Secessionism in the USA: An investigation of the State of the Union in the eyes of its critics

(1)

Secessionism in the USA

An Investigation of the State of the Union in the Eyes of its Critics

BACHELOR THESIS JACOB CASTERMANS

S1551809 SPRING 2018

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ORGANISATIONS

HONOURS COLLEGE OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES: SCIENCE & SOCIETY UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN

BACHELOR PROJECT 1:

FEDERALISM AND SECESSION: A NORMATIVE ANALYSIS OF CURRENT EUROPEAN TRENDS

(2)

Secessionism in the USA

In the last decennium the USA has seen an increase in secessionist movements throughout the States. Movements in California, Texas and in many other States have attracted attention and support. Especially after the ‘Brexit’ and the debates on secessionism in Catalonia and Scotland, the American media started to cover secessionism at home. (Timsit, 2016) It did not take long before the ‘Calexit’-, ‘Texit’- and ‘Vexit’-movements were born to claim their self-proclaimed right on sovereignty.

What does these movements motivate to come into action? Wielh (2017) and Bump (2016) suggest that the political polarisation in the USA has caused secessionism to gain steam. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama’s healthcare project and Trump stepping out of the Paris Agreement have lead to a lot of discontented citizens. Accordingly, Bump explains that the conservative movements in the Southern States came up during Obama’s Presidency and the progressive movements are now coming up during Trump’s Presidency. This shows that the political polarisation has created dissatisfaction with the American federal Union.

Remarkably, there is not much criticism on the federal Union itself. That is why the focus of this thesis will be on the arguments that the secessionist movements offer. Their criticisms function as the means to analyse the state of the Union. It will be investigated whether their arguments criticise the functioning or the ambitions of the federal Union. Therefore, in order to understand the criticisms of the movements, the ambitions of the American federal project and they way it is supposed to function must be investigated by use of the Constitution.

Despite the fact that the secessionist movements have not yet been able to gain enough support to be significant on the state or federal level, their arguments are interesting as their dissatisfaction with the Union concludes in the ultimate wish: independence from that Union. It may be expected that their arguments focus on the functioning of the Union and for that reason this thesis offers relevant information for a debate on the functioning of the American federal system.

(4)

The federalist principles informing the American Constitution will provide the analytical framework for the subsequent analysis of the arguments put forward by the secessionist movements investigated. This thesis does not test the validity of the secessionist arguments or the legal or practical feasibility of the secessionist projects. In contrast, it tries to understand the principles that the Constitution was built upon and whether or not the reasons for secessionism are underpinned by the same principles.

The thesis will proceed as follows. Section 1 offers an account of American federalism to create the analytical framework for the investigation. The account deals with federalism in general and American federalism in particular. The Federalist Papers will function as a guideline to understand American federalism and to discover on which principles the Constitution was built as it were these papers in which the Founding Fathers expressed their ideas on federalism. Where necessary this account will be completed by reference to later sources. This section will conclude that ‘liberty’, ‘stability’ and ‘energy’ form the three main principles on which the Constitution was built.

Then, in section 2, secessionist movements in four States will be investigated and their reasons will be compared with the aforementioned principles of the Constitution. California, Texas, Vermont and Hawaii form a mixed selection that offers a general account for secessionism in the USA, as they cover the whole of the USA in terms of politics, geographical location and size of population and surface. The methods for selecting the States, movements and sources that provide the reasons for secessionism will be explained and justified at the beginning of that section.

Ultimately, section 3 will offer some reflections on the research and its findings and section 4 will conclude this thesis.

(5)

1. American Federalism

The aim of this section is to introduce the American federal system and the principles on which it was built. In order to achieve this, federalism in general and American federalism in particular must be analysed. The Federalist Papers will explain the ideas of the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution and on how they thought the federal system should function. It will be demonstrated that their main goal was to create a society that is built on a republican account of ‘liberty’, which is caused by ‘stability’ and ‘energy’.

Firstly, federal theory will be explained by considering its definition, origin and philosophy. Secondly, the American project, set up by the Founding Fathers, will be analysed by focussing on its main principles: ‘liberty’, ‘stability’ and ‘energy’ Thirdly, the structure of the American federal system will be explained with reference to the principles of the Constitution.

1.1 Federal Theory

Federalism is a political theory about a political system in which at least two levels of government share the sovereignty of a state. This means that the sovereignty is not centralised, as is the case in a unitary state. (Follesdal, 2014) According to Riker a constitution is federal if and only if the two or more governments (1) rule the same land and people, (2) have both at least autonomy in one area of policy and (3) are both guaranteed of this autonomy by the constitution. (1964, p. 11) It can differ per federal system, which of the two levels is more powerful.

Sharing sovereignty is not a modern idea as it was already used in ancient times. The Greek city-states unified in their wars to fight with the Macedonians

and Romans, by sharing their sovereignty on the military level.1_{(Riker, 1964, p.}

8) The Swiss Cantons already created a confederal political system in the

thirteenth century to create peace between the Cantons. (Follesdal, 2014) In the

1_{This first military federation was unsuccessful. Due to the restrictions for the federal army, the Greeks lost} their battles against both the Macedonians and Romans.

(6)

16th_{and 17}th_{century the Dutch Provinces assembled to stand up against the}

Spanish King and created the States General that was authorised to decide over certain issues regarding trade, foreign- and military affairs. Following these examples, the Americans rebelled against the British King and created their own federal system. The American project is considered as the first modern version of a federal system. (Follesdal, 2014)

Early modern thoughts on federalism focussed primarily on security advantages of the federal system. Firstly, a federal system prevents war between the constituents of the federation. Due to their federal cooperation they do not have to fear military action against each other. Secondly, the states can defend themselves against foreign threats, which they would not be able to cope with standing alone. Montesquieu characterised the federation as the combination of advantages that a great empire with its security and a small state with its effective governability provide. (2005, p. 55)

While security reasons are still present in modern federal theory, new reasons for creating a federal system have emerged. Stepan divides the reasons for federalism into two categories: ‘coming-together’ and ‘holding-together’.

(2005, p. 257) The former category contains the security reasons but also, as will

be demonstrated in the next paragraphs, the reasons that the Founding Fathers used to justify the American Constitution. The latter category provides reasons for unitary states to adapt their constitution to federal principles. The unitary state may for example have problems with a particular region that wishes to have more autonomy or even independence. A federal constitution then provides a solution for holding the country together. For example, Spain was only able to consolidate its democracy in 1975 when it used federal principles to grant the

regions of Catalonia and Basque-country autonomy to a certain degree.2_(Stepan,

2005, p. 258)

The classic and modern reasons for federalism together have made federalism one of the most popular political systems of today. On the one hand countries are still expanding or creating supranational states. On the other hand more and more regions claim their right to self-determination. This wide

2_{See Linz & Stepan (1996), Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation, pp. 87-116, for an analysis} of the consolidation of Spain’s democracy and the role that federalism played in this.

(7)

applicability of the federal principles results in many different forms of federations.

Firstly, there is the distinction between symmetrical and asymmetrical federalism. If all the constituent units have the same amount of allocated powers then the federation is symmetrical and if not then it is asymmetrical. (Watts,

2005, p. 234) The asymmetrical federation is normally used to hold the state

together. The region that claims the right on self-determination is then granted more powers than the other regions. For example, Catalonia has more autonomy than Andalusia making Spain an asymmetrical federation. The United States is the prime example of a symmetrical federation: every American State has the same amount of powers. (Watts, 2005, p. 242)

Secondly, the federations differ in the extent of centralisation or federalisation of powers. The most centralised federation has a federal government that has jurisdiction over all but one policy issue. There must be at least one area on which the constituents have exclusive jurisdiction, otherwise it would be a unitary state. In contrast, in the most federalised federation, the federal government only has jurisdiction over one policy issue, if it had none the constituents would not form a federation. (Riker, 1964, p. 5) Most federations are somewhere in between the two extremes. Also, the federation may centralise or federalise over time. For example, some decisions of the United States Supreme Court have lead to a significant centralisation or federalisation of powers. (Gerston, 2007, pp. 52-53)

Conclusively, federalism is about the sharing of sovereignty between two levels of government. How and why this arrangement is structured differs from federation to federation. In the next subsection it will be shown that the American federal project is based on several principles that has resulted in a symmetrical federation with the aim to promote liberty by bringing together separate states.

1.2 The American Project

American federalism was not created as goal on its own but has rather been the result of practical reasons and political principles. (Leach, 1970, p. 5) In order to understand the reasoning behind American federalism, the circumstances during

(8)

which the Constitution was created should firstly be discussed. Then the principles that underpin the Constitution can be fully grasped.

Creation of a New Constitution

In 1776 the thirteen American States declared their independence from England. They sought cooperation between the States to be able to defend themselves against a possible revenge of the English in the north or an attack from the Spanish forces in the south. (Riker, 1964, p. 18) This classic reason for smaller states to join a confederation was joined by a feeling of American patriotism that came up during the independence wars among the colonists. However, feelings of distrust against each other and especially against any form of centralised

government resulted in weak support for the Confederation.3_{The central}

government had no means to force the States to pay their debts and obey its orders. (Leach, 1970, pp. 3-5) In order to create an effective government several statesmen started to discuss ideas for a new constitution. The most famous of these discussions are the Federalist Papers written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to promote the Constitution after it had been drafted.

There is much discussion among scholars that have analysed the creation of the Constitution on whether or not there was any philosophy behind it. Some argue that the Constitution was purely the result of a bargaining between the representatives of the States that were not able to agree on where the centre of power should be positioned. (Leach, 1970, p. 5) Others, such as Charles Beard, claim that the Founding Fathers were only interested in earning as much money and influence as they possibly could. (Riker, 1964, p. 17) The Constitution on itself only provides us with the product, but not with the philosophy behind it. In order to know the principles and motivations that have lead to the Constitution the Federalist Papers must be studied. It should be noted that these Papers were written to gain support from the State of New York for the new Constitution. Therefore we can only say something about the reasoning that is presented but not about the true intentions of the Founders.

3_{There is no consensus on the use of the terms confederation and federation in the literature as well as in} the Federalist Papers. To avoid confusion: Confederation refers to the American Union between 1776 and 1788 and Federation refers to the proposed system by the Founding Fathers, which became effective after the ratification of the American Constitution in 1788.

(9)

In No. 37 Madison states the main struggle that the Convention in Philadelphia had to deal with and thereby he reveals the principles that should underpin the Constitution: “(…) combining the requisite stability and energy in

government with inviolable attention due to liberty and the republican form”. (p.

175)4_{In what follows the republican account of liberty will be analysed, as it is}

the ultimate goal of the Constitution to guarantee the liberty of the citizens. Then, the accounts of ‘stability’ and ‘energy’, that must safeguard ‘liberty’, will be discussed. It will be shown that a federal government provides the ‘stability’, which is required to guarantee ‘liberty’, if and only if it is energetic.

‘Liberty’

Liberty is the core value of the American nation as the nation was born during the resistance against the British domination. The colonists fought for their independence and were not willing to handover the freedom they had won to a new government without suspicion. (No. 1, pp. 11-13) Besides, the period of the creation of the American nation was also the period of the Enlightenment. Political philosophers were occupied with combining an effective government with the principles of liberty and equality. (Goldman, 2008, p. xxxi) For these two reasons the Founding Fathers placed ‘liberty’ at the top of their priorities in creating the Constitution. The government and union they were to create had to guarantee the liberty of its citizens in order to have any chance of success. To understand the principles of the Constitution and why things are structured as they are, we fully need to grasp the ideas on ‘liberty’ that the Founders had during this period.

The most widely applied account of liberty, which is that of non-interference, is based on the ideas of Isaiah Berlin. He made a distinction between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ liberty. ‘Negative’ liberty means that a person enjoys freedom to the extent that he is not interfered with by others. (1969, p. 16) To illustrate, if John walks to school without being stopped, pushed from the sidewalk or interfered by in any other way, he strolls freely to school. In contrast,

4_{References to the Federalist papers will consist of the number of the Paper. If the author refers to a} particular passage within the Paper the exact page will be given, which can be found in the Oxford University Press version by Lawrence Goldman, 2008.

(10)

‘positive’ liberty means that a person is free to live his own life, or in other words, to be his own master. (Berlin, 1969, p. 22) Due to the fact that this notion of freedom is rather vague and not generally applicable, the ‘negative’ notion has become the most accepted account of liberty. However, the republican ideal of liberty, that the Founding Fathers had in mind can be more easily associated with Berlin’s ‘positive’ than his ‘negative’ account of liberty. (Pettit, 2006, pp. 223-224)

Republican liberty means that a person is not dominated by anyone instead of not interfered with by anyone. This means that a person is free to the extent that he is not dominated by anyone else. Domination, then, must be seen as the possibility to be arbitrarily interfered with. (Pettit, 2006, p. 224) Not only the act of interference is liberty constraining, but also the possibility to do so is liberty constraining. This does not mean that everyone is dominated by anyone else, as the notion of arbitrariness is crucial in the republican account. An act is arbitrary, according to Pettit, when the actor may choose to perform it or not at his own pleasure. (2006, p. 225) Many thinkers have rejected the republican ideal of liberty as they consider it to be an all-or-nothing account with the result that nobody can be considered free. Pettit argues, in contrast, that republican freedom must be considered as a range between being completely enslaved and completely free. (2006, pp. 232-233) Republican liberty is the ideal of freedom that inspired the Founders in creating the American Constitution.

One may think that the idea of governing is contradictory to liberty5_{as it}

imposes constraints on the citizens. A government imposes taxations and it forbids and demands actions of its citizens. In other words a government dominates its citizens. However, as long as the interferences of the government are not arbitrary but according to laws and customs to which the citizens implicitly or explicitly agreed and as long as the government accepts and functions by the rule of law, the interferences of the government cannot be seen as violations of the liberty of the citizens. (Pettit, 2006, pp. 225-227) Blackstone and Locke take this point even further by stating that a legitimate government is

5_{From this point onwards whenever a reference is made to liberty or freedom, the republican account of} liberty must be thought of.

(11)

indispensable to liberty rather than a threat and there cannot be liberty without laws. (Pettit, 2006, p. 228)

Therefore, the constitution functions as the protector of the liberty of its citizens. It must provide protection for the citizens against other citizens, the government itself and foreign and domestic groups interfering arbitrarily. If the constitution functions properly, then the citizens will only be interfered with by non-arbitrary laws and not by the arbitrary grace of those that take place in government. (Skinner, 1997, p. 254) This is exactly what the Founding Fathers aimed for. As will be shown, according to the Founders the Constitution must create a federal government that establishes ‘stability’ as protection against foreign interventions, domestic quarrels and threats of factions and it must generate enough ‘energy’ for the government to be able to effectively govern the American States and citizens.

‘Stability’

The writers of the Federalist Papers argue that the States must unite in a federal system to create ‘stability’ and preserve their freedom. The account of ‘stability’ has three important aspects: the Federation (1) defends the States from “dangers of foreign force and influence”, (2) prevents “dissensions between the States”

and (3) is a “safeguard against faction and insurrection”.6

In the first five Papers, John Jay argues that the intervention of foreign powers can only be prevented when the States form a federation. He explains that other nations will envy the United States for their great location, products and spirit. (No.4, pp. 15-16) Therefore the United States must be vigilant against the interference of other nations. The States by themselves will not have the capabilities to defend themselves and will not be able to enforce respect from other nations. In No. 3 he compares the city-state of Genoa to the Empire of Spain and claims that Genoa is treated with no respect in their foreign affairs, while Spain is. (p. 21) So according to Jay, in order to create international stability,

6_{Federalist No. 2 - No. 5 : Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence} Federalist No. 6 – No. 7 : Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

(12)

enforce respect and guarantee the safety of the American people, the States need to join the Federation.

Next, Hamilton explains that a federation will create stability among the States themselves. In No. 6 he claims that neighbouring countries will quarrel on innumerable issues and he uses Europe as an example. The European countries fight over trade and territorial issues, but also on matters of pride and glory. He counters the argument that commercial republics will not fight each other for their mutual interests by referring to among others the Republics of Carthage, Venice and Holland that continuously waged wars on their neighbours. (pp. 32-33) In No. 7 Hamilton sums up the conflicts that the American States will quarrel about when they are not united in a federation. Firstly, they will quarrel on territorial issues due to the frontiers to the west. Secondly, they will face commerce disputes. If trading ships want to dock in New York, then they have to go through the territory of other States to reach it and this for example results in tax disputes. Thirdly, the States owe each other huge amounts of debt, which will lead to conflict if the debts are not paid. Conclusively, the States can only preserve peace and stability if they unite in a federation. (No. 7)

While the first two aspects of ‘stability’ offered practical reasons for a federation, the last aspect about factions offers a more theoretical argument. In No. 9 Hamilton argues that it is not enough to create a republic in order to guarantee liberty. Many republics have fallen into anarchy or tyranny due to domestic factions. But what are factions and why are they a threat to liberty? Madison characterises a faction as a group of citizens that are united by a common concern, which is not aligned with the rights or interests of the community. (No. 10, p. 49) These factions will try to influence politics in such a way that their interests are fulfilled. This means that these factions impede upon the liberty of other citizens. As these factions are not aligned with the interests of the community and because they can belong to the minority or majority of the community, they form a threat to every citizen. Therefore, in order to create a union with ‘stability’ and ‘liberty’, the threats that factions pose must be dealt with. (No. 10, pp. 50-51)

Madison, then, explains that in a free society factions cannot be prevented and that is why the effects of factions must be brought to a minimum. Factions

(13)

exist due to liberty of thought and speech. This means that we can only supress factions by supressing freedom. Madison compares it to fire and air: we wish to supress fire, but we can only do so by supressing air but that would kill us. A lack of liberty would not kill us but as it is the cornerstone of society, we wish not to supress it at every cost. (No. 10, p. 51) Therefore, we can only wish to contain the effects of factions and that can only effectively be done when the American States form a federation.

The American Federation will be a safeguard against the effects of factions due to its form of government and its size. Because the representatives are chosen by the people and therefore are obliged to voice the will of their electorate, they will, according to Madison, be more aligned with the public good than the citizens themselves. (No. 10, p. 53) Thus, a large republic is favourable to a small republic, as the factious representatives will be filtered out by the large amount of citizens that form the electorate for every representative. Even if a factious representative is elected, the great number of representatives will balance him. Madison argues that a federation is the perfect form of government as it prevents the electorates of becoming too extensive so that the representative is not able to know what his constituents want, or so small that factions are able to influence policies. (No. 10, p. 54)

To sum up, the Federation provides ‘stability’, which is necessary to ensure ‘liberty’, while the States by themselves cannot achieve this. Foreign powers will not be able to influence American politics. Also, the States will not be able to quarrel among themselves as the federal government mediates their conflicts. Most importantly, the effects of factions, that harm ‘liberty’ and ‘stability’, are made ineffective by the functioning and size of the Federation. While ‘stability’ is thus important for ‘liberty’, only an energetic government can guarantee this. This brings us to the next paragraph in which it will be shown that a federation can only create ‘stability’ if it has an energetic federal government.

(14)

‘Energy’

‘Energy’ in government is indispensable for good governing and therefore for the protection of ‘liberty’ and ‘stability’. What the writers of the Federalist Papers mean by ‘energy’ is indirectly explained in No. 15, where Hamilton discusses the defects of the Confederation. The Confederation had no troops, no treasury and no government, except for the representatives from the States. (p. 73) Therefore, the confederal government was not able to effectively govern as it could not force the States to implement the laws it proposed. Also, it could not effectively carry out its foreign affairs policies, as it had no true means to put pressure on other actors. (Gerston, 2007, pp. 24-25; Federalist Papers, No. 15, pp. 78-79) In other words, the government lacked the requisite ‘energy’ to govern.

To energise the government in such a way that it is able to effectively protect the liberty of its citizens, it needs sovereignty on several policy issues and the means to enforce legislation. However, it also needs restrictions on its ‘energy’ for it not to turn into a tyrannical government. Obviously, if the government is given carte blanch in governing and therefore becomes as energetic as it could possibly be, the reverse of protecting the citizens’ liberty is achieved. Therefore, the Founding Fathers had to come up with a constitution that on the one hand grants enough powers to the federal government in order to energise it, but on the other hand creates enough checks and balances, to prevent the energetic government from tyrannising its citizens. In this paragraph the methods of energising the government will be dealt with. In the next paragraphs the checks and balances will be discussed briefly by analysing the American federal system.

In No. 23 till 28 Hamilton argues for unlimited power for the federal government concerning issues on the common defence of the Union. This implicates that the federal government is to be sovereign on military issues. The States will lose control over their troops and must grant them to the federal government. This enables the government to be extremely powerful. Therefore Hamilton writes six papers to explain this move. He argues that perpetual peace can only be achieved when the federal government is able to protect the States

(15)

from foreign threats and that this can only be done when it has absolute control over all troops. (No. 23, pp. 113-114)

Also, control over the troops creates a means for the federal government to enforce its legislation. This can be demonstrated by reference to the aftermath of the Brown vs. Board of Education case in 1954. The governor of Kansas disobeyed the verdict of the Supreme Court after which President Eisenhower sent the National Guard to Little Rock to enforce the verdict. Besides, if the States are no longer allowed to have troops, then violent conflict between the States will be prevented. (No. 23, pp. 114-116) This line of argument shows how the principles that underpin the Constitution relate to each other. The principle of ‘liberty’ can only be ensured when the government has the ‘energy’ to enforce and maintain ‘stability’.

While it may seem acceptable that the government must have sovereignty on defence issues, it is questionable why, as Hamilton asks, there should not be any limits on the federal power concerning the military. He claims that such limits are impossible as it cannot be foreseen what kind of foreign threats the Union will have to face. In order to be prepared for anything, the federal government must be enabled to do anything in order to protect the Union when necessary. (No. 23, p. 114) This may have been convincing in the eighteenth century, but as in the next section will be shown, this line of argument has been criticised massively in the aftermath of 9/11.

Next to the idea that the government requires ‘energy’ on defence issues, the federal government must be sovereign on the trade and financial issues between the States and those that concern the Union. In this way, the federal government becomes the national financial referee and the international financial face of the Union. This is another way to maintain peace and stability between the States, as a neutral and higher authority then mediates their disputes, which are discussed in the previous paragraph. (No. 23, pp. 116-117) The Founding Fathers, then, wished to create a union in which a republican ideal of liberty was vested. For this, a government is required as there cannot be liberty without laws. However, the government should not be able to arbitrarily intervene with the citizens. To prevent this they drafted a constitution

(16)

containing certain principles. This constitution must create ‘stability’ by protecting the citizens against foreign intervention, domestic quarrels and the threats that factions may pose. To be effective, the government must be energetic. At last, this ‘energy’ must be kept within boundaries by a system of checks and balances. According to Hamilton, Jay and Madison, the American federal system as proposed by the Convention in Pennsylvania is the only way to achieve this. How this proposed systems works, will briefly be explained in the final paragraph of this section.

1.3 The American Federal System

In the previous paragraphs, the principles that underpin the Constitution have been discussed. Now, the way these principles are manifested in the Constitution will be explained. Only the main structure of the system will be presented as the focus of this section lies on the principles rather than on the system itself. Also, only the federal government will be discussed as the criticisms of the secessionist movements are directed towards the federal government. The three branches of government will be discussed and especially their roles in creating ‘energy’ and ‘stability’.

Firstly, the executive branch, which is the President, is the main creator of ‘energy’. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the army and he has therefore the absolute power in matters of defence. Although, he must report to Congress, he is able to send troops when and wherever he pleases. (No. 24, p. 118) Due to his role as Commander-in-Chief, he is responsible for protecting the American citizens and therefore for ‘stability’. In order to prevent the President of becoming a tyrant, he faces elections every four years and, ever since President Franklin Roosevelt, he is not allowed to serve more than two terms.

(No.69, p. 337)7_{Also, Congress has the power to impeach the President, (No. 69,}

p. 338) revise his actions and block his nominations for important functions. (No. 69, p. 341-342)

7_{In No. 69 Hamilton explains that a President may reside in office for four years, but that he may be} re-elected as many times as the public wishes to elect him. In 1951 with 22nd_{amendment to the Constitution it} became prohibited to be elected as President more than twice. (Landynski, 1985, p. 73)

(17)

Secondly, the legislative branch, i.e. ‘Congress’, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, functions as the intermediate between the States and the federal government. This is the only federal branch that must serve both the interests of the States and that of the Union. (No 54, p. 273) Congress is energetic as the House of Representatives controls the federal budget, (No. 58, p. 289) both chambers create legislation and the Senate is able to block nominations for all functions including the Supreme Court judges. (No. 63, p. 329) Congress is also the main body to prevent the threats of factions. The large number of representatives in the House prevents factious leaders to be able to impose their ideas as explained above.

Thirdly, the judicial branch, which consists of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, functions as the safeguard of the Constitution. (No. 81, pp. 394-295) The Founding Fathers thought this to be the weakest branch. However, as they did not write a lot about it, they created the possibility for the judicial branch to expand its power. It was meant to be the check on the two other branches but it evolved to be the interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and with that power it is able to be judge in conflicts between the federal government and the States. (Gerston, 2007, pp.

52-53) Ultimately, it decides which level of government is sovereign on what level by

using judicial reviews. The President appoints the judges for life, but the Senate must approve these nominations. (No. 76, pp. 370-371)

Having, in this section, shown what federalism and in particular American federalism means and on which principles the Constitution was built, in the next section, the criticisms of the secessionist movements will be analysed to see whether or not ‘liberty’, ‘stability’ and ‘energy’ are used as reasons to secede from the United States and ultimately, whether or not their criticisms are focussed on the functioning or on the ambitions of the federal project.

(18)

2. Secessionist Movements in America

Americans have a long-standing tradition in distrusting the government. Libertarian militias, known for, for example, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, have always sought to limit the government’s influence to a bare minimum. (Churchill, 2009, p. 2) Secessionism, as part of this tradition, is therefore not a new phenomenon. The federal government has had to deal with several violent movements over the years that either rejected the authority of the federal government or even fought for independence from the Union. The Civil War is an example of States that wished to leave the Union and actually came in action to achieve this. However, the occasional resistance has never lead to any State seceding from the Union. The movements that promote independence today are small and have no significant financial, legal or practical means to achieve their goal, which is independence.

While the secessionist movements will probably not succeed due to their lack of support and due to the fact that the Supreme Court made secession illegal

by their verdict in the Case of Texas vs. White,8_{they offer an interesting insight in}

criticism on the Constitution. The aim of this section is to understand why the several movements wish to secede from the Union and whether these reasons are a direct criticism on the principles that underpin the Constitution. The validity of the arguments is not of any matter in this thesis and will therefore not be discussed.

Paragraph 2.1 will explain and justify the selection of States and movements. Then paragraphs 2.2 till 2.5 will analyse the movements in California, Texas, Vermont and Hawaii.

2.1 Selection of Cases

The States of California, Texas, Vermont and Hawaii have been chosen as cases for the present research. The selection has two aspects that need to be clarified:

8_{Chief Justice Taney stated in the verdict of Texas vs. White in 1869 that the Union is indestructible and} indissoluble. To supporters of the Union, this verdict presents the illegitimacy of an act of secession of a State. (Leach, 1970, p. 11)

(19)

1) why are these States selected and 2) which movements represent these States?

Firstly, only States with a relevant secessionist movement qualified for the selection. Due to the fact that there is not much academic literature on contemporary secessionist movements, American media coverage on secessionism has been used to decide which movements are relevant. In 2016 Politico drafted a list of five secessionist movements that were inspired by the ‘Brexit’. (Timsit, 2016) All four of the selected States were on this list. Furthermore, amongst others CNN, BBC, The Washington Post, New York Times and Fox News covered the movements of the selected States. From the list of qualified States, a selection has been made that covers the whole of the United States on the aspects of geographical location, year of accession to the Union, size of population, surface and federal influence. (see graph 1) Also, it is the expectation that these States have different reasons for their secessionism. The fifth State on Timsit’s list, North-Hampshire, has not been selected, as it is comparable to Vermont. The secessionist movement of Vermont has a more coherent presentation of arguments and therefore, it has been selected instead of North-Hampshire’s secessionist movement.

Graph 1: Selection Criterion States

STATE YEAR OF ACCESSION LOCATION DOMINANT POLITICAL PARTY INHABITANTS (325.7 total in 2017)9 NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES + SENATORS

California 1850 W-Coast Democratic 39.5 (12.1%) 55

Hawaii 1959 Pacific Democratic 1.4 (0.43%) 4

Texas 1845 Central Republican 28.3 (8.7%) 38

Vermont 1791 E-Coast Democratic 0.624 (0.19%) 3

Secondly, the graph (2) below presents the movements, which will represent the States and the sources used in the research. For the reason to create a coherent line of argument one movement has been chosen to represent each selected State. For example, California has many movements that are categorised by the national press as the ‘Calexit’ movement, but in reality these

9_{Retrieved from United States Census Bureau}

(20)

movements have different ideas on the secession. The actual movements that have been selected have the most supporters and Internet activity. Those in California and Vermont are also selected for the reason that they have written down their lines of argument in a single accessible document, which makes it possible to evaluate the arguments effectively and compare them with the principles of the Constitution.

Graph 2: Selected Secessionist Movements

STATE SECESSIONIST MOVEMENT SOURCES

California YesCalifornia (YES) Calexit Blue Book 2.0 (Louis Marinelli)

Hawaii Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement Academic Literature

Texas Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) TNM website and media coverage

Vermont The Green Mountain Self-Determination

Movement

The Vermont Manifesto (Thomas

Naylor)

2.2 California

The ‘YesCalifornia’ movement (YES) puts forward three main arguments for secession. These will be dealt with in turn. Firstly, California is relatively underrepresented in the federal government, which disables California of implementing progressive legislation. Secondly, the federal government is responsible for several expensive wars and the creation of enemies. Thirdly, California does not financially benefit from the federation, but it costs money. All three arguments will be explained and then connected to the principles of ‘liberty’, ‘stability’ and ‘energy’.

Representation

Firstly, YES argues that California is underrepresented in the federal government. With 53 members in the House of Representatives and 2 Senators, California has the largest delegation to Congress of all States. However, due to the system of absolute equal representation in the Senate, California has the least representation per citizen. (Marinelli, 2016, p. 5) With 55 members of Congress and approximately 39.5 million inhabitants, every Congressman represents

(21)

more than 718 thousand citizens. In comparison, the state of Vermont has 3 congressmen for approximately 625 thousand citizens, which means that a

Congressman represents just over 208 thousand citizens.10_{This distribution of}

Congressmen and Senators also applies to the Electoral College for the election of the President, so California has per inhabitant the least impact on the election of the President of all States.

Due to this underrepresentation, California is not able to carry out its progressive politics. California has always been a forerunner in issues such as LGBT-rights, drugs legislation, stem cell research, environmental control, abortion and euthanasia. However, California’s lack of influence in Washington in both Congress and the White House makes it nearly impossible to enforce legislation on these issues. (Marinelli, 2016, pp. 10-12) To illustrate the problem, California is a Democratic State but the Republicans have had in the last 26 years a majority in the House and in the Senate for respectively 21 and 17 years.

(Marinelli, 2016, p. 10) Also, after 4 years of Trump as President, the Republicans

will control the White House for 24 out of the last 32 years. To sum up, California has not been able to enforce its progressive politics on the federal level due to its lack of representation and the fact that the rest of the country has had a conservative majority.

Thus California takes direct issue with a central principle underpinning the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to prevent the Californian idea that they should have more influence in the federal government. The Founding Fathers did not wish to create relative equal representation and therefore they arranged the Senate in such a way that every State has the same number of Senators. They did this to prevent the larger States of dominating the smaller States, or in other words, to prevent state factions of being able to enforce their wishes on the rest of the Union. (No. 62, pp. 303-304)

To illustrate, it could be the case that the State of California would like to implement law X. This law has the support of all citizens in California and similar States such as New York. However, X is disastrous for small agricultural States such as Nebraska and Vermont. In this case, the law will disastrously influence a few million citizens and therefore it is not aligned with the national interest. In

(22)

this way California would be a faction according to the definition that Madison

uses in No. 10.11_{The YES argument can then be seen as a pat on the back of the}

Founding Fathers. War

Secondly, the federal government is the source of military threats to California instead of peace. The wars that the federal government drags the States into cause terrorist threats instead of peace and security. Besides, California on its own has little to do with the conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Marinelli, 2016, pp. 3-5) The wars do not only create more threats than peace,

they also make the military budget extremely large. That money, according to YES, would better be spent on education, for example, or healthcare and infrastructure. So, independence would create more peace and security for California and it would save the State approximately 50 billion dollars in military costs annually. (Marinelli, 2016, pp. 16-19)

This argument takes issue with Hamilton’s ideas in No. 23, where he argues that the federal government needs limitless power in military affairs. He states that it cannot be predicted what kind of threats will arise and therefore the federal government needs to be able to do anything to guarantee the security of the citizens. (No.23, pp. 114-116) The Founding Fathers have given the federal government an enormous amount of ‘energy’ with this move. The States only have little influence via Congress on military issues as Congress has to give approval for waging war outside U.S. Territory. (Elazar, 1966, p. 41) From No. 23 it may be inferred that the Founding Fathers had to grant this ‘energy’ to the federal government for the protection of the Union, but they had not expected that this ‘energy’ would be used as it is used since WWII and especially since 9/11.

Gerston (2007) argues that 9/11 has been the turning point for the federal government in its military policy. By passing the Patriot act and creating the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government started to expand

11_{“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole,} who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (No. 10, p. 49)

(23)

the ‘energy’ it was granted by the Founding Fathers. From then on, the federal government could do almost anything in the name of counter-terrorism, including waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (pp. 151-153) As YES argues, these wars have cost trillions and have probably increased the number of enemies instead of creating peace and security.

The Founding Fathers believed that an energetic federal government could create and maintain ‘stability’ in the sense of protection against foreign threats. Following the arguments of YES, it now seems that this rationale was counter-effective. The unlimited ‘energy’ on military affairs for the federal government has in fact created instability through the ‘war on terror’. So, the argument about war is a critique on two main principles that underpin the Constitution: ‘energy’ and ‘stability’.

Costs and Benefits

Thirdly, the Federation costs California more than it benefits from it. This has three main reasons: (1) taxes are higher than pay-outs, (2) the federal trade regulations restrict the trade opportunities for California and (3) the allocation of budgets is done on a national level and therefore the money does not go where it should go.

California is a donor State, which means that the wealth of California is used to support other States. It has an approximate deficit of 15 billion dollars each year on federal taxes and pay-outs. Therefore, it would be financially profitable for California to be independent. (Marinelli, 2016, p. 5 & 16) Besides, the federal government has many regulations concerning trade between States and between States and foreign countries or companies. YES argues that this system only makes trade more difficult and expensive instead of promoting it.

(Marinelli, 2016, p. 5) Also, the pay-outs, that California receives, are regulated

and these regulations are made for all States. This means that the state government is not able to use the money as it sees fit for California. For example, if extra money is needed for education, then federal pay-outs cannot be used if the regulations do not allow it.

(24)

This argument touches upon a central question in federal theory: is it beneficial for a state to be unitary or federal? The Founding Fathers argued that it is beneficial for the States to enter the Federation instead of remaining unitary states. They would respond to the YES’ argument that the federation costs money by explaining that it must be seen as a bargain. The Federation costs money but in return the States are provided with ‘stability’ which is necessary for, for example, trade. Therefore, if California believes that it does not need the Federation for having ‘stability’, then the federal bargain is disadvantageous for California. YES believes that this is the case and that is why it does not accept the federal bargain.

2.3 Texas

After a few years of independence Texas officially became an American State in 1845. However, during the Civil War it already tried to secede from the Union without success. Up till today many Texans wish to be independent, but there has never been a unified movement again. (Rothman, 2016) Nowadays Texas has many separate secessionist movements that all have different reasons for independence. In this thesis, the focus will only be on the ideas of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) to create a structured account of the Texan reasons for secession. TNM has been chosen as the movement to represent Texas, as it has the most supporters and the best online accession to its cause. Unfortunately it has no coherent guide that presents its arguments. Therefore the author has tried to put together in two coherent arguments the information that the website of TNM and linked websites offer without adding or leaving out any argumentative elements. Firstly, the cultural and secondly, the economic argument will be discussed.

Texan Culture

Firstly, TNM argues that the culture of Texas is different from the American culture and therefore Texas should be an independent country. The federal government promotes the American culture and although it does not prohibit

(25)

the Texans of having their own culture, an independent Texas would be better able to preserve the Texan culture. To illustrate, the Texas holidays were not on equal footing with national holidays and although TNM has been able to undo this, they argue that only independence will preserve the Texan culture. (Texas Nationalist Movement, 2018)

Furthermore, the federal government has become much more progressive than Texas would like it to be. By allowing gay marriage, easing drugs legislation and putting restrictions on guns the federal government has lost its connection with Texas. Therefore, TNM wishes to secede from the Union, as it can only then preserve its natural rights, keep a close relationship between church and state and execute the wishes of the Texans. (Texas Nationalist Movement, 2018) The idea that the federal government is not aligned with the level of conservatism is similar to the idea of the Californians that the federal government is not progressive enough.

The argument on culture appeals to the principle of ‘liberty’. TNM is afraid that the federal government will violate the ‘liberty’ of the Texans. It does not mean that it is violating the ‘liberty’ at the moment but the possibility is there and that makes it a threat to ‘liberty’ according to the definition of Pettit on republican liberty. It could be argued that due to the fact that the government must obey the laws, its actions cannot be arbitrary. However, from the viewpoint of TNM these laws are precisely what makes that arbitrary interference possible.

Economic Responsibilities

Secondly, TNM rejects any federal interference in the Texan economy. It wishes to promote the purchase of Texan goods, but the federal government has put restrictions on this kind of promotion. TNM demands that the Texas economy should be prioritised above all other States and this can of course only be done if Texas is independent. The federal government has abandoned the true ideas of economic liberalism, while the Texan entrepreneur only benefits when there are no restrictions of the government. If Texas becomes independent, TNM promises not to interfere with the economy. (Texas Nationalist Movement, 2018)

(26)

Also, the federal government will not be able to guarantee economic prosperity for much longer due to its lack of control over its fiscal responsibilities and its huge amount of debt. TNM argues that the federal financial problems will lead to financial crises, which will harm Texas in many ways. Only if Texas becomes independent will it be able to avert these crises. (Texas Nationalist Movement, 2018)

The financial argument is comparable to the Californian ‘costs and benefits’ argument with one relevant difference. TNM doubts whether the Federation is able to provide economic ‘stability’ for the Union and therefore for Texas. It argues that the federal government is not able to control its financial responsibilities, which leads to financial crises. The Founding Father gave the financial responsibilities to congress in order to create ‘stability’, but TNM argues that they are not capable of doing so.

2.4 Vermont

The Green Mountain Self-Determination Movement has been lead by Thomas H. Naylor until his death in 2012. In 2003 he wrote a book on why Vermont had to secede from the United States: The Vermont Manifesto. He argued that the United States should be dissolved in order to keep the American culture and spirit alive.

(Naylor, 2003, p. 3) For the extent of this analysis only his arguments for the

secession of Vermont will be discussed. Firstly, Naylor doubts whether one of the main reasons for federalism, that it brings the security of a great empire, is applicable to Vermont. Secondly, the centralisation of the federal government will lead to an existential crisis for Vermont.

Threat of Invasion

There are no reasons for other countries or States to invade Vermont. It has no strategic resources or location, large cities, military bases or anything worthy for other countries to start an invasion. (Naylor, 2003, p. 52) Also, there has never been a battle on Vermont territory: not during the War of Independence or the Civil War. (Naylor, 2003, p. 34) Naylor compares the invasion of Vermont with an

(27)

invasion in Liechtenstein or one of the rural Swiss Cantons. He adds that other countries such as Costa Rica have survived without a military force. (2003, pp.

97-98) For these reasons Vermont does not need the protection of a larger empire,

which is a classic reason to join or remain in a federation.

The Founding Fathers believed that the Federation, which would create ‘stability’, was necessary to guarantee ‘liberty’ for the American citizens. Naylor does not disagree with the need of ‘stability’ for ‘liberty’, but he believes that Vermont does not need the Federation to be secured and therefore to have ‘liberty’. Vermont does not have to fear other countries or its neighbouring American States and therefore two aspects of the ‘stability’ argument for the Federation, that are discussed in Federalist No. 2 to 7, fall short, according to Naylor. In addition, Naylor makes the same argument as the YES movement that the federal government creates more threats with its military policies instead of

‘stability’.12_{So, Vermont does not need the federal government for its safety and}

it would be even safer if Vermont were independent. Capitalism and Centralisation

The federal government has been centralising powers since the creation of the Constitution, which has resulted in state powers disappearing. Especially, the Civil War, the two World Wars, the Great Depression and the Cold War have caused the power to shift from the States to the federal government. (Naylor,

2003, p. 75) Also, the ‘War on Terror’ has created extra powers for the federal

government. (Gerston, 2007, pp. 151-153) Most importantly, globalisation and an increasing liberalisation of the global economy has made the federal government believe that it needs all economic and financial power to maintain America’s position as the financial hegemon of the world. (Naylor, 2003, pp. 66-68) This means that Vermont has almost lost all authority on financial, industrial or economic issues.

Naylor’s argument is that American capitalism and greed for power and wealth do not align with Vermont’s agricultural and peaceful culture. (2003, p.

68) Vermont is famous for its artisan products and small industries (for example

12_{For the analysis of this argument see par. 2.2 and for Naylor’s argument on this matter see Naylor’s} Vermont Manifesto (2003) Chapter 1.

(28)

the ice cream brand ‘Ben & Jerry’s’ has its origin in Vermont). If it were not for the federal government, ‘Ben & Jerry’s’ would never have been sold to the Dutch Company ‘Unilever’. (Naylor, 2003, p. 66) So, Naylor wishes to turn his back on American capitalism and believes that Vermont, as an independent state could be an agricultural society, as it originally was. (2003, p. 26)

The argument appeals to the principle of ‘energy’. He believes that the federal government has taken too much ‘energy’ over the last hundred years. In fact, the States do not share sovereignty any longer as the federal government has practically taken it. (Naylor, 2003, p. 118) The Founding Fathers did not allocate the amount of ‘energy’ to the federal government that it has today. However, it left a lot of room open for interpretation, which the federal government effectively used over the years to expand their jurisdiction. Especially, the President’s executive orders and the judicial reviews of the Supreme Court have caused the increase in ‘energy’ for the federal government.

(Gerston, 2007, pp. 93-98)

Furthermore, according to Naylor, the abundant amount of ‘energy’ for the federal government poses a threat to the ‘liberty’ of Vermont. The federal government has become a kind of tyrannical power that intervenes arbitrarily in Vermont. The interventions are arbitrary, as they are not authorised by the Constitution, as it does not grant all the powers that the federal government has taken. Naylor argues that the politics of the federal government harm the integrity of Vermont and therefore, to maintain its ‘liberty’, Vermont should secede from the Union.

2.5 Hawaii

Since 1893, when Hawaiian Queen Lili'uokalani was overthrown by the Americans, native Hawaiians have formed movements to cut ties with the United States. In 1959 Hawaii became an American State but the secession movements have not given up up and today they are still fighting for the restoration of their monarchy and independence. (Meller & Lee, 1997, p. 168) This case is academically interesting from a legal, philosophical and political point of view

(29)

and as it applies to many other American indigenous tribes, many scientists have studied it. Therefore, the Hawaiians argument for secession, which is based on the right of self-determination and citizenship, is analysed in this paper by use of academic sources. It will be demonstrated that the Hawaiian argument appeals to the most fundamental principle of the Constitution: ‘liberty’.

Domination

The people of Hawaii have not voluntarily chosen to join the Federation. After the forced abdication of the Queen in 1893, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898. (Meller & Lee, 1997, pp. 168-169) President Clinton signed an Apology Bill in 1993 that stated that the United States had illegitimately overthrown the Hawaiian Queen. (Essary, 2008, p. 34) That notwithstanding, up till today the native Hawaiians have never had the chance to be an independent Kingdom again or even to be regarded by American Law as an independent nation. Today, the indigenous Hawaiians are not a majority of the population of the State anymore, but they still claim sovereignty as their lands and nation were taken away from them without their consent. (Meller & Lee, 1997, p. 168)

Besides, the federal government threatens the Hawaiian culture. After 1893, English became the main language and schools that taught in Hawaiian

were closed. As a consequence the Hawaiian language almost disappeared.13

(Essary, 2008, pp. 60-62) Also, the federal government does not respect the

Hawaiian traditions. To illustrate, the US Navy uses the island of Kaho'olawe to practice, while it has religious, cultural and historic value for the indigenous Hawaiians. (Meller & Lee, 1997, p. 173) These examples demonstrate that the Federation dominates the indigenous Hawaiians as it has taken their land and threatens their culture and thereby it violates its own principle of ‘liberty’.

13_{From 1986 Federal and State resolutions were passed to support the Hawaiian language resulting in the} possibility to learn Hawaiian on schools in Hawaii. Also, a Masters degree in the Hawaiian language was established in this period. (Essary, 2008, pp. 63-64)

(30)

3. Reflections

It was the aim of this thesis to investigate whether the secessionist movements criticize the functioning or the ambitions of the American Federation. The analysis of the Constitution and Federalist Papers provided the analytical framework in which the arguments of the secessionist movements could be understood. This section will reflect on the findings of the investigation and conclude whether the movements criticised the functioning or the ambitions of the Federation.

The Founding Fathers aspired a liberal society, which provides freedom, safety and wealth for its citizens. They believed that a government with the requisite ‘energy’ to create ‘stability’ would be able to guarantee such a society. The arguments of the secessionist movements have not criticized these aspirations. They, too, pursue freedom, safety and wealth. However, they believe that the Federation does not function as the Founding Fathers had expected. Their criticisms are therefore, directed to the functioning of the Federation.

Firstly, YES (California) and Naylor (Vermont) believe that the federal government is a threat to ‘stability’. Therefore, the federation does not offer the States the protection and ‘stability’ that it should be offering. Besides, the federal government demands an enormous amount of money for the ‘stability’ of the Federation and as it does not do its job properly, YES, TNM (Texas) and Naylor do not accept the federal bargain any longer.

Secondly, the movements argue that the federal government has been given too much ‘energy’. With this ‘energy’ the government has started wars, has been centralising powers and has been capitalising the economy. The States feel that their area of jurisdiction and subsequently their sovereignty is shrinking. All four of the selected movements argue that their cultures are threatened by the growing sphere of influence of the federal government which misuses the ‘energy’ it was granted.

Thirdly, the indigenous Hawaiians claim that the federal government has been dominating them since the forced abdication of their queen. Therefore, the federal government does not protect and promote freedom, as it should be doing. Jay argues in No. 2 to No. 5 that it is of existential importance to the liberty of the

(31)

Americans that the American territory is not invaded or interfered with by foreign powers. The American federal government has violated the freedom of the Hawaiians with their actions in Hawaii and it can therefore be argued that the federal government is still dominating a part of its population, which is a clear example of malfunction of the Federation.

However, not all the of criticisms of the secessionist movements on the functioning of the federal government can be truly seen as malfunctions, as the Founding Fathers intended the government in some aspects to function that way. YES and TNM both argue that the federal government is not as conservative or progressive as they wish it to be. They add that although they pay more federal taxes than the smaller States, they have less influence on national politics than these same smaller States. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the smaller States against a possible tyranny of the larger States and therefore they gave every State the same number of Senators. While the movements may criticise this aspect of the Federation, the Founding Fathers intended the Federation to be like this, so it cannot be seen as a malfunction.

The criticisms of California and Texas on the unequal representation and their idea that the federal government is either too progressive or too conservative reveal a difficulty in the federal project. A federal government will never be able to please every state and if states wish to leave the union for these kinds of reasons, then there is not a lot that the government can do about it. If it would listen to the Texan complaints and turn into a conservative direction, it would upset the Californians and vice versa. This equally applies to granting California more representation, which will cause the smaller States such as Vermont to make the same complaint. This means in general that the federal government must always try to find a balance between the wishes of different states, which will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction.

(32)

4. Conclusions

This thesis set out to examine the criticisms of the secessionist movements in the USA and to decide whether these criticisms were directed to the functioning or the ambitions of the Federation. The Federalist Papers were used to create the analytical framework to understand the functioning and ambitions of the federal project. It has been shown that the American Constitution is built on the principles of ‘stability’ and ‘energy’ to create a republican ideal of ‘liberty’. ‘Stability’ is the idea that the States can only be secured against foreign interventions, inter-State quarrels and threats that domestic factions pose by the federal government. This federal government requires enough ‘energy’ to be able to do this and if it succeeds it is able to guarantee ‘liberty’ as non-domination for all American citizens.

The subsequent examination of the reasons for secessionism that the movements in California, Texas, Vermont and Hawaii offer, demonstrated that their criticisms are directed towards the functioning of the Union. The movements argue that the federal government has not provided the ‘stability’ that the Founding Fathers promised. Also, the federal government has nowadays too much ‘energy’ with which it threatens the ‘liberty’ of the States. Subsequently, the federal government does not respect the ‘liberty’ of all its citizens as is demonstrated in Hawaii.

To conclude, the Federation does not seem to be threatened by the secessionist movements in a way that the Federation will cease to exist in the near future. The movements do not have the support of the majority of the citizens in their States and they do not have the legal claims to challenge the federal government in a threatening way. However, their criticisms do give an insight in the weaknesses of the Federation and if the federal government does not improve upon its malfunctions, these local criticisms could possibly evolve in widespread dissatisfaction with the federal system.

(33)

Bibliography

Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bump, P. (2016, June 27). So you want to secede from the U.S.: A four-step guide.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-

you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.53ee079a73a7

Churchill, R.H. (2009). To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face : Libertarian

Political Violence and the Origins of the Militia Movement. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Elazar, D. J. (1966). American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.

Essary, E. H. (2008). Latent destinies: Separatism and the state in Hawai`i, Alaska

, and Puerto Rico (dissertation Duke University). Ann Arbor: ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing.

Follesdal, A. (2014). Federalism. In E. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism

Gerston, L. N. (2007). American Federalism: A Concise Introduction. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J. (2008). The Federalist Papers. (L. Goldman, ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Karmis, D. & Norman, W. (2005). The Revival of Federalism in Normative

Political Theory. In D. Karmis, & W. Norman (eds.), Theories of Federalism (pp. 3-22). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kymlicka, W. (2005). Federalism, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism. In D. Karmis & W. Norman (eds.), Theories of Federalism: A Reader (pp. 269-292). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Landynski, J. W. (1985). The Living US Constitution. New York: New American Library.

Leach, R. H. (1970). American Federalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Naylor, T. H. (2003). The Vermont Manifesto. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris

Corporation.

Marinelli, L. J. (2016). The Calexit Blue Book 2.0. Retrieved from https://yescalifornia.org/blue-book/

(34)

Meller, N. & Lee, A. F. (1997). Hawaiian Sovereignty. Publius: The Journal of

Federalism , 27 (2), 167-187.

Montesquieu, (2005). Combining the Advantages of Large and Small States. In D. Karmis & W. Norman (eds.), Theories of Federalism: A Reader (pp. 55-57). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pettit, P. (2006). Republican Political Theory. In D. Miller (ed.), The Liberty

Reader (pp. 223-242). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Skinner, Q. (1997). A Third Concept of Liberty. In D. Miller (ed.), The Liberty

Reader (pp. 243-254). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Stepan, A. (2005). Federalism and Democracy. In D. Karmis & W. Norman (eds.),

Theories of Federalism: A Reader (pp. 255-268). Houdmills: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Riker, W. H. (1964). Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Rothman, L. (2016, May 13). Texas Secession Is Not a New Idea. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4329364/texas-secede-history/

Texas Nationalist Movement [About]. (n.d.). Retrieved on May 5, 2018, from https://texasnationalist.com/about

Timsit, A. (2016, July 4). 5 U.S. Independence Movements Inspired by Brexit.

Politico. Retrieved from

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/5-us-independence-movements-inspired-by-brexit-214010

Watts, R. L. (2005). Comparing Forms of Federal Partnerships. In D. Karmis & W. Norman (eds.), Theories of Federalism: A Reader (pp. 233-254).

Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wielh, L. (2017, June 13). Falling apart: U.S. secessionist movements gather attention. The Washington Times. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/13/secession-movements-in-us-gaining-steam/

Secessionism in the USA: An investigation of the State of the Union in the eyes of its critics

Secessionism in the USA

Table of Contents

Secessionism in the USA

1. American Federalism

2. Secessionist Movements in America

3. Reflections

4. Conclusions

Bibliography