What if it were a public thing Setanta? If for some strange reason the state's population demanded it? I know this is far-fetched so bear with me please. Would the feds be able to do anything about it with so much people supporting secession?
Like I said it is a very far-fetched scenario but stranger things have happened.
Well, yes, but that is why i mentioned the civil rights era. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy "federalized" the National Guards of Southern states on occassion, i suspect, as much to neutralize them as a factor as for any other reason. When
Brown versus Board of Education outlawed school segregation in a Kansas case (Topeka), there was subsequently a row over black children attending school in Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower sent the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce the court order, and there was not only resentment in Arkansas, but it was made known both publicly and (as we have subsequently learned) privately by Governors that they did not care for the idea of the United States Army being used to enforce court orders. It was thereafter that Eisenhower conceived of using the National Guard. Not only does it neutralize the National Guard as potential armed force of the state, it neurtralizes hostile police forces, something which was frequently necessary in states of the South in the civil rights era. Were the National Guard called out, and mutinied, then the Feds would have a more sound legal justification for coming down on the recalcitrant state like a ton of bricks.
A famous image of the Birmingham, Alabama police setting a police dog to attack a civil rights marcher.
Members of the 82nd Airborne Division helping to enforce the school desegregation order at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.
(In a quick search, i did not come up with any images of "federalized" national guard units called out by the President.)
The Pacific Northwest has an interesting history ....
Quote:Secessionist and autonomy movements and ideas
One of the many proposed flags of Cascadia, superimposed over theoretical Cascadia's boundariesCascadia is a proposed name for the independent sovereign state that would be formed by the union of British Columbia, Washington and Oregon were these states and provinces ever to successfully secede from their respective federal governments in Ottawa and Washington DC. The boundaries of this Cascadia would incorporate those of the existing province and states.
The idea for an autonomous or independent Cascadian state first arose after Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark into the Pacific Northwest in 1803. Jefferson envisioned the establishment of an independent nation in the Western portion of the North American continent that he dubbed the "Republic of the Pacific". Jefferson's original idea has since been embraced by a number of different groups with generally similar aims. Some groups have sought to extend the interpretation of "Cascadia" to embrace parts of Northern California and Alaska, while others are more closely aligned with such related concepts as the State of Jefferson, the New California Republic, State of Trinity, State of Jackson, State of Klamath, State of Shasta and Pacifica.
Political motivations for the secession and autonomy movements deal mostly with perceived shared Cascadian political culture, values, language dialect, history and interests, which the eastern federal governments are accused of ignoring and being out of touch with.
Elements among the regions population sought to secede from the United States and form their own country from the very beginning of Oregon's statehood. While the Southern states broke away to form the Confederacy, some Oregonians saw it as a perfect opportunity to do the same and give new life to Jefferson's original idea, by trying to establish a country under Jefferson's name: the "Republic of the Pacific". The American government launched a successful propaganda attack to destroy the movement by trying to associate the Pacific movement with a group called the Knights of The Golden Circle which was a pro-Confederate, pro-slavery organization.
At the same time, other movements inside of Cascadia, such as the Klamath movement, Trinity and Jackson movements all sought to wrench certain areas of Cascadia free from U.S. control. These too failed, largely by being put down through various uses of force.
In the 1930's, the State of Jefferson movement came into being and is to date, the best known of such movements in the region. On the surface, that movement appeared to be a drive to tear Southern Oregon and Northern California away from California and Oregon. As this is historically a depressed area, many locals placed the blame on the governments of Salem and Sacramento. For that reason, a flag bearing two X's and a gold pan was adopted. The two X's represented the so-called "double crosses" from Sacramento and Salem. Though that is the State of Jefferson movement on the surface, many of those who organized it actually saw that the problems in "Jefferson" actually stemmed from the federal government and those people saw Jefferson statehood as a stepping stone to eventually breaking free from U.S. rule altogether. During 1940 and 1941, organizers attracted massive media attention by arming themselves and blockading Highway 99 to the south of Yreka, California where they collected tolls from motorists and passed out proclamations of independence. When a California Highway Patrolman turned up on the scene, he was told to "get down the road back to California". Local representatives were scheduled to meet with Congress on December 8, 1941, but as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the issue was tabled. After Japanese firebombs exploded in Oregon, killing several people, the entire movement faded away to support the war.
In 1956, groups from Cave Junction, Oregon and Dunsmuir, California threatened to tear Southern Oregon and Northern California from their respective state rulers to form the State of Shasta. Several of the organizers involved took it one step further and threatened the federal government with armed resistance unless certain demands were met.
Unrelated to any of the other secessionist movements and regarded with near-universal hostility among residents of the Northwest was the Northwest Territorial Imperative, a secessionist proposal promoted by the Aryan Nations during the 1980s.
In more recent years, a more organized movement calling for the re-unification of the original Oregon Country (which included the area of the modern day southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and into a single entity for the purpose of gaining independence from both the United States and Canada has come into being under the name of the Evergreen Revolution. Supporters of the Evergreen Revolution hope to one day achieve the independence of Cascadia through peaceful means, much the same way as was done in the former Czecho-Slovakia's Velvet Revolution in 1989.
The region is already served by several cooperative organizations and interstate or international agencies, especially in forestry and fishery management and emergency response - the whole region being prone to earthquakes. These organizations are thought by some to be precursors of a bioregional democracy, perhaps along the 'Republic' lines.
More.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Cascadia
In re. theoretical secession of California
In 1860 six Southern States (S. Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) had held Secession Conventions and voted to leave the Union. They were later joined by Virginia, Arkansas, N. Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. These 11 States represented one third of all the States in the Union at the time, and other States (like Maryland and Kentucky) might easily have decided to join the Secession movement.
There was no Constitutional provision then, or now, permitting an individual State from leaving the Union. The fruit of the unlawful act is null on its face, and can not thereafter be lawful. That's a principle that goes all the way back to Blackstone. Hence, the acts taking the States from the union were illegal and without force. The States DID NOT LEAVE the Union, but they were in insurrection against the Constitution and all the other States. This was view of both Buchanan and Lincoln at the time, and has been the view of most Constitutional scholars since.
In 1860-61, the separation between Federal and State governments was much greater than it has been since the middle of the 20th century. Though the States were in a state of insurrection, no State requested Federal assistance to abort the move for State independance. At that time neither Buchanan or Lincoln believed that they could Constitutionally send troops to quash the Secessionist States, until an overt act of violence was committed on the Federal Power. When Ruffin fired the first gun at Fort Sumpter, the Constitutional question of using force to suppress rebellion was cleared away and the war was on, and the question of secession was decided by force of arms.
If any State today were to decide to secede from the Union, there would be no question of the Federal government's right to immediately use force to suppress the rebellion. The separation between the States and the Federal government greatly decreased, and there are ample precedents for direct Federal intervention into State affairs even without any State request for assistance.
Most Constitutional lawyers and scholars now are even more in accord holding that no State can leave the Union on its own accord. The People as a whole adopted the Constitution and the republican system it describes, and only the People at large can dissolve it. As a result of Constitutional Convention, the delegates might dissolved the Constitutional bonds that united the States. Even that would not permit the withdrawal of any State until after the Constitutional Amendment, or scrapping, was ratified by the People of the United States acting in accord with the requirements of the existing Constitution.
If a State, or group, were to openly rebellion against the Federal Government they would have to defeat the legal armed force that their hostile act would trigger. Such a rebellious State/group might achieve independence of the Union only by the defeat of the United States military. If a third of the States in 1860-1865, acting with wide-spread popular approval, could not win against the Constitutional forces, what chance would any single State have today?
Secession is a dead issue, lets move on.
Asherman wrote:Secession is a dead issue, lets move on.
Sound advice, of course--however, i wish to point out that the thread was authored by an Englishman, who wished to be informed on the apparently deep divides between factions in this nation, and if it were ever likely to lead to the secession which was seen in 1860 and 1861. So the discussion can continue to be considered informative on that basis, i think.
Setanta wrote:Asherman wrote:Secession is a dead issue, lets move on.
Sound advice, of course--however, i wish to point out that the thread was authored by an Englishman, who wished to be informed on the apparently deep divides between factions in this nation, and if it were ever likely to lead to the secession which was seen in 1860 and 1861. So the discussion can continue to be considered informative on that basis, i think.
set & ash;
do you think that with the rise of spanish speakers in the midwest, that the united states could face a similar situation as that of canada and the french speaking independence movement ?
i'm not that educated about the canadian thing, but it looks similar to me.
The last time the issue of separation came up in Canada was a vote in 1995. The government was in the hands of an absolute Liberal majority (which means they had a majority of the seats in Parliament, and therefore could do what they wanted--the last two governments, one Liberal and the current Conservative, are coalitions, in that they respectively had the most seats, but not a majority, and relied/rely upon a coalition to pass their programs). Chrétien used the incredible power of the office of a Prime Minister with an absolute majority to throw millions at the anti-separation movement in Québec. A Prime Minister in a Westminister-style democracy has vastly more power than does a President--he is not only the chief executive, but he is also a Member of Parliament and the elected leader of his political party.
But finally, a government whistle-blower revealed that the millions of dollars shelled out in 1995 were handed out by Liberals in Québec to their cronies--to law firms and advertising agencies which were already engaged in publicity for the "Non" vote (anti-separation), and who had no earthly reason to be paid again for what they were already doing. A retired Canadian member of the Supreme Court, Justice John Gomery, was tapped to head an investigation. This became known as the Sponsorship Commission from the title of the Liberal program in 1995, the Sponsorship and Advertising plan. When Gomery revealed the results of the investigation, the Liberal government sitting in 2005 fell. The government was head by Paul Martin, who was not implicated (he was the Liberal Finance Minister at that time, though, and his protestations that he didn't know tended to ring hollow), but the NDP (New Democratic Party) withdrew their support of him, and a vote of no confidence was finally engineered--the Liberals lost. The old Tories, the "Progressive Conservative" Party had been dying, but they merged with the Alliance Party, an even further right party, and were given a new lease on life. In the election held in January, Stephen Harper, the PC Leader (and formerly the leader of the Alliance) managed to pick up the majority of seats, which allowed him to form a government, but not an absolute majority. The problem he faces is that the NDP, which also gained considerably in the Parliament, would likely never support him in a coalition--after all, the New Democrats are the only truly socialist party in North America. Therefore, to keep a coalition government afloat if the weather gets rough, he'd have to form a coalition with the Parti Quebecois, also known as the Bloc Québecois, or simply as the Bloc. But the Bloc are the party of the Separatists, and Harper relies heavily on conservative, English-speaking voters who grind their teeth in rage at the thought of the Separatists. He's OK until such time as a tough vote comes up, and he needs to rely on the Bloc, at which point they will hand in their bill for services rendered, which may likely p*ss off his electoral base. One of those devil and the deep blue sea situations. Canadian politics may be confusing, and Americans may consider them unimportant, but they are always interesting.
Canada was formed as a Confederation in 1867. All of the provinces of Canada were formerly colonies of Great Britain. The British North America Act, the closest thing they had to a Constitution, was kept at Westminister. It has been revised several times, since 1867, always at the request of the Canadian government. Canada in its final form did not emerge until after 1949, when Labrador/Newfoundland joined Canada. This was enshrined in the 1951 British North America Act. The Act which had been passed in 1949, just before Labrador/Newfoundland joined Canada had allowed them (the Canadians) a limited ability to amend their own constitution. I believe it was in 1982 that the British North America Act (latest version) was finally brought to Canada, and the ability to amend the Act given over fully to them.
Of particular interest are the 1982 Acts. These included the 1982 Canada Act (replacing the British North America Act), the 1982 Canada Constitutional Act (which included a disasterous amending formula) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--a sort of 20th century Canadian version of the Bill of Rights. The amending formula requires a unanimous vote of all of the provinces, as they are all technically joined in a confederation. Québec is always seen as the spoiler in these situations, as English-speaking Canada sees them as demanding too much autonomy in return for their vote on any amendment to the constitution. For an interesting view of how the process works, or rather fails to work, do an online search for Brian Mulroney and the Meech Lake Accords, which was his 1987 attempt to leave a political legacy. Never a dull moment in the Great White North, politically speaking.
thanks for the history, set.. i'll look into the mulroney/ meech stuff.
the idea of more than 2 viable parties is really interesting to me. i somehow suspect that dems and reps are most content with the arrangement.
not so sure that it's what's best for us though.
I personally consider it axiomatic that the "great two party system" is a scam concocted by those two parties designed to exclude any other parties. They have a death grip on electoral politics, and intend to keep it.
Setanta wrote:I personally consider it axiomatic that the "great two party system" is a scam concocted by those two parties designed to exclude any other parties. They have a death grip on electoral politics, and intend to keep it.
yep. not much of chance to be represented on much beyond surface issues.
Don't Tread,
On a possible Hispanic Separateness, please see my recent post on the immigration thread.
To change our system of government to something closer to what Set called above a "Westminster-style democracy" would require fundamental changes to the U.S. Constitution. The Founders knew of, and rejected that sort of government when designing our system. They wanted a chief executive constantly at the mercy of the shifting political winds that characterize the legislative branch. They intended the President to act independently with the focus and force that seldom results from trying to set policy by committees. The government under the Articles of Confederation was hamstrung, weak and almost powerless. In the late 18th century it looked almost certain that self-government was doomed to failure. The Founders recognized the need for a central government directed by a strong executive. Who could be trusted with such power? Well, Washington could, but who might follow him into such a powerful office? The Founder's solution, which is still pretty much intact, was to divide and weaken all three branches of government to the point that tyranny would be difficult, if not impossible. Compromises were made, and expected to form a hedge against any future extremist position. The system incorporates balances not only between the branches of the Federal government, but between the States and the national government. Small States without large populations are balanced against large, populous and powerful States (hooray, for the Electoral College). The propertyless poor and disenfranchised are represented in the House, while the Senate was designed to serve the more conservative wealthy and interests of the States.
It would be the height of folly to risk our government to the sort of Constitutional tinkering that would be necessary to adopt a form of government considered and rejected by our forefathers. Why ever should we abandon that governmental system that has served our country, and the world, so well?
because, everything PUT together, sooner or later falls apart. General Systems Theory.
T'aint broke; don't fix it. The risk of mucking up what has worked well in the past for some imagined future benefit just isn't worth it.
Ash,
It doesn't get much more broke than it is! You just don't think so because you like the way it's broken!
Anon
If you think "it's broke," perhaps you could explain that to those of us who are apparently dull of wit. From where i sit, the processes of government continue as they have since the day one, for however much i despise that little sh!t on Pennsylvania Avenue . . .
Setanta wrote:If you think "it's broke," perhaps you could explain that to those of us who are apparently dull of wit. From where i sit, the processes of government continue as they have since the day one, for however much i despise that little sh!t on Pennsylvania Avenue . . .
Set, I never would consider you dull of wit ... mouthy ... but never dull of wit!
When all phases of government are controlled by one realm of thought to the detriment of all others, I consider that broken.
Anon
You'd have been poopin' in yer drawers in what was known as "the Era of Good Feelings." From the 1800 election of Thomas Jefferson, until the election of John Quincy Adams in 1824, the only party in power was the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Jefferson. It got so bad, that no one even ran against James Madison in 1820.
That is not much of an answer to the question of what is "broke." The system established by the Constitution functions now just as it did in 1789. Unless you can show that that system is breaking down, and the government no longer functions as it was intended to function, you have no case.
Anon,
What single "realm of thought" do you believe controls "all phases" of government to the "detriment of all others"?
You seem to imply that "all phases of government" are being controlled by some outside puppet-master, or political conspiracy. Differences of opinion seem evident both inside and out of government services on a wide range of issues. No one is being silenced from the Left or the Right, much less by local, State, or Federal governments.
BTW, if you think that forces with the American body-politic "chill" vocal opposition, you should read a bit of history. From John Adams to Richard Nixon there have been attempts to control opinion and smother dissent. Some of the worst offenders in such matters are often painted as national heros today. Nothing today comes close to the official policies followed by the Lincoln and Wilson administrations. The very term "sedition" has almost fallen from our lexicon, but even after the turn of the 20th century it was a potent stick that was often used to beat down opposition to government policies. Clearly, no one in the hate President Bush camp is much afraid of sedition, now are they?
Ash,
I am well aware of the Lincoln and Wilson Administrations.. I just thought we had grown up since then. I thought we had learned things over the last half a century, only to find that we have learned nothing! I think the war votes are a good example. I have a link I want to put up here that will show what I mean ... if I can find it. I looked for it the other day and couldn't ... I'll try again.
Anon
Setanta wrote:You'd have been poopin' in yer drawers in what was known as "the Era of Good Feelings." From the 1800 election of Thomas Jefferson, until the election of John Quincy Adams in 1824, the only party in power was the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Jefferson. It got so bad, that no one even ran against James Madison in 1820.
That is not much of an answer to the question of what is "broke." The system established by the Constitution functions now just as it did in 1789. Unless you can show that that system is breaking down, and the government no longer functions as it was intended to function, you have no case.
We're supposed to have checks and balances ... I don't see those working any more!!
Anon
