eastern region was pro-slavery and joined the Confederacy.
The process of creating West Virginia started in 1861 when Virginia held a referendum on secession. The majority of voters in the western counties opposed secession, while the majority in the eastern counties supported it. After Virginia seceded from the Union, representatives from the western counties met at the Wheeling Convention and declared that the secession was illegal and that they would form a new government for Virginia that remained loyal to the Union.
This new government, known as the Restored Government of Virginia, was recognized by the federal government as the legitimate government of Virginia. In 1862, the Restored Government of Virginia approved the formation of a new state, to be called West Virginia. This was followed by a referendum in the western counties, where voters approved the creation of the new state.
Finally, on December 31, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill admitting West Virginia to the Union as a separate state. West Virginia officially became a state on June 20, 1863.
This process was somewhat controversial because the Constitution requires the consent of the state legislature for the creation of a new state from the territory of an existing state. In this case, the consent was given by the Restored Government of Virginia, which was not recognized by the Confederacy or the existing state government of Virginia. However, the federal government recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate government of Virginia, and so it was deemed to meet the constitutional requirement.
How many acres of land does the federal government own within the contiguous United States?
As of 2021, the federal government owns about 640 million acres of land in the United States, which is about 28% of the total land area of the country. However, the majority of this land is in the western states and Alaska. In the contiguous 48 states, the federal government owns about 490 million acres, or about 23% of the total land area. This includes national parks, national forests, military reservations, and other federally managed lands. The exact number can vary slightly due to land acquisitions, sales, and transfers.
Where is the largest contiguous area of federally owned land in the United States?
The largest contiguous area of federally owned land in the United States is in Alaska, specifically in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), which spans approximately 23.6 million acres.
However, if you are asking about the contiguous 48 states, the largest contiguous area of federally owned land is likely in Nevada, which has the highest percentage of federally owned land of any state. About 85% of the land in Nevada is federally owned, including large tracts of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Under the United States Constitution, is it legal for the states to go to war against one another?
The United States Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of states waging war against each other, but it does give the federal government significant authority over military matters and disputes between states. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from entering into treaties, alliances, or confederations, and from granting letters of marque and reprisal (which are permissions to private citizens to capture enemy ships). It also prohibits states from keeping troops or ships of war in times of peace, or engaging in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. This suggests that the Constitution does not envisage or permit states to wage war against each other.
Furthermore, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the land and naval forces. The federal government also has the authority to resolve disputes between states, and the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Taken together, these provisions suggest that the Constitution does not permit states to wage war against each other and that the federal government has the authority to prevent and resolve conflicts between states.
Does one state have an interest in protecting its citizens from being terrorized by another state?
Yes, a state has an interest and a duty to protect its citizens from harm, including harm caused by another state. The primary duty of any government is to protect the safety and well-being of its citizens. This includes protecting its citizens from terrorist acts, whether they are perpetrated by individuals, groups, or another state.
However, in the United States, the federal government has primary responsibility for dealing with terrorism and interstate conflicts. The federal government has the authority to negotiate with foreign governments, regulate interstate commerce, and provide for the common defense. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and the federal government has the authority to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the land and naval forces.
While states have their own law enforcement agencies and National Guard units, the federal government has primary authority over matters of national security and interstate conflicts. If a state's citizens were being terrorized by another state, it would likely be a matter for the federal government to address.
Let's take Texas and Oklahoma as an example. If every day for a month a mob of people from Texas crossed the border into Oklahoma and burned down buildings and residences in Oklahoma, what recourse would Oklahoma have?
In the scenario you describe, where a mob from one state (Texas) is causing significant harm in another state (Oklahoma), there are several courses of action that Oklahoma could take:
Law Enforcement: Oklahoma's law enforcement agencies would likely respond to the incidents as they occur, arresting those involved and charging them with the appropriate crimes.
Request Assistance: Oklahoma could request assistance from the federal government. The federal government has the authority and responsibility to address interstate conflicts and could provide additional law enforcement resources, mediate between the states, or take other actions as necessary.
Legal Action: Oklahoma could potentially take legal action against Texas, either by suing Texas in federal court or by filing a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
Interstate Cooperation: Officials from Oklahoma could engage with officials from Texas to address the issue and seek their cooperation in stopping the attacks and holding those responsible accountable.
It is important to note that states in the U.S. have a legal and cooperative relationship with each other, and there are established mechanisms for resolving conflicts between states. Violent conflicts between states are extremely unlikely and would be addressed through legal and political channels.
Is there a sovereign Indian reservation in Oklahoma?
Yes, there are several federally recognized tribes in Oklahoma that have tribal lands or jurisdictional areas, which are sometimes referred to as reservations. However, the situation in Oklahoma is somewhat unique.
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case McGirt v. Oklahoma that much of eastern Oklahoma, including much of the city of Tulsa, is part of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's reservation. This decision effectively recognized that the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) were never officially terminated by Congress.
As a result of this decision, these tribes have increased jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters in their respective areas. However, the land is not exclusively owned by the tribes or their members; rather, it is a mix of tribal, public, and private ownership. The decision has significant implications for criminal jurisdiction, but its impact on other areas of law and governance is still being worked out.
Let's take Oklahoma and the Cherokee reservations as an example. If every day for a month a mob of people from Oklahoma crossed into the Cherokee reservations and burned down buildings and residences in the Cherokee reservations , what recourse would the Cherokee reservations have?
The Cherokee Nation, like other federally recognized tribes, is a sovereign entity with its own government and law enforcement agencies. If a mob of people from Oklahoma were to cross into Cherokee Nation land and commit criminal acts, the Cherokee Nation would have several options for recourse:
Law Enforcement: The Cherokee Nation has its own law enforcement agency, which could respond to the incidents, arrest those involved, and charge them with the appropriate crimes under Cherokee law.
Request Assistance: The Cherokee Nation could request assistance from the federal government or the state of Oklahoma. Both the federal and state governments have a legal obligation to protect tribal lands and could provide additional law enforcement resources or take other actions as necessary.
Legal Action: The Cherokee Nation could potentially take legal action against the individuals involved or the state of Oklahoma if it was found to be complicit in some way.
Political Action: Officials from the Cherokee Nation could engage with officials from the state of Oklahoma to address the issue and seek their cooperation in stopping the attacks and holding those responsible accountable.
It is important to note that the Cherokee Nation, like other federally recognized tribes, has a government-to-government relationship with the United States and the state of Oklahoma. This means that conflicts between the Cherokee Nation and the state of Oklahoma would likely be addressed through legal, political, and diplomatic channels, rather than through violent conflict.
That’s the end of the conversation. May need to fact check some things, but in general the information seems accurate. If you took the time to read this, I hope you learned something.
