Posted on 12/16/2016 2:00:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 led South Carolina to try to secede from the Union. Donald Trump’s election last month has raised similar talk in California, known as the “California Independence Campaign.”
Billionaire activist Tom Steyer said in that aftermath of the election that, “It’s impossible to look at the Trump campaign and not see a direct threat to the civil liberties and dignity of California citizens.”
The leftist anti-constitutionalist Jeff Rosen is also touting “States’ Rights for the Left” in a recent opinion piece.
California can’t secede. The Civil War settled that. But there are other potential avenues by which the Golden State can leave the Union: unanimous consent, retrocession, and deannexation.
California might be able to exit theoretically — and certainly could practically — if nobody objected. Lincoln himself entertained this possibility in his first inaugural address. If the Union were “but an association of States, in the nature of contract merely,” he suggested, it could be “peaceably unmade” by unanimous consent of all the States.”
Lincoln was speaking arguendo (for the sake of argument). He did not believe that the Union was a contract among the States. Even so, he recognized that he could not stop an illegal secession if his “rightful masters, the American people,” did not furnish “the requisite means” to stop secession.
Though President Obama would probably have held the door open had Texas tried to secede during his presidency, President-elect Trump is not likely to let California go in peace.
Another alternative is to let California go out the way she came in. The common historical view is that the United States “conquered” California (along with Texas and the rest of the Southwest) in the Mexican “war of aggression” of 1846-48. This is true as far as it goes, but incomplete.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good counsel.
From my reading, it appears the Declaration of Independence was a unilateral action by the colonies and was not based on the mutual consent of Britain. Or the votes of Spain, or Portugal, or Canada, or anyone else in the international community.
It appears the D of I was an action, based on findings, of the people who signed the document: Samuel Huntington, Roger Sherman, William Williams and Oliver Wolcott from Connecticut; Thomas McKean, George Read, and Caesar Rodney of Delaware; Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall and George Walton of Georgia; and so forth and so on.
The Document was styled “Declaration” of Independence - not “Petition” of Independence.
My understanding, from reading the D of I, is “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Further, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as TO THEM (emphasis added) shall seem most likely . . .”
Of course, not everyone agrees with these words. The King of England, for one.
And then there was Abraham Lincoln. Under the Lincoln “consent of the governed” theory the consent of the federal government was needed before people could exercise the right to alter or abolish.
I'm not arguing people in California should leave the union now. There is a better course of action: people in California should repent, change their ways, and act like they have some sense.
But if the people of California decide to issue a D of I (they will not), it would be their decision and would not require the consent of a King.
Aside from from LA, SAC and SF, I doubt the rest of the state would ever take any interest in leaving.
That’s correct. The Dof I is a unilateral decision, but not without clear justification and notice given to “a candid world”.
The Colonists didn't secede from British rule - they openly rebelled. And as a last resort and only after exhausting every other remedy.
The southern slavers chose violent insurrection as their first recourse.
they chose poorly.
Problem identified: you are weak on American history.
If you knew about the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the omnibus Compromise of 1850, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 you would not make the mistake of writing about “violent insurrection as their first recourse.”
The southern sons and grandsons of the founding fathers wanted to preserve their birthright union. They embraced peaceful compromise. Repeatedly.
“Wouldn’t take but a month for the Mexican Army to conquer that teeming pile of draft dodgers and baby killers”
If California were to secede successfully, the PLA Navy would be based in San Diego within six months. Hawaii would be lost within a year.
They embraced peaceful compromise. Repeatedly.
Their idea of compromise was like the ex-wife of a buddy of mine "Do it my way and I'll stop nagging you"
What seems like an unconfirmed anecdote to one person is the basis for anothers compelling world view. Strange that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.