FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3118468938> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3118468938 endingPage "121" @default.
• W3118468938 startingPage "120" @default.
• W3118468938 abstract "120 MichiganHistoricalReview book. Seasoned historians will not suffer unduly, but the average undergraduate would be baffled by Cooke's offhand references to Copperheads (the political sort), Zouaves, Fremont, the Ladies Aid Society, and so on. Even so, A BadgerBoy inBlue is an interesting collection that would nicely round out scholarly reading on the Civil War and pioneer midwestern history, and could (withhelp from an instructor) be a terrificaddition to an undergraduate's reading list. Michelle Kuhl University ofWisconsin Oshkosh Don Faber. The Toledo War: The FirstMichigan-Ohio Rivalry.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Pp. 213. Epilogue. Index. Notes. Paper, $24.95. In The ToledoWar: The FirstMichigan-Ohio Rivalry,Don Faber provides an in-depth analysis of a littie-known dispute between the state ofOhio, the (at thattime) Michigan Territory, and the federal government. Citing this dispute (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) as the basis for the ongoing Michigan-Ohio rivalry that continues each year on the football field suggests theview one might have of the conflict two hundred years after the fact?as a farce but one with an underlying intensity. The Toledo War can be described as a border war?a series of incidents that brought to the national spotlight the dispute over the northern boundary ofOhio and theMichigan Territory. Faber describes these incidents in great detail, which makes for an interesting narrative, but the real significance of this dispute and how itwas setded is that it can be seen as amicrocosm of the volatility of the time period. Faber begins by describing the only batde of the Toledo War, the Batde of Phillips Corners on April 16,1835. This approach sets the stage forwhat becomes an extensive analysis of the roots of the dispute. Faber presents, in a balanced fashion, the arguments put forth by both the Michigan Territory and Ohio on why itsposition was correct and should be supported by the federal government. Faber convincingly argues that the wording of key documents, notably the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution of Ohio, played a significant role in this dispute. The Northwest Ordinance used an east-west line drawn from the southernmost tip of Lake Michigan as the southern boundary of the northern tier of states. The Michigan Territory used this provision of the ordinance to Book Reviews121 stake its claim to the Toledo Strip. Ohio, on the other hand, used its constitution and the federal government's acceptance of that document as implied consent to a shift of the boundary somewhat farther north. (Early inaccuracies in estabhshing the latitude of Lake Michigan's southernmost tip had further complicated the issue.) Ohio argued that the state's constitution supplanted theNorthwest Ordinance since the ordinance had been passed before the ratification of theUnited States Constitution. This raised an interesting question concerning the relationship of the preconstitution government to the postconstitution states/territories. Ohio also argued thatMichigan had no legal status, since it was a territory, to challenge Ohio's claims in either Congress or the Supreme Court. Other political questions of the day also played out in this conflict, including the nullification controversy. Robert Lucas, Ohio's governor, took a strong stand against nullification as it was being argued by South Carolina and other southern states. Faber points out that by doing so, Lucas left the door wide open for Stevens T. Mason, Michigan's acting territorial governor, to proclaim that Ohio was trying to nullify the Northwest Ordinance by altering itsnorthern border and laying claim to theToledo Strip. Faber also discusses the economic roots of the dispute. Ohio and Michigan had been arguing over their boundaries for a long period of time with little consequence. Michigan was even enforcing laws and collecting taxes in theToledo Stripwith slight interference fromOhio. What changed? According to Faber, an interest in canals and a desire by investors to keep theirmoney in a stable entity?Ohio?made the difference. With potential access to a port city at stake,Michigan and Ohio each took a more aggressive stance toward settling the boundary dispute in its favor, thus sparking the war of words and military preparations. For those interested in the history ofMichigan's road to statehood, Faber's work demonstrates that this..." @default.
• W3118468938 created "2021-01-18" @default.
• W3118468938 creator A5070081502 @default.
• W3118468938 date "2009-01-01" @default.
• W3118468938 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W3118468938 title "The Toledo War: The First Michigan-Ohio Rivalry by Don Faber" @default.
• W3118468938 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mhr.2009.0012" @default.
• W3118468938 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W3118468938 type Work @default.
• W3118468938 sameAs 3118468938 @default.
• W3118468938 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3118468938 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3118468938 hasAuthorship W3118468938A5070081502 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C139719470 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C2779602485 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C81631423 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C11413529 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C124952713 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C139719470 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C142362112 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C144024400 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C162324750 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C17744445 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C199033989 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C199539241 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C2779602485 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C41008148 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C48103436 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C81631423 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C94625758 @default.
• W3118468938 hasConceptScore W3118468938C95457728 @default.
• W3118468938 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3118468938 hasLocation W31184689381 @default.
• W3118468938 hasOpenAccess W3118468938 @default.
• W3118468938 hasPrimaryLocation W31184689381 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2083537726 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2342347340 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2611093913 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2613055122 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2798772275 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W2947461895 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W413818592 @default.
• W3118468938 hasRelatedWork W4220712266 @default.
• W3118468938 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W3118468938 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3118468938 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3118468938 magId "3118468938" @default.
• W3118468938 workType "article" @default.