wiki "*On 3 March 1837, US President Andrew Jackson appointed Alcée La Branche as American chargé d’affaires to the Republic of Texas, thus officially recognizing Texas as an independent republic.[11] France granted official recognition of Texas on 25 September 1839, appointing Alponse Dubois de Saligny to serve as chargé d’affaires. The French Legation was built in 1841, and still stands in Austin as the oldest frame structure in the city.[12]
The Republic also received diplomatic recognition from Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Yucatán. The United Kingdom never granted official recognition of Texas due to its own friendly relations with Mexico, but admitted Texan goods into British ports on their own terms. *
Also: What’s the largest US city named for a president?
Speaking of the Republic of Texas (and getting back to the OP), it had several capitals during its war of independence. I can’t find exact dates for all of them, but I think the shortest was in Washington-on-the-Brazos for only 17 days. Or 16 days, if you count from the day they declared independence. Or you could count the steamboat Cayuga, which was de facto captial for about 10 days.
PS I don’t know what was so tricky about the Jeopardy! question. It only took me a couple seconds to get the answer.
I think you’re overegging that pudding. If you lived in (say) South Carolina in 1862, Jefferson Davis was quite definitely the President. Abraham Lincoln’s writ certainly didn’t run very far in the South!
And this notion of “recognition” is a little anachronistic for the mid-nineteenth century, and even today is a little overplayed. Nobody recognised Somaliland, only one country recognises Northern Cyprus, and for a long time the People’s Republic of China failed to win recognition from a significant proportion of the world; yet all these countries clearly exist on the ground.
Recognition is not an objective test of a government or state; it’s a political mechanism. But if you live in the relevant territory, what matters is whose laws you have to obey. The old phrase about “where the King’s writ runneth not” comes to mind.
As for the OP’s question, I’m wondering if mediaeval states count? It was often the case that the ruler would be travelling around his or her realm, and the institutions of state would follow around with him/her. So, the ruler’s council, the judges, the treasury, the chancellory would be open for business at all sorts of different places over time.
Same thing could be said of Franklin and Col John Sevier.
Somaliland isn’t a country, it’s just another part of the failed nation of Somali, it’s a “power-sharing coalition of Somaliland’s main clans”. Neither is Puntland. Neither have a real central government, they are just regions of Somali that have wielded some limited governmental powers. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is just the Turkish population of Cyprus. Both may become nations in the future, true.
It’s true that whoever is holding the gun to your head is “the Boss” at that point in time, but that hardly makes him a real President. It generally makes him a criminal. Davis was never President of anything, the CSA was never a nation.
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what you’re referring to here!
By this definition, we wouldn’t count Stalin or Mao, or the USSR, or a myriad of other leaders and states.
Surely we have to distinguish between the moral dimension of a leader and his or her state, and the facts on the ground. The CSA clearly existed, and clearly its writ ran for a time across a considerable expanse of territory, and in relation to a considerable number of people. The USA was powerless to intervene on the ground in most cases, except around the periphery, and usually only as the result of the use of its own arms against those of the CSA.
Somalia’s “government” controls next to nothing of anything, which is less than can be said of the “so-called” government of Somaliland.
External recognition is certainly an important factor to be considered, but it’s by no means the only one that’s relevant.
That is actually the predominant position in international law currently. For centuries, there have been two opposite doctrines on statehood: One “constitutive” theory according to which a state (in the international law sense, i.e., an independent nation) is a state if it is recognised as such by others; and a “declaratory” theory according to which the fulfilment of objective criteria (territory, population, effective government) makes a state a state and recognition is not necessary (the recognition only declares a status, i.e. statehood, that preexists the declaration, hence the name). The currently predominant theory is clearly the declaratory. It does not take recognition, under international law, to be a state.
Yes, I think that may have started when Dick Celeste served as governor (1983-91). My hometown was capital for a day once - all it meant was that the governor and some of his Cabinet came to town, had some public meetings, gave some speeches, handed out some commemorative stuff, and then moved on. It’s purely a P.R. shtick. The Ohio Constitution designates Columbus the capital “unless otherwise directed by law,” and it hasn’t changed since 1816.
RadicalPi, the Louisiana Supreme Court routinely sits both in Baton Rouge, the state capital, and in New Orleans, the state’s biggest city. It has courthouses in both cities.
