Sign in to follow this  
Plein Air

.

Recommended Posts

This is what got me thinking on the idea:

Quote

Nothing like the growth of urban population within the United States in the last fifty years has been known in the history of the world, and it has brought to the inhabitants of these cities problems undreamed of by the founders of our government. Every year discloses more and more distinctly the fact that between these condensed communities and the town, village, and rural population of the states in which they are located, there are very distinct interests and governmental problems of widely differing character. The differences which justify distinct local governments in the state of New York and the peninsula of Florida are not more insistent than the differences between the great commercial city of New York and the state of the same name. Without entering upon elaborate discussion of these questions (a discussion which is foreign to the character of this writing) I venture the suggestion that separate and complete state governments for our large cities, or the elevation of them into what I have called "city-states", such as Nauvoo was, in an incipient way, will be the solution to most of the problems of municipal government in our very large cities. It would greatly enlarge in them the governmental powers essential to their more perfect peace, security, and prosperity. Also it would separate them from embroilment in those questions of the state governments under which they are now located, and in which they have so little interest--often indeed, there is even sharp conflict of interests, engendering bitterness and strife which hinders progress for both city and state. Besides, granting complete statehood to our larger cities would be but a proper recognition of the right of those great aggregations of citizens with their varied industries, their immense wealth and distinct interests, to that measure of influence in our national affairs which their numbers and intelligence and interests justly demand.

It's part of an essay B.H. Roberts wrote in the introduction of History of the Church, vol. 4.

It would give cities more power within their states, and possibly on the national level, but would separate their interests from the rest of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a flaw with many so called conservatives.  Especially those that are certain that separation of church and state means that religion has not place in government.  Without faith in Christ and divine mercy (repentance and forgiveness) there are no sustainable political ideologies.   We often think that this land is unique and cannot be inhabited by those that do not believe in G-d.  The reality is that there is no where on this planet that is safe from bondage and loss of freedoms without a willingness to "worship" the true and living G-d.  That true worship must include obedience to G-d through and by covenants - which includes laws ordinances and discipline.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 8:17 AM, mordorbund said:

What do you think about granting city-state status to cities that grow sufficiently large? Give them their own electoral votes separate from the rest of the state, and their own Representatives but maybe no Senators (consistent with today)?

The big problem is getting those in the cities and those state governments that currently exist to accept such an idea.  In California, for some time now, there has been a push to create two or three separate states.  The reason are due to the problems that the democratic process has brought to many of the Californians that do not live in the Cities.  Currently, laws and regulations are generally decided upon by the majority of Californians, meaning those that are living in the cities.  The Rural Californians are largely left out of the process simply because they do not have the population size to overrule the populations of the cities.  This has created a great deal of hardship for those who are not in the areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco (and to a lesser degree, those who are not in the areas of San Diego or Sacramento). 

This is not just a matter of giving those cities their own states which is more specific, but just separating the more rural areas of California from those that are more urban, or separating various idealogical concerns from each other. 

The idea is that there would be a Northern California and a California.  Some proposals divide it more so that there is a Northern California, a California, and another State built from the Southern and Eastern Sections of California.  This means that though San Francisco might be part of the Northern California state, it is balanced out in political power by the number of Conservative votes in Northern California.  In the three state idea, it would mean that Eastern California actually gets to have a voice in the decisions of it's state government. 

California and the Federal government will not even agree to this idea of separating it into two or three states.  They lose to much economically and politically (in the minds of those who currently rule California).

Dividing it even further into City-States for Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego with the rest of California as it's own entity (or several entities) I see to be even harder to pursue, as the cities would lose control of water, and many of the economic resources it depends on in surviving others spots of the state (though San Francisco could probably survive on it's own, I think Los Angeles may have some difficulties).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this