Monday, January 4, 2016

Jefferson: A National Movement

Rural Northern California with counties from Southern Oregon are not alone in their desire to be free from marginalization and plunder by outside interests.  Since the Colonial Period, States and their boundaries have been subject to change or movements to change them. New Jersey was once partly "New Netherland" and partly "New Sweden". It then became North Jersey and South Jersey before taking its present form. Vermont’s Green Mountain Boys fought for independence from New York State and its taxation before joining in the American Revolution. Maine achieved its independence from Massachusetts in 1820, a struggle partly fueled by the pro-British Boston elite refusing to defend Maine in the War of 1812. Michigan and Ohio had a border conflict in 1835-6.

Everyone recalls West Virginia leaving Virginia during the Civil War. Poor whites had little to gain with their wages depressed from competing against the slave labor owned by the rich. Numerous more states were created by the westward expansion with New Mexico and Arizona not entering the Union until 1912. Alaskans voted for statehood in 1946 and fought until 1959 to achieve their goal. Also, in 1959, Hawaii became a state, but some native Hawaiians are still advocating an independent country as they have since the 1880’s. Many are today lobbying to grant statehood to Puerto Rico.

Seen within the context of American history, the State of Jefferson is neither far out nor unique. In 1859, the California legislature approved dividing California into two states, but Congress didn’t agree and the Civil War then took precedence. In 1925 and 1931 the Chicago City Council voted to succeed from Illinois, while in 1981 some state legislators introduced a bill to remove Chicago from Illinois. The movement for statehood for Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has been continuous since Michigan became a state in 1837 with a 1970 ballot initiative losing by only one vote. In 1981 the Committee to Free South Jersey won a non binding referendum in five of its six counties. Their leader said “…(this) is a matter of survival.”

The Eastern Shore has proposed leaving Maryland in 1833,1835,1852,1972 and 1998. The seven counties of West Kansas held a constitutional convention in 1992. In 1998 the Congressional representative from North Maine sponsored a bill to free his area from Maine. North Lauderdale city commissioners voted in 2008 for the new state of South Florida. The liberals in southern Arizona/Tucson (carpetbaggers like those in Amador County) failed in a 2011 movement to create the new state of Baja Arizona. North Colorado got the approval of several county commissions in 2013, but the referenda passed in only half the affected counties. While the specifics vary between the different situations, there are two common threads: lack of representation and use of natural resources.

Hydraulic fracking has brought prosperity to Pennsylvania, but the adjacent southern tier area counties of New York State stay mired in poverty. Along with the state’s denial of a casino, the residents there have just started a movement to leave New York and join Pennsylvania. I have a personal interest here; my grandmother grew up in one of those counties while her father worked in the local oil fields. One local resident summed up the situation when “He described this ban as a violation of his natural rights as a property owner.”

Many of these movements are ongoing, and while they appear to have failed in many cases, they have been effective in winning concessions. Sadly, but accurately, I don’t think this is possible in California. While we live in an historic time, history is still being made. So goes California, so goes the nation. This coming Wednesday, January 6, 2016, on the west side of the state capitol at 10 am will be the State of Jefferson Declaration Day.

Copyright 2016, Mark L. Bennett


2 comments:

  1. Thank you for the history lesson. That was very informative. I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding the Amador Board of Supervisors voting against signing the Declaration for the State of Jefferson. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, without that Declaration, Amador loses its opportunity to share the burden of this movement such as the cost of suing the state of California and lobbying the legislature. If the measure passes the June 7 vote, Amador will have to do 100% of the work and come up with 100% of the funds. Given the demand to fix our roads, improve our schools, bolster our fire fighting efforts, etc., do you feel this is a wise investment of county resources? Also, there are some who believe Amador is far too economically dependent on the State of California. What evidence do you have to prove otherwise? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for the procedural issues, I really have no comment since I’m not an expert on them. You should check with the State of Jefferson folks. As for economic dependence, freedom triumphs over welfare. Of course, there may be a rough transition period. But my basic answer on both issues is that we have no choice but to continue to decline or move toward a more prosperous future. At Loni Hancock’s hearing on Wild & Scenic we Amadorians were treated like black people during Jim Crow and told to shuffle along. While just one instance, it was so indicative of our intolerable serf status. If you read what the East Bay Express said about us you would probably be angry for the rest of your life.

    ReplyDelete