As I was beginning the neoclassism readings, one question in particular presented itself to me: what if a state in the US or a US territory decided that it did not like the way our national government worked and decided to revolt? How would we react, and how would our government react?
Chances are good that there would be different reasoning for wanting to terminate relations with the US, but I think the question is still valid. The Declaration of Independence is often regarded as a great and inspiring work that stands up to injustice. Well, chances are good that this is not how the Britons saw it. I would imagine that British leadership was outraged by the Declaration of Independence.
My question here is not whether we were justified in revolting, but, rather, how would our government react if some US territory decided to revolt? We felt completely justified in revolting against the British, and we praise the act. But what if we were in the shoes of British leadership? Especially having the revolution in our past, it would be very difficult to say that revolting against unjust government practices is wrong, even if we don't think we're being unjust.
I realize that a situation like this occurred during the Civil War. The southern states thought that they were getting an unfair deal and they did not want to give up their way of life for something that they didn't agree with. Were they justified in trying to break away from the United States? Did the national government have any right to say they couldn't leave, considering its recent history and the revolution against British injustice? If it were to happen again, would/should the US respond in the same way?
I hope I'm getting my question across clearly. There are two sides to every story, and because we learn about US history I think we sometimes overlook the other side of the story. So, how did the Britons feel, and how would we feel if that were us?
Emily T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The world has changed drastically since 1776 and finding a good answer to this would be very difficult because their haven't been many recent activities of this type.
But since we are looking at this theoretically, it is an interesting question. Unless the territory was actually on mainland USA, I think in most circumstances, the United States would allow the country to gain independence. I believe that is what occurred in the Philippines.
However, if the revolution was more like the Civil War, I think whatever region revolts will be stopped rather easily. The reason I believe this is because the United States is widely diverse from area to area. If the Northeast decided to revolt, the rest of the United States would come to stop it. Because the Midwest really has different values then the Northeast, they wouldn't feel any reluctance to fight the Northeast.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with my dear friend Arvind on this one. I'd argue that those in power always want to keep power, no matter the location of the area in question. One of the most compelling examples of this attitude relative to the United States is the government's handling of Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico has been denied statehood for as long as it has been a territory. It has no representation in Congress, yet its citizens are still subjected to US federal laws. One might make a good argument for either incorporation or independence of Puerto Rico, due to the legal conundrums its populace must face and the amount of Puerto Ricans currently residing in the United States. Statehood is a possibility.
Independence is another story. While the US government gets little out of owning Puerto Rico, make no mistake that the federal government would crush a revolutionary movement in days. The American people might feel indignant towards Puerto Ricans. "Why would anyone want to leave the loving embrace of the United States?"
Land=power. Power=good!
(Taylor Burke)
The question is an intriguing one. But on more than one occasion, Dr. Bjornstad has pointed out that our Constitution has never been completely overthrown while other nations have had their whole political centers demolished. So although the situation appears to be an unlikely one (E-Prime still bugs me), it's something interesting to consider.
The power has been placed in the hands of the people. But doesn't this group of people have to be a majority? Therefore, one state's complaints would be easily quelled and taken care of, but if say, 51 states rebelled against the other 49, then a real problem has come about. Under the Declaration of Independence, the people had been given the right to outright revolt against their oppressive governmental institution. Under the Constitution, amendments have been made to ensure civil liberties, but it is based on balance of power, rather than complete power placed in the hands of a certain group. This produces stability.
Thus, we have seen our nation react to offenses by outside countries. But there haven't been any real internal conflicts since the Civil War, right? At that time, slavery had still existed and equality had been a cause worthy of such a heated situation. Maybe it all depends on what the 51 states would be revoling for. I doubt violence would be used immediately. We are a nation of rational negotiation (for the most part) and because of the checks and balances in our government, political power could possibly still be divided evenly despite an uneven number of "rival states". Two senators are appointed to each state, while the Congressmen are appointed according to a state's population. Therefore, since I doubt warfare would errupt, there could be a chance for even settlement. I hope this made sense...
(Sam Maliha)
Well, something Dr. B said a while ago still sticks with me: while other countries wage wars over the legitimacy of their constitutions, in America we have never questioned the legality of our Constitution. We have only argued over certain interpretations of it. (Even during the Civil War, the Southerners cited their own interpretation of the Constitution to back up their decision).
Of course, there will always be those few dissenters in America that wish to withdraw from the union. There actually are secessionist parties in numerous states (a while back, there was a media uproar because Todd Palin had once belonged to an Alaskan secessionist party). However, most of us in America, despite our differences, have agreed to remain united.
There is good reason for that. One of the benefits of a democracy is that it allows and encourages the voicing of dissent through debate and argument. This way, those who disagree with the government have an avenue to work for change and can have their opinions refined through public debate. In contrast to this open forum, authoritarian states often suppress dissent, which only leads to bigger upheavals and revolts when dissent finally breaks through. Using the words of Dr B again, America has intermediating institutions that tend to soften extreme positions.
Certainly, there will always be those who wish to break away, but they remain a minority.
-Eric Wei
Post a Comment