What in the World is Being Sprayed in The Skys?

http://vimeo.com/16219493

 What in The World Are They Spraying?

Congressional edition, Volume 2912 By United States. Congress

Congressional edition, Volume 2912 By United States. Congress

http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=7jpHAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

February 25.1892.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Morgan, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the

following

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the hill (S. 1548) to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States as defined in section 709 of the Revised Statutes, etc., submit the following- report and accompanying papers, and recommend the passage of the bill:

The effect that is to be given to the judgments of the tribal courts, based upon their written constitutions, and the laws enacted by the legislatures of five civilized tribes—especially with reference to the disposal of their lauds within the undisputed limits of their national boundaries to their own people—is a matter of the deepest concern to the tribes, the individual Indians, and to the Government of the United States. To postpone a satisfactory and final decision of this subject to a future i>eriod will invite confusion, distrust, and civil strife in that entire country.

The bill reported by the committee (S. 1.548) appears to be the best if not the only means of reaching a just, satisfactory, and indisputable decision and settlement of these questions.

As a matter of constitutional power, the enactment of laws by Congress to define and regulate the political status of these five tribes can not be disputed. Any declaration in our treaties, or in existing statutes, as to the mere political right of the Indians to have and conduct local self-government, must yield to the power of Congress to repeal the mere political features of such treaties and statutes whenever they are found to be inconsistent with and injurious to the general welfare of the people of the United.States.

This power has often been declared, both in acts of Congress and in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. But when a proprietary right is vested in any grantee by a treaty, the repeal of the treaty does not affect the right. Especially is this true of grants of land by fixed boundaries, which have been demarked and ratified by authority of the legislature and recognized by the executive and judicial departments of the Government.

Neither can the power to dispose of lands so granted be afterward taken away when that power is one of the elements of the grant and is made necessary by the terms of the treaty or by the then existing conditions in order to the full execution of the purposes of the grant. The grant and the power to completely execute it are equally the right of

 http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/Jan98/1-98a3.htm
 January 1998

Native American Cultural Property Law Human Rights Legislation by Hon. Sherry Hutt In the larger scope of history this is a small thing; in the smaller scope of conscience, it may be the biggest thing we have ever done. — Congressman Morris Udall, October 1990 1 This decade began with a resurgence of human rights activism on a scale not seen for 30 years. The recent events were quiet ones. The scene of the activity was the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures of almost every state in the country, including Arizona. This venue posed a certain irony, since it was the legislative process which proved unresponsive in the 1960s and forced human rights issues into the courts. This time it was the judicial system which failed to respond. The beneficiaries of this recent activity have been Native Americans, a group only indirectly benefited by the sensitivity to diversity and human equality of the 1960s civil rights laws. The new laws are not concerned with equality in employment, housing and education, but pertain to the previously overlooked issue of cultural property rights of Native Americans. The laws discussed in this article do not create new or special rights for Native Americans. Rather, they guarantee to them property rights otherwise protected by our constitution and laws. The enforcement of existing but abridged rights is the essence of human rights legislation.2 Recognition of Cultural Property Rights as Protected Human Rights Cultural property can be defined as an evolving irreplaceable resource that defines the unique existence of a group of people. It is the underpinning of group identity in a spatial and temporal context. It may be the tangible expression of humans interacting with their environment; 3 or the intellectual property of groups, such as Navajo ceremonial songs; or ethnobiological knowledge.4 The preservation of cultural property rights is essential to give meaning to human existence and as a bond against enslaving a people by diminishing the definition of their existence.5 "The distinction sometimes made between property rights and human rights is spurious. Human rights are simply part of a person’s property rights." 6 The concept is so simple it can be taken for granted, unless you are within a group of people whose property is administered by a government which historically has assigned their rights to others. Since 1906, the United States has retained the authority to control permits for excavations on lands under its jurisdiction, the fruits of which are to be placed in public museums.7 A social ethic developed in this country which allowed items held in common and placed in accessible areas, not under lock and key, to be available for personal collection. Even burials, the rights to the disposition of which under English common law and American property law are reserved to descendants, have been assumed to be government property when they are the burials of Native Americans. 8 Native people recognize that there is a connection between their well-being and the places and items which define their culture and which may be deified. In contrast, the modern, Christian and anthropocentric views have allowed a linear concept of a beginning and end to time on earth to rule the use of cultural and natural resources. "This linear concept is accompanied by an implicit faith in perpetual progress." 9 The result has been a lack of respect for the cultural traditions of native people. We have come to a point in time where respect for the cultural property of Native Americans must be viewed as a human right. The questions which are addressed by an examination of cultural property law are not whether scientific inquiry in archeological excavations, or mass development of the landscape for human occupation, should occur. Rather, the issues are framed in terms of who has the right to decide. There must always be an initial inquiry into who has the right to control the disposition of an item. "The forced sharing of space brings home the forced coexistence with other people in the world and the forced sharing of the decision-making power."10 The recognition of Native American cultural property rights brings to an end the domination of Eurocentric assumptions concerning property rights. The recent example of the dinosaur "Sue" illustrates this point. Scientists criticized the sale of "Sue," but neglected to consider the property rights of the Native American landowner. Dinosaur remains are periodically sold in this country, and Native Americans have the same property rights as all other landowners. Failure of the Courts to Uphold Cultural Property Rights It may be asked, if cultural property rights are inherent within existing law, why was there a need to devise specific new legislation? The answer given to this question during the Senate hearings before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in 1990 was that attempts to enforce property rights using available legal means would not be upheld in court. 11 Numerous examples were cited in the Congressional hearings to illustrate the present status of the legal culture. Only two examples will be noted here. During a frolic in the Florida swamps in 1964, Arnold Clifford Newman came across the coffin of a Seminole Indian, who had been resting in peace for about two years, and removed the skull and other items. In overturning his grave defacement conviction on appeal, the court classified the law as analogous to malicious mischief; which must be perpetrated "wantonly and maliciously." 12 The court discussed at length the virtues of Mr. Newman, found that such a paragon of virtue was not capable of wanton and malicious acts and quashed the conviction. In Ohio, grave desecrations of older remains were routinely ignored, as the courts there have long held that remains in an advanced stage of decomposition no longer constitute a corpse.13 Although Native American mortuary traditions have not been given great weight in court, return of cultural property to tribal people has occurred on a voluntary basis. The Heard Museum in Phoenix repatriated Apache War Shields as an action of the board of directors prior to the imposition of legal requirements. The Heard’s Director, Dr. Martin Sullivan, had overseen the return of Wampum Belts to the Onondaga Nation while in his previous capacity as director of the New York State Museum. The Onondaga had not fared as well in court. They had brought an action in 1899 for return of stolen property and the matter was unresolved for 75 years. 14 When pursuing stolen property, common law theories should have been adequate. However, property held by the government or discovered pursuant to an excavation permit is deemed by law to be government property and may not be deacquisitioned by even the most well-meaning public servant. State and Federal Legislation State Laws: Most states have health and safety laws which regulate care of the dead and cemeteries. Prior to 1988, most of these laws only pertained to marked graves in clearly established cemeteries. In the often-cited opinion of the California Court of Appeals in Wana the Bear v. Community Construction, Inc., 15 the California burial law was held not to apply to unmarked Native American burial grounds which predated the law. In states where protection was afforded to Native American traditional burials the penalties were minor and were insufficient to deter looting or vandalism. Public attention was focused on the the issue of Native American burials in 1988, when National Geographic published a lengthy article on the massive destruction of more than 800 burial sites on a private farm in Kentucky and the failure of the government to respond. Between 1988 and 1990, almost every state in the country amended its laws to include protection for Native American burial sites. 16 States which previously had mild protection laws amended them to add felony sanctions for destruction and theft of items from sites whether or not the sites were marked. This new generation of laws also included state statutes which required private landowners to report the presence of burials on their land to a state authority and to become involved in repatriation of remains to the appropriate tribalauthority. Arizona Law: Arizona was at theforefront of the recognition and protection movement when in 1990 it amended the Arizona Antiquities Act to include comprehensive provisions for the repatriation of sensitive Indian material.17 Arizona statutes Title 41, Article 4, protects "Archaeological Discoveries." Section 844A requires that the person in charge of any excavation on state land report to "the director of the Arizona state museum the existence of any archaeological, paleontological or historical site or object that is at least fifty years old," and take reasonable steps to secure and preserve the object. The state museum was made responsible for the curation of the item as property of the state. As of September 20, 1990, the statute was amended to add a process for notice to tribes and an opportunity for tribes to assert their ownership rights to "human remains, funerary objects, sacred ceremonial objects or objects of national or tribal patrimony."18 The Arizona repatriation law provides that the director of the Arizona state museum will give notice of discoveries to all individuals with a kinship relationship to the human remains, all groups that may have a cultural or religious affinity to objects, curatorial staff of the Arizona state museum, faculty members of state universities who may have significant interest in the items, and to the state historic preservation officer. Notice will also be given to tribes which occupy or have occupied the land on which the discovery is made, the Arizona commission on Indian affairs and the intertribal council of Arizona. The director is then charged with overseeing consultation and agreements on the disposition of items. If no agreement is reached the director shall defer to the nearest relative for the treatment of human remains; if no relative is known, or if the items in question are religious or cultural items, a disposition will be made in accordance with the desires of the culturally affiliated tribe. In any event, the disposition of items shall be handled in an efficient manner so that an affected construction project may be completed in a timely manner. When there is no claim for the return of human remains by a tribe, the state museum is charged with leaving the remains in place when possible or reintering them when removal is necessary. Reburial may occur up to a year after the excavation to allow for scientific study. Claims may also be made by a tribe for culturally affiliated human remains or objects in the possession of a state agency as of September 20, 1990. When there is a dispute between parties the statute requires arbitration, and the arbitrator may be the state historic preservation officer. Arbitration decisions are appealable to the superior court.19 The Arizona burial law, Title 41, section 865, which pertains to burial places more than 50 years old on state or private land, was also amended in 1990. It is now a class 5 felony to intentionally disturb human remains or funerary objects on state, local government or private lands, without permission of the director of the state museum. It is also a class 5 felony to unintentionally disturb burials and then neglect to report the find to the director or to further disturb a burial. 20 A person "who intentionally possesses, sells or transfers any human remains or funerary objects that is excavated or removed" in violation of this section are also subject to felony prosecution and forfeiture to the state of the item and the proceeds of any sale. 21 Federal Law: There are two main pieces of federal legislation which concern Native American cultural property: the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, which is focused on the preservation of resources for their scientific value, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, which is truly Native American cultural property rights legislation.22 ARPA provides the federal government with a flexible tool to preserve and protect irreplaceable archeological resources. Archeological resource is defined as "material remains of past human life or activities" and which are at least 100 years of age. 23 ARPA contains a uniform system of permitting for excavations on federal land, and criminal or civil sanctions for the excavation, removal, damage or defacement of archeological resources on federal or Indian lands without a permit.24 Prosecution is also provided for the interstate transportation for sale or exchange of archeological resources obtained in violation of state or local law from state or private land,25 and for sale in the United States of items stolen from foreign entities. 26 Thus this law affords protection to ancient Indian burials and cultural property, which are all deemed to be property of the federal government, to be curated and studied under federal government direction. An exception to federal government ownership arises only if the items are located on tribal land, which creates a presumption of ownership in the tribal landowner. ARPA is repugnant to many Native Americans because it treats sensitive objects and human remains as scientific resources. In the course of a criminal prosecution a dollar value must be placed on these items. The fundamental flaws in the law, from the standpoint of human rights, are the failure to determine property rights and the underlying assumption that items on federal land are federal property. NAGPRA was drafted to overcome the shortcomings of ARPA and to institutionalize the consideration of Native American property rights with regard to human remains, funerary objects, sacred items and objects of cultural patrimony. In large part NAGPRA and the Arizona legislation are parallel treatments of Native American cultural property rights. Both laws require a determination of property rights from the time of discovery of human remains and cultural items, and both laws allow for the repatriation of items previously regarded as government property. Both laws contain provisions for felony prosecution for trafficking in Native American human remains and cultural items without proper authority. NAGPRA goes farther than the Arizona law to specify a process for the disclosure of items in the possession of federal repositories and museums which receive federal funds. These institutions must have completed a general summary of all Native American cultural items in their possession and disseminate those compilations to all federally recognized tribes which might have an interest in the items. The purpose of the summary is to give notice to tribes of the contents of the collection so that they may dialogue with museums and identify the protected items which they may desire to have returned. The federal agencies and museums which receive federal funds must also complete an item-by-item inventory of human remains and associated funerary items and furnish those lists to all parties who may have an interest. A statement of cultural affiliation on an inventory is a binding statement of the right of the culturally identified group or lineal descendent to claim the remains. If a museum which receives federal funds sells an item in its collection that is protected by NAGPRA, the institution is subject to criminal sanctions. 27 NAGPRA provides a good faith defense to later claims when it has repatriated an item in adherence to the NAGPRA process. 28 Pending Native American Cultural Property Issues The Custody Battle For Kennewick Man: Near Kennewick, Oregon, the remains of a 9,300-year-old man were found and the battle which looms over him may be greater than that of the altercation which caused a spear point to become lodged in his hip. The Army Corps of Engineers, on whose land the remains were found, made a determination that the individual was a Native American and they issued a NAGPRA notice of intent to repatriate to the Umatilla tribe, the aboriginal occupants of the area. A group of scientists and an anglo religious group, the Asatru Folk Assembly, have each brought suit in federal court in Oregon to claim the remains, one for science and the other on personal religious grounds. 29 The court must now answer the threshold question: is Kennewick Man a Native American? If so, NAGPRA applies and the law is clear that only federally recognized tribal groups have standing to make a claim. If not, the Corps will utilize their regular procedures outside of NAGPRA. This author has no idea whether Kennewick Man is a Native American. However, one thing is undisputably clear under the law, and that is that the decision rests with the Corps. The court may or may not find that the Corps’ decision was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion and remand the matter back to the Corps for further action. The decision begins and ends with the land managing agency. If Kennewick Man is determined to be Native American, the next step is to determine by a preponderance of the evidence which tribe among competing claimants shall have custody of the remains. Again, this decision begins with the Corps. Evidence in Support of Cultural Property Claims: Tribes may have had difficulty in the past perfecting claims to property, because the court did not recognize the common ownership of the property or because the evidence of cultural patrimony was offered by oral tradition. NAGPRA has legislated the admission of evidence based upon "geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion." 30 Since the essence of all evidence is relevance and competence, the law now recognizes that evidence of the status of an object has inherent reliability when offered by the people who are in a position to know its substance, such as an elder of the tribe or a religious leader. Conclusion This decade will be marked in history as a human rights period, one in which government action was predicated on a determination of the property rights of individuals. NAGPRA and the laws of its genre provide a process for establishing Native American cultural property rights. Sherry Hutt is a judge of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, and co-author of Heritage Resources Law (published by John Wiley & Sons). ENDNOTES: 1. Statement to the House of Representatives upon the passage of HR 5237. 2. Jack F. Trope & Walter R. Echo-Hawk, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History , 24 Ariz. St. L. J. 35 (1992). See generally 24 Ariz. St. L. J., Symposium: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and State Repatriation-Related Legislation. 3. F. Berkes & C. Folke, Investing in Cultural Capital for Sustainable Use of Capital, Investing in Natural Capital 1994. 4. Lawrence Yano, Protection of the Ethnobiological Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, 41 UCLA L. R. 443 (1993). 5. Joseph Sax, Heritage Preservation As A Public Duty: The Abbe Gregorie and the Origins of an Idea, 88 Mich. L.R. 1142 (1990). 6. Yoram Barzel, Economics Analysis of Property Rights, p. 4 (1997). 7. 16 USC 431-433. 8. Margaret Bowman, The Reburial of Native American Skeletal Remains: Approaches to the Resolution of a Conflict, 13 Harv. Envtl. L. R. 147 (1989). 9. L. White Jr., The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis, 155 Science 1203 (1967). 10. Margaret Jane Radin, Reinterpreting Property (1993). 11. Hearings on S. 1021 and S. 1980 Before the Senate Select Comm. on Indian Affairs, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (May 14, 1990). 12. Newman v. State, 174 So. 2d 479 (Fla. App. 1965). 13. State v. Glass, 273 N.E. 2d 893 (Ohio App. 1971). 14. Onondaga Nation v. Thatcher, 61 NYS 1027 (1899). 15. 128 Cal. App. 3d 536, 180 Cal. Rptr. 423 (1982). 16. Thomas H. Boyd, Disputes Regarding the Possession of Native American Religious and Cultural Objects and Human Remains: 55 MO. L. R. 883, 901, 903 (1990). 17. Paul Bender, 1990 Arizona Repatriation Legislation, 24 ARIZ. ST. L. J. 391 (1992). 18. A.R.S. 41-844(B). 19. A.R.S. 41-844(J). 20. A.R.S. 41-865 (A,B,G). 21. A.R.S. 41-865(G). 22. ARPA 16 USC 470aa-mm (1979), NAGPRA 25 USC 3001-3013 (1990). 23. 16 USC 470bb(1). 24. 16 USC 470 ee. 25. United States v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1993), cert denied, 114 S.Ct. 898 (1994). 26. United States v. Melnikas, CR 2-96-107, Dis. Ohio (1996), conviction for theft of documents from the Vatican library. 27. 18 USC 1170(b). United States v. Slater Museum of Norwich Conn. Sale of a bowl subject to NAGPRA consultation was reversed. 28. 25 USC 3005 (f). 29. Bonnichsen v. United States, No. 96-1481 and 1516 (D. Ore.). 30. 25 USC 3005 (a)(4).

http://www.theonion.com/video/report-economy-failing-because-us-built-on-ancient,20638/

http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/



http://wrvhs.org/main_wrvhs_contactus.php


http://video.optv.org/video/1634597433#

http://wrvhs.org/taney/detail_wrvhs_cemeteries.php

Treasure trove: legislative petitions

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Judy G. Russell

There’s gold in them thar petitions!
There’s an old saying, usually attributed to Otto von Bismarck,¹ that laws are like sausages; it’s better not to see them being made. For one particular part of the law-making process, however, I beg to differ.

1786 Petition for Tax Relief, Burke County NC

Unless your ancestors are recent immigrants, then you’ve undoubtedly run into situations where your family left records in several jurisdictions… but never moved. Only the county lines changed. Just last year I researched one Virginia family that lived essentially in one place, within a 20-mile radius of a particular river fork, for more than 100 years, and ended up over the years living in Augusta, Monongalia, Harrison, Lewis, Gilmer and Calhoun Counties.² Whew… So… did you ever wonder how those counties came to be formed? Bottom line: people asked for ’em. They did exactly what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed them the right to do: petition the government for a redress of grievances.³ In many many cases, those original petitions still exist, along with hosts of others submitted at one time or another to the legislatures of the states and to the U.S. Congress. And they can be fabulous resources.
Petitions for and against the creation of new counties or even smaller units of government are commonplace and can put an ancestor in a place at a time that no other record does. Live in New Jersey like I do? The loss of the 1800, 1810 and 1820 censuses drive you batty because you need to place your guy in, say, Monmouth County? Check out the New Jersey State Archives holdings for the State Legislature. The image that pops up on that page is… you guessed it… a petition from the Monmouth County freeholders to the Legislature in 1782. Among the Archives’ holdings: Petitions and Other Papers relating to County Courthouses and the Establishment of Counties, 1760-1858; and Petitions and Other Papers relating to Establishment of Municipalities and Municipal Boundaries, 1748-1859.
Wanna see what a petition for a new county looks like? In 1837, some folks living in Washington County, Texas, east of the Brazos, petitioned for the formation of a new county,⁴ and the Portal to Texas History has the image online. Trust me on this one: if you’re a descendant of James W. Parker or Luther Plummer or Abram Zuber or Joseph Henson or a whole bunch of others, you want this. Big time.
Sometimes kind souls will transcribe these petitions and put them online. Check out the petitions for the formation of Huntingdon County from the Pennsylvania State Archives, transcribed online at the Huntingdon History Research Network site. All five petitions for the division of Bedford County and the formation of a new County of Huntingdon are there, along with an additional 67 signers who opposed the new county.
But legislative petitions cover so much more than just creating new counties. The depth and breadth of these records are stunning.
On 22 October 1776, residents of Albemarle, Amherst and Buckingham Counties in Virginia signed a petition against established churches, and for religious equality.⁵ The Library of Congress’ American Memory Project has images of that petition online, courtesy of the Library of Virginia. If you descend from Charles L. Lewis, James Stephenson, John Harris, Thomas Benge, John Martin, Martin Brannen, Abraham Eads, Absalem McQuery, Andrew Spradley or any of dozens of other signers… you want that petition in your files. And there are literally hundreds of other petitions on religious issues in that one Library of Congress collection.
And speaking of the Library of Virginia, check out its legislative petitions database. Accomack County, 157 petitions. Albemarle County, 316. Alexandria Town, 190. Alexandria County, 37. Alleghany County, 79. And on and on. And they cover everything you can think of. In 1818, Susanna Carlton, widow of Henry Carlton of Botetourt County, filed a petition asking for a law authorizing her to sell his land in the Town of Salem.⁶ In May of 1782, residents of Fluvanna County asked for a delay in paying a tax.⁷ In December 1834, John Barns of Tazewell County asked for a divorce from his wife Lilly Heldridge. And he asked again in 1835. And again in 1836.⁸ (I didn’t check to see if Barns was on trial for murder in 1837…)
These petitions aren’t online, but they are on microfilm and the microfilm is available through Interlibrary Loan (ILL). The cost for getting five rolls at a time through ILL from the Library of Virginia? Nada. It’s free.
Whet your taste yet? How about a few more petitions with images online:
     • Liley, a slave, who saved enough to purchase her freedom, asked the Texas Legislature to allow her to be freed without having to leave the State. Some 80 people, including her owner, signed her petition for emancipation.⁹
     • Other Texans were looking for protection from Indian attack. In 1849, the citizens of Limestone County — folks like H.C. Walker and L.C. Pleasants and John T. Bennett and about 50 others — asked Governor Peter Bell to order the forces at Ft. Graham and Ft. Worth to “cause said Indians to be immediately removed above the line of Said Forts and to prevent any further encroachments by them in to our settlements.”¹⁰ There’s a transcription and digital images online.
     • And speaking of Texas, folks from Vermont weren’t entirely thrilled with the idea of annexing Texas. Some 27 residents of that northern state signed a petition in 1844 opposing the whole idea.¹¹ It’s online, with many other petitions, in the Petitions and Memorials set of the National Archives photostream on Flickr.
     • You did known that Benjamin Franklin signed a petition to Congress asking for an end to slavery, right?¹² No? Take a gander at the petition, and an explanation, online at the National Archives site.
You want more? Just look at these:
     • In Oregon, in 1854, the ladies wanted prohibition.
     • In Missouri, in 1842, people filed petitions for redress for property destroyed in the Mormon War.
     • In Alabama, in 1822, folks petitioned to pardon a man who bit off part of another’s ear AND to pardon another man who’d stolen a hog and horse since he’d already been whipped and branded.
     • In 1810, Daniel Boone asked Congress for a land grant in the Louisiana Territory.
Whenever you possibly can, you really want to go to the archives and hold the original of the petition in your hands. I can’t tell you the feeling you get when you sit there with the petition of your own fourth great grandfather to the North Carolina Legislature asking for relief because he’d lost everything in a house fire in Burke County, North Carolina, on Christmas Eve 1785.¹³
Oh… and that Virginia family I researched? None of ’em ever signed a petition to form any of the new counties they lived in. Two of ’em did sign a petition to create Roane County,¹⁴ but when Virginia did create Roane, it also created Calhoun County,¹⁵ and this family ended up in Calhoun. Go figure.

---

SOURCES

1. The attribution to Bismarck is probably wrong. See “Laws are Like Sausages. Better Not to See Them Being Made,” Quote Investigator, posted 8 Jul 2010 (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/08/laws-sausages/ : accessed 9 Feb 2012). ↩
2. Monongalia was created from Augusta and the District of West Augusta by Virginia Laws of 1776, chapter xlv, in William Waller Hening, compiler, “Hening’s Statutes at Law, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the first session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619,” 14 vols. (1819-1823; reprint ed., Charlottesville: Jamestown Foundation, 1969), 9: 262. And Harrison from Monongalia. Ibid., Laws of 1784, chapter vi, 11: 366-368. And Lewis from Harrison. Joy Gregorie Gilchrist and Charles H. Gilchrist, Lewis County, West Virginia: A Pictorial History of Old Lewis County, The Crossroads of Central West Virginia (Virginia Beach, Virginia : Donning Co., 1993), 22. And Gilmer from Lewis. Act of 3 February 1845, Laws of Virginia, 1845, chapter 43. And Calhoun from Gilmer. Act of 5 March 1856, Laws of Virginia, 1856, chapter 108. ↩
3. United States Constitution, amendment 1. ↩
4. Petition of Washington County residents, 9 March 1837, to the Republic of Texas Congress; digital images, The Portal to Texas History (http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth32375 : accessed 9 Feb 2012). ↩
5. Petition, 22 Oct 1776, Albemarle County and others; digital image, “Early Virginia Religious Petitions Collection,” American Memory Project, Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/petitions/ : accessed 9 Feb 2012). ↩
6. Petition, Susanna Carlton, 24 Dec 1818; Library of Virginia (LVA) legislative petitions reel 23, box 31, folder 24, Richmond. ↩
7. Petition, Inhabitants of Fluvanna County, 29 May 1782; LVA legislative petitions reel 57, box 78, folder 8. ↩
8. Petitions, John Barns, 4 Dec 1834, 15 Dec 1835 and 23 Dec 1836; LVA legislative petitions reel 192, box 243, folder 33. ↩
9. Petition for the Emancipation of Liley, 1 Nov 1847; Legislature, Memorials and Petitions, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Austin; digital images, TSLA Online (https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ : accessed 9 Feb 2012). ↩
10. Ibid., Petition from the Citizens of Limestone County to Governor Peter H. Bell, 25 Dec 1849. ↩
11. Petition, Citizens of Vermont Against Annexation of Texas, Apr 1844; Records of the United States Senate, Record Group 46; National Archives, College Park, Maryland; digital images, National Archives photostream on Flickr (: accessed 9 Feb 2012).) ↩
12. Petition, Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, Benjamin Franklin, Society President, 3 Feb 1790; Records of the U.S. Senate, RG 46; NA-College Park; digital images, National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/ : accessed 9 Feb 2012). ↩
13. Petition of David Baker, 22 Oct 1790; GASR Nov-Dec 1790, Box 2; North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. ↩
14. Petition of Citizens, 5 Dec 1855; LVA legislative petitions reel 173, box 220, folders 1-2. ↩
15. Act of 5 March 1856, Laws of Virginia, 1856, chapter 108. ↩

Posted in Resources | 8 Comments

Ozarks Burial Grounds

http://video.optv.org/video/1634597433#