Secession: Really?

In April, I wrote about the probability of secession talk if Obama won re-election.  For a variety of reasons, I never posted the piece.  Today, reading about the petitions to secede filed from 23 states I am drawn back to the topic.  The Texas petition now has around 40,000 signatures, so, for academic purposes, let us indulge the topic.

Then, I predicted that several states would quickly begin clamoring to secede from the federal union.  I also argued that if it actually took place, this time, secession would succeed.

The last time a state attempted to leave the union things did not go so well.  Predictably, many of the same states that tried it before are those most openly discussing secession.

With hindsight, the outcome of the American Civil War was never really in question.  The advantages in population, wealth, transportation, resources, and industry, make Northern victory seem predetermined.  Today, many of those factors now favor the states of the former confederacy aligned with likely candidates to join a second secession attempt.

Still, there are three factors from the 1860’s that perplexed me during graduate school.  The answers to all three – I believe – have changed and thus would not only make secession possible, but make its success likely.

Before going further I should clearly state that I do not think secession likely or wise.  Nor do I think secessionist talk exists among anything but a very small minority.  America is more likely to gain a 51st state (as supported by the Puerto Rican resolution adopted last week) than lose a dozen.  Neither am I recommending secession as a good idea.  What I am doing is playing with a “what if?” question.

First, I disagree with about every sane and responsible person (from Abraham Lincoln to Antonin Scalia) who maintained that secession is illegal.  The Presidential Proclamation of 1866 that declares the illegality of secession is little more than the imposition of will by a military victory, and not binding as it would be superseded by Congressional action and the Constitution.

The constitutional question of secession hinges, as it did historically, on the concept of sovereignty.  Secessionists, like John C. Calhoun, argue that the Constitution is a compact among the sovereign states.  Unionists argue that the people are sovereign, and once endorsing the Constitution bind states to the Union.   I favor the Calhoun argument on this point.   However, even if the Unionist position is adopted, I see no justification to revoke the sovereignty of the people, thus leaving them empowered to assert the rights given by Providence at any moment they seem fit.  As evidence it should be noted that an individual is free to relinquish citizenship and leave the country.  Why then not a preponderance of people who may choose to organize themselves, through the first amendment exercise of free association, by state?

Second, setting aside the issue of human slavery and the moral imperative for abolition, I struggled to understand why a Northerner would much care if a Southerner wanted to leave the union.  Many an argument later, I came across James McPherson’s pamphlet length “What They Fought For 1861-1865” and arrived at an understanding of the pride in union, and of the concept later embodied in the pledge of “one nation, indivisible.”

Today, I cannot imagine a plebiscite in California or New York bemoaning the departure of Texas.  It seems more likely that coastal elites would fund moving vans to help NRA members or NASCAR enthusiasts leave the North.

Finally, once South Carolina forces fired the first salvo at the merchant ship sent by President Buchanan to supply Fort Sumter, the die was cast.  However, if somehow, the shots were never fired, which means the emerging Confederacy did not attempt to seize U.S. government property within its borders, things could have been different.

Were it to happen today, I suspect a more amiable separation could be administered.  Without armed fighting, secession would become a de facto reality.  Each day that reality persisted, its foundation would harden, and in a relatively short time, secession would become accepted.

For those, like me, who hold the principles of America’s founding sacred, the re-election of Barack Obama is a bitter pill to swallow.  We, who may feel marginalized, acknowledge that Obama is not the problem, but rather a symptom of a deeper challenge to our national soul.  Yet, secession is not a path that we should embark on.  That time may come, but it is not today.


6 thoughts on “Secession: Really?

  1. At this moment I am so fed up with the atrocious government policies that I too am leaning toward secession. The reason is I can’t find another suitable place on earth to move that is based on Conservative principles. We are so divided ideologically, the idea of the great experiment is appealing. Wouldn’t it be nice to once and for all prove which system works?
    Most likely you are correct, it is still not the right time. However, the idea of a peaceful secession is really appealing since fighting a revolution is totally impractical. Even with all the guns we own, the Feds would blast us to hell within a few minutes. We think Syria is bad, but the Divided States of America would make them pale in comparison once rebel bullets began flying. I wonder if countries would come to support a new American Revolution, or would they line up behind the dictator?

  2. The secession of some states holds no appeal to me. For instance, there is a petition from Oregon. But, if a conservative republic emerged – likely anchored by Texas – I believe I would probably move there. But then again, almost any place seems better than where I am now… in New York.

    1. Wow! I feel for you living in such a liberal state! There are plenty of democrats and liberals here in KY but not nearly as many as you probably run into there. I would seriously consider moving (if it were me)…just sayin 😉 I enjoyed finding your blog via Grumpa Joe’s blog. Good post.

  3. Secession has always been seen as a “dirty” word, even by self-proclaimed upholders of the rights of people, as it is seen as their failure to hold it together. Also, the first one is feared as igniting a domino effect on other constituents of that union, eventually eroding their power. The point often missed, and one that I think you make, is that the only sovereignty sacred is that of people. Everything else is an artificial construction of convenience, be it state, nation or anything else.

  4. i was amazed to see the coverage of the petitions towards secession. How in the world can states that less than four years years ago begged for every dollar they could get from the federal government suddenly afford to trot out on their own? This would be a serious mistake and would certainly weaken the United States permanently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s