All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Article 1
I’ve been paying a lot of attention lately to the 14th Amendment. The last time the nation stopped a group of states from seceding, Congress passed it. It was one of three new amendments ratified as a consequence of the long and bloody armed conflict that began with an assault by rebels on a federal fort in South Carolina. These days, in contrast, secession is more subtle than firing on Fort Sumpter. Instead, states are enacting legislation or imposing regulations that limit or roll back the rights of their citizens. It’s a step backward from progress that has ensured more rights to more people over time – a step backwards that’s contrary to the demands of the 14th Amendment. Unlike the rebellion of 1861, they’re doing it in increments that intend the same impact: to act separately from the nation and oppress some citizens while giving increased power to others. That was the same outcome that the southern plantation class sought in 1861 when they led the nation into armed conflict. This time, the rebellious states aren’t taking up arms. But they are, in fact, openly rebelling against the protections provided in the 14th amendment.
In their actions, these states are seeking to stop an evolution the nation has undertaken in the past 250 years as it sought to live into the inclusive ideals established at founding. If you’re reading this essay because you’re a personal or professional connection of mine, you most likely don’t need an explanation of that 250-year evolution’s necessity as the laws increasingly gave rights to citizens who were disenfranchised and excluded at the nation’s start. So I won’t go through that here (but please do contact me if you need a reading, viewing, or listening list, and I’ll put one together). Citizens’ rights have incrementally become more inclusive of more people since the nation’s founding, yet there are those who would roll back that progress to the point of subverting or ignoring the hard-won rights of the past 250 years. Some have identified that as a backlash to progress, and I agree with that. However, I believe there’s more to it.
What’s happening in these states is an attempt to secede in ways every much as real as the southern rebellion of 1861. More than one governor in these states that are attempting secession has publicly refused to carry out federal mandates or has acted unilaterally to usurp federal power. At the same time, these states’ legislators are creating laws and regulations that take away more rights from more people. Action by action, these changes are, therefore, a defacto[1] secession from the laws that we’ve evolved nationally to guarantee increased equity, justice, and inclusion. It’s a devolving return toward states’ rights to oppress their citizens. States’ rights to oppress selected groups were litigated and decided in 1865. The result was codified in the 14th Amendment that the nation ratified three years later. Yet these states attempting defacto secession want to relitigate that decision and demand that they be allowed to oppress some within their borders
My initial reaction was to be thankful that’s not happening in my state. Our legislature isn’t trying to remove safeguards that protect women’s relationships with their physicians; the state isn’t telling parents what kinds of medical care their children can have; lawmakers aren’t creating voting laws and voting districts that lessen the voting power of specific groups. Even though we still have work to do, my state continues its progression to ensure more rights to my neighbors and me. So I thought myself fortunate. And that was that – until I thought back to 1861 and the 14th Amendment. What would have happened if the entire nation agreed to let the southern states’ plantation class secede from the union and continue to oppress my Black progenitors because of where they lived? What would’ve happened if there weren’t federal protections demanded by the 14th Amendment? I’m a citizen of this nation, and any attempt anywhere to reduce anyone’s rights is an attempt on my rights – on all our rights. At its core, that’s what the 14th Amendment is about. My next thought was that I should boycott those states that are participating in the defacto secession as a way of voicing my concerns. That’s when clarity came. Even if I convinced others to participate in a boycott, what does that do to support the oppressed citizens of those states who are losing basic and critical rights like bodily autonomy, parental rights, or voting?
This all came into focus for me as I planned to attend a national conference that’s scheduled for Kentucky in the fall. As I was making plans, the Kentucky state legislature overrode the governor’s veto of a bill that prohibits medical care for trans youth while additionally banning any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools. That override makes that law the official policy of Kentucky. It’s part of a national push by Republicans to use the trans and LGBTQI+ populations as a wedge to divide voters and solidify their radical-right base through fear of differences. Kentucky is the perfect example where the legislature is attempting defacto secession from the union. My initial thoughts to ignore the law because I’m in a safe state, or to boycott Kentucky, would have no impact on Kentucky legislators’ actions. So, instead, I decided on a plan of action that would provide support to those people affected by Kentucky’s acts toward secession.
My plan is to offer my time and energy to organizations in Kentucky that are battling against their leaders’ oppressive secession. I’ve started to contact colleagues I know in the state and ask them for names of organizations where I can volunteer while I’m in the state. As I contact these organizations, I’ll offer whatever support they feel is worth having – anything from volunteering in my areas of expertise to folding flyers for mailing to folding chairs and sweeping floors after a meeting. No matter the level of work I provide, acting in opposition, it seems to me, makes more sense than ignoring the attempted secession by these states, or staying away from them. So that’s what I’m doing. I want folks in these states to know that those of us in other states are watching their leaders and are joining the people in the state as they hold their leaders accountable to the 14th Amendment. I want folks, who must feel despair in having actions taken to marginalize them, to know that there are others who work alongside them. Whenever I visit one of these secessionist states, I plan to do the same. That seems a better outcome than ignoring the seceding states or boycotting them. I’m sharing this decision publicly because I know there are others who are trying to figure out what to do. This is my solution.
[1] A definition: The term defacto, is used to describe something that exists in fact, even if it isn’t a law. When people live, for example, in separate communities that are divided by race, that is defacto segregation, even if that segregation isn’t mandated by law. I use the term “defacto secession” because what we’re seeing in the nation is, in fact, a secession where certain states are seceding from the rules that the nation has evolved to provide justice and equity for all.
