1860 was not the first time states wanted so secede from the union. The
first such movement, while not successful, was what Henry Adams called a
"conspiracy" in 1804. Back then everyone, both Republicans and
Federalists interpreted the constitution literally and many of the major
thinkers and leaders in both parties believed that the Louisiana
Purchase violated the constitution in that the constitution made no
provision for the acquisition of new territory. Pickering of the
Federalist party attempted to get New England Federalist behind a move
to leave the union (not for that reason but because the Virginian-led
Republicans won the national election and had control of congress). He
argued that while secession was difficult under the constitution, the
acquisition of Louisiana made that constitution null and void; therefore
the New England states led by Massachusetts and New York should secede
from the Union. Jefferson and his Republicans (led by Virginia) had
defeated the Federalists at every turn; so it was time to break away and
form an independent nation.
Pickering and others involved in the secessionist "conspiracy" chose
Aaron Burr as their champion. Hamilton was also for secession but in
the sense that Fukuyama has been for the success throughout the world of
Liberal Democracy. That is, Fukuyama believes it is going to happen but
he refused to join an activist group (the Neocons) who tried to hasten
that process. Hamilton, perhaps as disgruntled as Fukuyama was while
the activists were making hay, said and wrote some things Aaron Burr
took offense at, a duel resulted, Hamilton was killed, Burr was
discredited, and the Conspiracy of the New England secessionists was ended.
The California secessionist movement seems from the little I know about
it equally Quixotic. This is from one of the Wikipedia article
discussing how California might secede from the Union:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/calexit-how-states-california-could-secede-from-the-union-after-donald-trump-victory-can-leave-us-hillary-clinton-results/*
*
*The first step to California (or any state for that matter) seceding
from the Union is likely a ballot measure for voters. There is already a
group called **Yes California <http://www.yescalifornia.org/>**pushing
for a referendum on Californian independence, noting that the state
would be the sixth-largest economy in the world if it were its own
country. *
**
*Getting the referendum on the ballot and winning in an election might
be the easiest part of this procedure. As **Yes California notes
<http://www.yescalifornia.org/how_california_can_legally_secede_from_the_union>**,
there are two possible next steps. First, a member of California’s
congressional delegation could propose an Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to allow California to leave. The Amendment needs to pass
two-thirds of the House and senate and then be approved by at least 38
of 50 states. *
**
*A second possible path after a referendum would be California calling
for a states convention, where two-thirds of the delegates from 50
states approve it. If it passes, it would still need to be ratified by
38 of the 50 state legislatures.
*
However, if I understand matters correctly, this movement originated
because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote despite loosing the
electoral college vote. In looking at the vote count at
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president we see that
Hillary Clinton's popular vote tally is 62,523,126, of which 5,589,936
came from California. Donald Trump on the other hand had a popular vote
tally of 61,201,031 of which 3,021,095 came from California. If
California had successfully seceded before this election took place
Donald Trump would have won the popular vote as well as the electoral
college vote. If we subtract California's votes, Hillary Clinton would
have 56,933,190 popular votes to Trump's 58,179,936 (assuming my math is
sound). Thus, it would seem to me, the democratic states would have more
reason for opposing California's secession than the Republican states.
Lawrence
