No description available.

No description available.

This study as a whole does not pretend to be in any way an introduction of information new or novel, but is intended only as a distillation of facts well known, but largely un-assembled in the specific fashion here attempted. Relative to the Republican campaign against the Alien and Sedition legislation, however, it would appear that perhaps there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding. It is hoped that the treatment herein accorded this matter may in some way contribute to an improved insight.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, from a local perspective, the reaction of the southern conservative wing of the Democratic party to the liberal changes which occurred in that organization as a result of the transitional decades of the 1930s and 1940s. In particular, the study focuses on the growing sense of alienation and the eventual withdrawal of a handful of Texas Democrats from affiliation with the national body and their subsequent realignment with other dissident Dixie Democrats in the short-lived States' Rights party of 1948. This work is based essentially on the personal recollections of Texans who participated in the States' Rights movement and on those papers of the party's leaders which have survived until today.

This study considers the relationship of federalism to public lands and water policy, challenging the prevailing wisdom that federalism is irrelevant and questioning the eagerness with which structural solutions are embraced. It argues that a more thorough understanding of how federalism works in public lands and water policy is a necessary first step toward understanding federal-state relations and is more useful than either discarding the concept or further redefining it. Seeking identifiable patterns of politics, this study reviews the voluminous federalism literature and applies the theories of dual and cooperative federalism to the history of public lands and water policy, and to five contemporary controversies. These include the Sagebrush Rebellion, the Aravaipa Canyon, Arizona Strip, and Bisti, De-na-zin, and Ah-shi-sle-pah wilderness designation cases, and the El Paso v. Reynolds water case. Lowi's and Salisbury's policy typologies, which point to the effect on policy outcomes of the interaction of decision structure with demands, were useful in explaining why federalism theories and structural remedies are unsatisfactory. A policy perspective on federalism was developed which adds levels of government to discussions of arenas and policy types. It finds that federal-level decision makers are more willing to make policy when policies can potentially reflect federal-level advantages such as broad geographic jurisdiction, general rule-making capability, constitutional powers or opportunities to offer divisible benefits. State-level decision makers will resist federal policies when they disagree with policy goals or methods, lack necessary resources, or perceive unfair burdens. Thus, the state role includes states acting as claimants in distributive politics, as conduits in self-regulatory politics, as platforms for disadvantaged interests in regulatory politics, or as supplicants in redistributive politics. Further, shifts from one policy type to another serve to signal major structural shifts. Finally, accepting the political scientist's role as contributing to policy learning, this study offers five lessons: (1) much federal state conflict is inter-state conflict; (2) federal projects and lands are federal in name only; (3) multiple interests use the federal system in bargaining; (4) federal government decisions involve costs to recipients and the federal treasury; and (5) federalism is best considered within the context of substantive public policy.

Texte remanié de: Th. Ph. D.--Rutgers university. / Certaines parties de cet ouvrage ont été précédemment publ. dans : "Dual actions, one for each race" : the campaign against the Dixiecrats in South Carolina, In International social science review, n°72 (spring 1997), pp. 14-25 ; "The slowest state, the most backward community" : racial violence in South Carolina and federal civil rights legislation, In South Carolina historical magazine, n°98 (April 1997), pp. 177-210. Bibliogr. p. 285-301. Index.

In 1979, a handful of Nevada state officials sparked a movement to transfer the large unappropriated domain to the western states. For two years what became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion swept across the American West like brushfire, engaging westerners of all stripes in a heated dispute over the question of the public lands. In Utah, as elsewhere in the West, public officials, rural ranchers, miners, developers, academics, environmentalists, and concerned citizens joined the debate and staked sides. This episode underscored western relationships between people and nature and featured contests over competing ideologies in the West. But it probably did more harm than good in solving the problems of the West and even further polarized westerners against themselves. After just two years in the limelight, the Sagebrush Rebellion unspectacularly faded into public memory, partly as a result of environmental opposition but mostly because Ronald Reagan's administration steered public land policy in a new direction. Interior Secretary James Watt took steps to appease disgruntled westerners by loosening federal regulations on the public lands, but he opposed any efforts for a large-scale transfer. Thus the Sagebrush Rebellion ultimately failed; but still today the sentiment and conflicts that propelled it persist, continuing to color the panorama that is the American West.

No description available.

No description available.