During the War of , New England states held a convention at Hartford to debate whether to secede, out of opposition to the war with Britain. Kreitner takes a kitchen-sink approach, one where every separatist movement, every prophecy of civil war, and every threat of disunion or secession, is given equal weight.
What he does not do is assess the seriousness of each threat. As the historian Elizabeth Varon has shown, calls for disunion were certainly ubiquitous before the Civil War, from all sections, but most of these were rhetorical; popular support for secession was actually limited. By the time the Republican Party was established as an anti-slavery party in the mids, most abolitionists — including Black abolitionists —supported ending slavery by working through the political process, not against it, sapping anti-slavery disunionism of what little support it had.
Most rewarding is his integration of the West into the national narrative. Drawing on recent scholarship by Heather Cox Richardson , John Craig Hammond , and others , Kreitner argues that western calls for secession have been as much a feature of our national history as have calls for secession in the North and South. It would include the bloody conflicts between Mormon militias and federal troops over control of the Utah Territory in the s.
And it would include separatist movements in California and Oregon. In , proslavery Los Angelinos supported a bill calling for a new proslavery state carved out of Southern California.
Kreitner acknowledges that threats of disunion became less frequent by the end of the nineteenth century, but he insists that fears of disunion remained ever-present. A Government is not a corporation whose existence is limited by a fixed period of time, nor does it provide a means for its own dissolution. The Constitution of the United States provides that it may be amended, and prescribes how this may be done, but it does not, as it exists now, contemplate its own destruction, nor a dissolution of the Government of which it is the living evidence.
Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union. But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union.
There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced.
When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it. So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so.
Though economists have shown time and time again that growth creates positive-sum benefits, Californians, with their newly established borders, also may fall subject to an erroneous us-versus-them mentality. A Californian secession could cause a snowball effect Credit: Getty. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation. Therefore, states stretching north from Maryland to Maine and west to Pennsylvania may see secession as the only means of escaping a permanent Republican majority.
History has seen such dynamics play out. Following the secession of the north-east, Florida may opt to depart, too, as could parts of Texas. At that point, other states — many of which have the economic capacity and population size to become small countries of their own — may see little incentive to stick around. Did you enjoy this story? Then we have a favour to ask. Join your fellow readers and vote for us in the Webby Awards!
It only takes a minute and helps support original, in-depth journalism. Thank you! If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc. What If California must begin protecting itself now. We cannot live under a Trump Supreme Court secede california. Constitution A4s3 has a procedure for adding new states or subdividing existing states--both require Congress to consent. But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.
In Texas v.
0コメント