Federalism Secession And The American State

One important tradition in political science conceives of the Civil War in the United States serving as the functional equivalent of the English and French Revolutions, bringing with it the victory of liberal democratic industrialism over aristocratic agriculturalism. From this perspective, the Civil War is notable for its impact on the American state. Surprisingly however, little attention has been paid to the distinguishing features of this historic rupture in American politics. Through primary source research and the re-analysis of the rich historical literature about the antebellum era and the causes of the Civil War, Lawrence A. Anderson explores the relationship between federalism and the movement for secession in the United States during the pre-civil war era. Focusing primarily on South Carolina, Anderson carefully revisits theory on institutional analysis of political development to expose what caused secession in the United States.

The controversial issue of secession has received little attention from experts of federalism. The best federal studies either evade it or dismiss it in a few lines. However, the issue of secession has been present throughout the history of federations. This book is one of the first to explore the complex relationship between federalism and secession. The authors whose work is presented here recognize the potential of federalism as a way to organize relations between several different states, peoples, nations or territories under the same government. However, they are not naïve or idealist about the ability of the federal idea to succeed in the complex situations in which it is applied. In some cases success seems assured (the United States, Switzerland, Germany, etc.), and the merits of federalism can be showcased. But there are also failures (the former Yugoslavia, or more recently Brexit) and semi-failures that have generated turbulence in recent years in devolutive systems (Scotland in the United Kingdom, Catalonia in Spain) or federative systems (Québec in Canada). This book provides a nuanced portrait of the issue of secession in federal contexts and lays the groundwork for questioning the still too fragile legacy of the great thinkers of federalism.

There are at least three times as many nations as states in the world today. This book addresses some of the special challenges that arise when two or more national communities re the same (multinational) state. As a work in normative political philosophy its principal aim is to evaluate the political and institutional choices of citizens and governments in states with rival nationalist discourses and nation-building projects. The first chapter takes stock of a decade of intensephilosophical and sociological debates about the nature of nations and nationalism. Norman identifies points of consensus in these debates, as well as issues that do not have to be definitively resolved in order to proceed with normative theorizing. He recommends thinking of nationalism as a form ofdiscourse, a way of arguing and mobilizing support, and not primarily as a belief in a principle. A liberal nationalist, then, is someone who uses nationalist arguments, or appeals to nationalist sentiments, in order to rally support for liberal policies. The rest of the book is taken up with the three big political and institutional choices in multinational states. First, what can political actors and governments legitimately do to shape citizens' national identity or identities? This is thecore question in the ethics of nation-building, or what Norman calls national engineering. Second, how can minority and majority national communities each be given an adequate degree of self-determination, including equal rights to carry out nation-building projects, within a democratic federal state?Finally, even in a world where most national minorities cannot have their own state, how should the constitutions of multinational federations regulate secessionist politics within the rule of law and the ideals of democracy? More than a decade after Yael Tamir's ground-breaking Liberal Nationalism, Norman finds that these three great practical and institutional questions have still rarely been addressed within a comprehensive normative theory of nationalism.

The Missouri legislature passes a bill to flout federal gun-control laws it deems unconstitutional. Texas refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, citing the state's sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment Center promotes the “Federal Health Care Nullification Act.” In these and many other similar instances, the spirit of nullification is seeing a resurgence in an ever-more politically fragmented and decentralized America. What this means—in legal, cultural, and historical terms—is the question explored in Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought. Bringing together a number of distinguished scholars, the book offers a variety of informed perspectives on what editor Sanford Levinson terms “neo-nullification,” a category that extends from formal declarations on the invalidity of federal law to what might be called “uncooperative federalism.” Mark Tushnet, Mark Graber, James Read, Jared Goldstein, Vicki Jackson, and Alison La Croix are among the contributors who consider a strain of federalism stretching from the framing of the Constitution to the state of Texas's most recent threat to secede from the United States. The authors look at the theory and practice of nullification and secession here and abroad, discussing how contemporary advocates use the text and history of the Constitution to make their cases, and how very different texts and histories influence such movements outside of the United States—in Scotland, for instance, or Catalonia, or Quebec, or even England vis-à-vis the European Union. Together these essays provide a nuanced account of the practical and philosophical implications of a concept that has marked America's troubled times, from the build-up to the Civil War to the struggle over civil rights to battles over the Second Amendment and Obamacare.

Why federalism is pulling America apart—and how the system can be reformed Federalism was James Madison's great invention. An innovative system of power sharing that balanced national and state interests, federalism was the pragmatic compromise that brought the colonies together to form the United States. Yet, even beyond the question of slavery, inequality was built into the system because federalism by its very nature meant that many aspects of an American's life depended on where they lived. Over time, these inequalities have created vast divisions between the states and made federalism fundamentally unstable. In The Divided States of America, Donald Kettl chronicles the history of a political system that once united the nation—and now threatens to break it apart. Exploring the full sweep of federalism from the founding to today, Kettl focuses on pivotal moments when power has shifted between state and national governments—from the violent rebalancing of the Civil War, when the nation almost split in two, to the era of civil rights a century later, when there was apparent agreement that inequality was a threat to liberty and the federal government should set policies for states to enact. Despite this consensus, inequality between states has only deepened since that moment. From health care and infrastructure to education and the environment, the quality of public services is ever more uneven. Having revealed the shortcomings of Madison's marvel, Kettl points to possible solutions in the writings of another founder: Alexander Hamilton. Making an urgent case for reforming federalism, The Divided States of America shows why we must—and how we can—address the crisis of American inequality.

One important tradition in political science conceives of the Civil War in the United States serving as the functional equivalent of the English and French Revolutions, bringing with it the victory of liberal democratic industrialism over aristocratic agriculturalism. From this perspective, the Civil War is notable for its impact on the American state. Surprisingly however, little attention has been paid to the distinguishing features of this historic rupture in American politics. Through primary source research and the re-analysis of the rich historical literature about the antebellum era and the causes of the Civil War, Lawrence A. Anderson explores the relationship between federalism and the movement for secession in the United States during the pre-civil war era. Focusing primarily on South Carolina, Anderson carefully revisits theory on institutional analysis of political development to expose what caused secession in the United States.

This volume, incorporating the work of scholars from various parts of the globe, taps the wisdom of the Westphalian (and post-Westphalian) world on the use of federalism and secession as tools for managing regional conflicts. The debate has rarely been more important than it is right now, especially in light of recent events in Catalonia, Scotland, Québec and the Sudan - all unique political contexts raising similar questions about how best to balance competing claims for autonomy, interdependence, political voice, and exit. Exploring how various nations have encountered comparable conflicts, some more and some less successfully, the book broadens the perspectives of scholars, government officials, and citizens struggling to resolve sovereignty conflicts with a full appreciation of the underlying principles they represent.

This book offers a broad perspective of revolutionary territorial politics by putting secession in the context of other forms of revolutionary territorial politics. This allows for a more complex and profound account of secession and offers the reader a conceptual approach to politics of revolutionary discontent with territorial status quo. Second, the book provides a multidiscoursive approach which combines the efforts of constitutional and comparative constitutional law scholars with international lawyers, EU lawyers and specialists in international relations. This allows for multifaceted and, in that regard, more adequate, balanced and rich analysis of secession and the other forms of revolutionary territorial politics.