The Ominous ‘S-Word’ – Secession

Big Government ^ | 3-31-10 | Timothy H. Lee

[kingattax]

After 230 years, are the American people coursing toward eventual divorce?

Our polarized society increasingly ponders what would happen if American conservatives and liberals simply agreed that their differences had become irreconcilable, and redivided the nation to go their separate ways.

Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other? Conversely, which side would likely become a fiscal and socio-political basket case?

Any reasonable person already knows the likely answer. One need only compare the smoldering wreckage wrought by liberal governance in such states as California or Michigan with the comparative prosperity created by conservative governance in such states as Texas or Utah.

We can also examine the past 400 years, during which immigrants abandoned Europe for an America founded upon the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom.

[GonzoGOP]

But if you secede then some fortunate Blue state will benefit and the mainly southern states would have to make up for the loss with what?

This comes in with what I was talking about earlier about having the other side glad you are gone. Red zones get freedom from oppressive liberal / progressive / socialist government. In return for allowing the red zones to go peacefully the blue zones get more money to spend on their social projects. Their votes on homo rights will no longer be blocked by red zone members of congress. They can convert their cities into the workers socialist Utopian world that they have always wanted. If they want to nationalize every remaining industry in the blue zones they will get no arguments from us. Obama can sail his ship of state any way he wants, so long as we aren't on it.

The key to a peaceful secession is to convince the blues that the only thing holding them back is our presence so that they will jump for joy at the thought of those red zones walking away.

Sure it will mean listening to all their crap. But who cares if the net result is identical to our goals. If your only goal is to get out of a building that is on fire, does it matter if they owner says "Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out"?

[Jack Black]

Is not secession always by force of arms? Is there a single instance of a peaceful parting of the ways?

Yes, there are many.

• 1962: Singapore was ejected from Malaysia by a vote of the Congress in 1962 or so. There was no fighting involved. Most Singaporians were happy with the decision. Malaysia did not want to be dominated by a powerful, developed, educated elite.
• circa 1990: Czechoslovakia splits into Czech Republic and Slovakia.
• 1990s some parts of Yugoslavia seperate without war. Further separation does result in civil war.
• late 1980s: USSR is declared null and void. Nations of Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are first to "seceed" from USSR. East Germany, Romania (some revenge killing, but no real war), Bulgaria and others follow.

So, yes, it's possible. It has happened. The USSR example is most apt. The center just stopped holding, and the opportunity was there. Long restless people simply declared independence and there was no one on the Federal side to contest it.

Such an opportunity may well be provided to American states at some point in the near future, due to the reckless out-of-control policies of FedGov. But, unfortunately, it is unlikely that will be the end of the matter.

[DuncanWaring]

Rather than forbid it, the constitution specifically protects slave imports.

An 'import' from Mississippi to Alabama is not what most of us would call an 'import'; it's more like interstate commerce.

[Cardhu]

Did you think all thse southern welfare states would secede on their own to become almost mirror images of Haiti. Of course not they would need some viable big brother (Texas) to support them but as I said good luck with that.

In America, we’re supposed to look after *ourselves*. Not look to the government, any government, to take care of us.

What a comfortable delusion.

[Jack Black]

As wonderful a fantasy as a "Velvet Divorce - American Style" is, the reality is that even the reddest of red states is purple. The process of relocating people, businesses, selling property, etc, etc, etc, would inevitably devolve into a bloodbath.Yes, I agree. The purple states would be the worst. Many states show the same pattern: urban areas that are totally lib-infested. Rural areas that are solid conservative. Usually the city side outnumbers and dominates the country side. That's the case in Oregon, California, Washington. It's only rural states without big cities that are able to stay Red consistently. Wyoming, Montana. As Denver has become a major metropolois they have dragged Colorado into the Blue column.

Were a seccession moment come, it's unlikely that all those red counties would continue to be happy to be ruled by the massive blue metropolisis at their centers.

I foresee both ethnic and political cleansing on a large scale. Archy has suggested the model for an American CWII event is something more like 'the dirty wars' of Argentina and Chille in the 1970 and 80s, and less like a CW1. I think he's probably right about this.

[Non-Sequitur]

An 'import' from Mississippi to Alabama is not what most of us would call an 'import'; it's more like interstate commerce.

How about an import from Virginia to Alabama? At the time the confederate constitution as adopted, Virginia was still part of the U.S., the U.S. was considered by the confederacy to be a foreign country, and imports of slaves from there was specifically protected.

[Jack Black]

It is quite a stretch to claim that that case was the legality of secession on trial. It was about redeeming war bonds, and prosecution for such.

A real case about the legal merits of secession was not held. The principles in the Civil War were never put on trail, in part, because FedGov did not want to have to argue their case in court. I disagree that you have proven your point.

[Nabber]

The Court said that that particular SECESSION was illegal.

However, it could never properly rule on whether THE RIGHT TO SECESSION is legal, since it is a natural right.

[GonzoGOP]

Which is precisely what we're seeing today from the other side.

But the other sides goals are different. If your goal is to march through your opponents land like Genghis Khan, burning their homes, taking their produce and ruling as an absolute monarch, the feelings of your opponents don't' matter. Insulting and dehumanizing them is beneficial in keeping the morale of you own troops elevated.

In the case of a session we don't want to conquer New York. One because there are just too many people in too small an area to keep down, and most importantly because we don't want it. If the goal is a negotiated settlement it is important to stress that our problem is with their leaders, not their people. To appear reasonable and drive a wedge between the people who must fight the war, and the leaders who benefit from it.

At the beginning the Confederates made the mistake of making it a fight between the South and all Yankees. They made it seem that they were eager to end the talk and get to the shooting part of the conflict. If they had instead followed the tactics of Ho and had great rallies of democrats in New York and Boston chanting "Hell No, I won't go I won't fight in Lincoln's war" They may have done much better.

[grumpygresh]

Most of the examples of peaceful succession cited are countries with relatively small populations at the time of succession. The most notable exception was the Soviet Union.
Our nation is huge and we of course have already had a bloody civil war. Any succession movement would likely be triggered by a hard tyrannical act by the Federal government such as martial law.
If all (an I mean all)our peaceful efforts fail, tyranny will harden in place over time. The only way to destroy it is through a relatively peaceful coup (as with the Soviet Union in 1991) or a bloody civil war/ second revolution.

[mel]

Or would you say the feds. IRS the new gustapo

[Non-Sequitur]

However, it could never properly rule on whether THE RIGHT TO SECESSION is legal, since it is a natural right.

Then call it what is it, a God given right to rebel and change your government. Don't pretend it's legal and try to cloak it in the rule of law.

[mel]

oh, but that was 1869, that is dead now don’t you know we are in the progressive 21century. :)

[jagusafr]

Thanks for the lesson. I see a number of differences between the instances you listed and the prospects before us; however, that’s a conversation to be had over good beer and cigars, so I’ll save it.

Colonel, USAFR

[Non-Sequitur]

It is quite a stretch to claim that that case was the legality of secession on trial. It was about redeeming war bonds, and prosecution for such.

No stretch at all. The defense's arguement was that since Texas had seceded and hadn't been readmitted then she wasn't a state and had no right to take her case to the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of the Southern acts of secession were very much an issue for the court to decide, and decide it they did.

A real case about the legal merits of secession was not held. The principles in the Civil War were never put on trail, in part, because FedGov did not want to have to argue their case in court. I disagree that you have proven your point.

On the contrary, let me quote from the Texas v. White decision: "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States...Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Just because you don't agree with the decision doesn't mean it wasn't made.

[MrB]

“the state” being the general term for government.

ie, I’m not referring to Kansas or Nebraska.

[AzaleaCity5691]

What you don’t get is that the South as its own nation would have enough oil to be and would be welcome into OPEC.

Gas in Chicago would go up to $20 a gallon but we’d be doing just fine. And given all the water resources we have, we could sell our water to the SW at great profit.

[GonzoGOP]

Canada exists as it does because Britain, having taken a beating from the American revolution, realized that a peaceful parting (which includes a formal, if thin, ongoing connection via figurehead monarchy) was preferable.

A common expression I heard is that the battle for Canadian independence was fought in Flanders Fields. In 1916 Britain desperately needed manpower for WWI. Canada had the men and materials the Brits desperately needed. So a deal was struck that Canadian politicians would back Britain in the war in Europe in exchange for nearly complete autonomy back on this side of the Atlantic. After that actual Independence was just a formality. Like most velvet divorces both sides got something that they wanted.

[wardaddy]

Secession is only settled by violence and our enemies would have a field day were we broken up

[GonzoGOP]

Gas in Chicago would go up to $20 a gallon but we’d be doing just fine. And given all the water resources we have, we could sell our water to the SW at great profit.

Don't forget you lose access to the Pacific Ocean. There is almost no Red -v- Blue map that puts coastal California in the red side. So be prepared to pay hefty tariffs on anything imported from or exported to the pacific rim.