“One nation, indivisible,” the words in the pledge of allegiance used to signify a united nation of states and territories. A secession of independent states or failure of local government would trigger a call for DoD intervention to regain and redistribute states’ power. The lawlessness of civil government in violation of the U.S. Constitution, government takeover, imperfection in government performance or a failure to achieve a socially efficient allocation of resources are all circumstances of a failed state. States have the responsibility to provide protection, peace, and tranquility to its citizens and to make decisions in the best interest of the state it represents. Calexit, Governor Orval Faubus’ actions against the Little Rock …show more content…
White in 1869, the Supreme Court decided “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” Calling the Texas Ordinance of Secession “null,” this decision rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the “perpetual union” of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United …show more content…
Two instances come to mind where troops were federalized requiring a ground force to supersede states authority were instances of elected official’s lawless attempt to violate the constitution. The first instance was during the civil rights movement in 1957, where President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard when the governor of that state was using it to enforce racial discrimination at Little Rock Central High School and the second instance was in 1963, where President Kennedy took similar action in Alabama to desegregate the University of Alabama. In these instances, states guardsmen were federalized removing authority from states to uphold and enforce the law. When federal laws are obstructed "the law and the national interest demanded that the President take action." As stated by then President Dwight D. Eisenhower, "the interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law's requirements cannot yield to opposition and demonstrations by some few persons. Though different in description, these instances of failure of government would require the same amount of attention as secession and call for intervention from
James K. Polk was one of many that felt extremely strong about Texas joining the Union. Silbey uses direct quotes from politicians gives a deeper outlook into Texas annexation. “That there is a large majority who would be glad to see Texas, in some way or another, united to this country, there can be no doubt.” (Silbey 81) Shortly after this widespread idea of Texas joining the country Congress was overwhelmed with bills to make Texas’s entry accomplished.
The federalist circular in Massachusetts in 1808 was an example of the federal government being too powerful. It argues that Thomas Jefferson was too powerful, and he was denying the states of their power. There was a lot of propaganda surrounding this time period for this cause. People believed that they should overthrow the federal government. They also believed that they should get their state government rights back from the federal
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
On June 23, 1845, the Republic of Texas was annexed to the U.S. as a slave state. Foley notes "the annexation of Texas as a slave state…became the great white hope of northern expansionists anxious to emancipate the nation from blacks, who, it was hoped, would find a home among the kindred population of 'colored races' in Mexico."(20) But rather than uniting as kindred races, discord between poor whites, African Americans and Mexicans resulted from competition for farmland as either tenant farmers or sharecroppers.
It is surprising to know that in the span of 49 years, Texas went through seven different constitutions reflecting the changes of time. Every experience Texas went through made the constitution more and more detailed and showed more distrust in the government. However, time has changed Texas from an agricultural world to a technological world and yet the Constitution of 1876 remains the law of the state. Although Texas endured the Civil War and the Reconstruction period after the Constitution of 1845 was ratified, the Constitution of 1876 was drafted from the Constitution of 1845.
Daniel Elazar created a classification scheme moralistic political culture of individuals, and traditionalistic to describe the political culture of the state. According to Elazar, Texas can be described as traditionalistic and individuals. Historically, the Texas political parties demonstrated a strong tradition, provincialism, and business dominance. The models, however, may weaken as the Republicans increase its power in the state and urbanization continues. Texas is the second largest state in the country and there are four different geographical regions: the Gulf coastal plain, the interior lowlands, Great Plains, and the basin and range province,
So a major reason for Texas to be annexed into the United States was that the overwhelming majority of the population was former Americans. From the very time of winning independence, annexation of Texas to the United States was at the top of the list of things to do. But as soon as the Texas minister was sent to Washington to negotiate for an annexation, the Martin Van Buren administration said that the proposition could not be entertained. The reasons given were constitutional scruples and fear of war with Mexico. The real reason behind Washington’s excuses is slavery....
The Texas Legislature is far too archaic to provide consistent leadership for a state government; Congress has become too enmeshed with the executive branch and leaves blurry lines drawn in its separation of powers. The ideal legislature would be a modernized version of what the Texas Constitution created.
Narrative History of Texas Annexation, Secession, and Readmission to the Union. Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations. When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government.
Texas went through a great amount of political change from being dominated by the Democratic Party during the 1960s and 70s, from the Republican Party taking over in the 80s. One of the big reasons for this change was due to the political party’s views. Throughout this essay I will discuss the changes of the political stances in Texas as well as the present day factors that affect America.
Thesis: The nine years of Texas’s independence were long and seemed to be dragged out. Were those nine years unnecessary and could it have been done in a shorter period of time? 13 October 1834 was the first revolutionary meeting of the American citizens who’d settled in Mexico, in the area soon to be known as Texas. The people attempted a movement that soon was laid to rest by the Mexican Congress. Attempts at independence were silenced for the time being and the elections of 1835 proceeded forward.
The Annexation of Texas was one of the most debatable events in the history of the United States. This paper argues the different opinions about doing the annexation of Texas or not. In this case Henry Clay and John L. O’Sullivan had completely opposite opinions about this issue. The reasons of why not do it was because of the desire to prevent war, for division over slavery, and for constitutional rights. On the other hand, John L. O’ Sullivan wanted to do this because of his idea of Manifest Destiny. By 1845, the annexation of Texas went into effect.
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
The government of the state of Texas is a difficult and complicated institution that is composed of many different levels. The question comes in to everyone's mind at one time or another whether or not to trust the government. It could be that people believe that the officials will take advantage of their power, or simply people don't like the idea of being controlled by someone who is not a family member or friend. To avoid this centralized power, the government is divided into stages and this is a reasonable ground for trusting the government. Government runs this state and it does deserve to be trusted.
Contrary to what I believed in the past, the United States federal government retained and expanded their power and authority during the years of the Civil war along with the period of Reconstruction. Through drafts and monitored elections, they exercised this power during the Civil War. Then, as Reconstruction began, they initiated other methods of increasing their authority over the citizens. Military was placed in Southern states, by the federal government, in order to keep control over the rebellious people. Not only that, but, the idea of putting the federal government in charge of Reconstruction and rebuilding an entire nation gave them an enormous amount of power. Finally, the creation of the 14th and 15th Amendment were two more big achievements on the part of the government.