"more on modern secession" Topic

link

POSTED ON JANUARY 1, 2023 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN FEDERALISM
THE COMING CRISIS OF FEDERALISM

I do have one prediction for 2023 and years to come: I think the federalism issue—the relationship between the federal government and the states—will become the most vital question in our political life.

Currently, we have at least two large states, Texas and Florida, that enjoy strong, effective leadership, while our national government flounders. States like Texas and Florida are plenty big enough to go it on their own, and one wonders how long they will chafe under the yoke of an inept and destructive central government.

. . .

I don't think disunion will happen during my lifetime. But I do think that the potential for disunion will play an increasingly important role in our national debates. It would be relatively easy to establish a contiguous nation, based on our current Constitution, that reaches from North Dakota to Texas, then includes the entire Southeast as far as Florida, and extends north to include, at a minimum, Indiana and Ohio. Other states would no doubt choose to join. Such a nation would be vastly better governed than the current United States, it would contain our most important natural resources, and it would include most of the territory from which our armed forces are drawn.

There are strong reasons for the states to re-assert their sovereignty, and, given how poorly our national government is performing, that can only be a good thing. Perhaps the prospect of disunion will concentrate the minds of the political class in Washington. Or perhaps disunion will become a reality, maybe sooner than we can now imagine. Either way, I think the issue of federalism will come to dominate our political debate before long.

Sounds just like the Scottish Nationalists…

No, I think the link is to show an example of Putin's disinformation campaign. A few days ago, a Russian minister was talking about the US breaking up. And then this article appears. The whole website is full of Russian propaganda. There's another article claiming green energy is bad for humanity (so buy Russian oil and gas Western Europe)!

Highly politicized right wing opinion. "Strong leadership" now depends on what you are looking for.

Scotland has held independence referendums in recent years and the SNP has controlled the devolved government. But the issues have not been sufficient to sway enough people. Any talk of independence invariably leaves out a ton of practical questions about the economy, finance, defense, trade, all vastly more successful under united rule.

We are too interconnected for secession, and the current leadership in Texas and FLA is highly partisan. But nobody in behind the scenes power really wants to secede from the worlds largest economy and military umbrella, and still a democracy to boot.

But scenarios for future wars seems worth talking about on an ultramodern board.

Agreed. Long wargaming tradition of "future civil war" gaming.

Note also the question of whether counties can secede from a state, as per situation in California.

We are too interconnected for secession, and the current leadership in Texas and FLA is highly partisan. But nobody in behind the scenes power really wants to secede from the worlds largest economy and military umbrella, and still a democracy to boot.

Ah, an actual argument; thank you, Tort. Schlechter makes much the same argument about interconnectedness in WE'LL BE BACK. Before going into how a war between red and blue might play out.

I agree with Tort, with this caveat: "still a democracy to boot"? THAT will be the issue, and already is, as both sides are claiming democracy is in peril. IF we reach the point where the "election deniers" outnumber the "fraud deniers" and we can no longer resolve things through elections -- and we are moving in that direction -- then disunion, peaceably or not, will occur.

Yes, we are likely to see -- are already seeing -- efforts by rural counties to break away from their urban-dominated state and join a neighboring one. THAT would make an interesting scenario. The Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. As far as I know that has never been invoked nor defined. One might speculate that were a Republican administration in control in DC, that the US would not automatically side with a blue state government against a red county secession.

Do we remember Vermont? Claimed alike by New York and NH? And the Green Mountain Boys successfully waged guerilla war against tax collectors from both.

Not a hypothetical:

link

Oregon and Idaho.

CLUTCH YOUR PEARLS!! It's a "right wing" source!!! Run away, run away!!!

@Tort and Doc

First let me say, that a split of the country would be a horrible thing and is to no one's advantage and would only weaken us further to our external enemies. Similar to Rome and its constant Civil Wars.

"and the current leadership in Texas and FLA is highly partisan. "

as is California, New York, Oregon…. It goes both ways and unless we can admit that and see that, then the scenario goes from scenario to reality.

It is the same in our media. You need to listen and read both sides, not totally write off the one you currently disagree with. Lies, half truths and misinformation or no information have been propagated by both to further political and ideological agendas.

These are obviously my opinions.

The Legal Insurrection (a great law blog) notes the expense to Oregon of continuing to rule the counties that want to leave. It would be relatively easy for a sustained campaign of disobedience and resistance to state authority to make the cost even higher. If Oregon state troopers had to escort Oregon state functionaries as they went about their jobs, it would soon become VERY expensive.

No, we do not want to split. But it is a danger that our feckless rulers increasingly expose us to.

I think a reshuffling of counties among states, OR dividing some states into two, would permit continuing union. Upstate New York bitterly resents the domination of NYC.

And I think the OP is correct; this WILL be an ongoing and vital area of debate, for the foreseeable future.

@Doc

This I agree with and believe West Virginia set the president for it.

"I think a reshuffling of counties among states, OR dividing some states into two, would permit continuing union. Upstate New York bitterly resents the domination of NYC."

I think the reason we have inept federal leadership is because we let them. Look at your next paycheck and compare your state vs federal tax (US paycheck earners only, obviously). Most of your tax dollars go to the government that's farthest from you and is least responsive to you as an individual.

I think Doc is right in that we will be talking a lot more about secession in the coming years. The current mistrust of media and government offices/functions is probably going to increase and will feed that discussion.

And while all of this makes for great what-if-ism, it is contraindicated as a solution to the problem.

The real divide in the US is not between the States with their own coherent identity -- but more of an Urban/Rural+Suburban divide.

If you look at the County by County 2020 election map of the US you see there really are no "Blue States," just "Blue Metro Areas."

The Democrats are an "Archipelago Party" of the Urban counties, so if there is any "split" it may be within States as people in Suburban and Rural counties want to go their own way and either become a State or join another State -- like we see with the 'Greater Idaho" movement in Washington and Oregon where the majority of counties east of the Metro areas say they are no longer represented and want to join with Idaho.

So perhaps the real question we should be addressing is *Devolution* – the break up of the Big States and devolution of power within States, rather than *Disunion* or *Secession.*

SB, yes, I agree.

The real question is how does any two-party democracy deal with minorities ? Up to 49% of any group of voters will not get the result they voted for. If they think they might have a chance of reversing the decision in the next election they will probably be content to wait. If there is little difference between the two sides, or if they think their opinions are taken into consideration by the other side they won't be too fussed.

But if they are stirred up by people intent on causing trouble there may be all sorts of things going on in the future.

Dagwood, yes. The first necessity is that we not hold elections about matters of existential significance. If the Bill of Rights is up for a vote, I am a rebel, armed if necessary, because my rights are not dictated by any goverbment, majority or not.

And the second requirement is trust in the elections being fair, so that the losers have a chance next time. Trust takes a long time to build and can be (and has been) squandered in an instant.

I believe the red v blue talk ignores most actual on the ground math in favor of calling complex groups of people red teams or blue teams. Even the bluest of blue or reddist of red are usually 70/30 and more often 60/40. Most suburbs bounce between 51/49 depending on which candidate seems most awful. Any secession since it would be perceived as highly partisan and extreme either way would be likely popular 60/40 at the most extreme and more likely much closer to 50/50 loudest wins. Such a split likely leaves 40-50% very pissed off. The actual attention/demand for separation is more a product of a small minority representing an extremely squeeky wheel getting disproportionate attention to pull clicks.

To an outsider, American politics appears strange.

First off is the two party system. Most other democracies have multiple parties. Even Britain has several of them even though only the two major parties actually win power in Westminster.

Second odd thing is that the policy gap between the Democrats and Republicans is, to European eyes, virtually non-existent. If they were transplanted into a European country they would form two wings of the SAME party.

Dagwood's point about a two-party dealing with minorities is an interesting one. We have the same problem, to a lesser extent, in Britain. Even though every government for the last hundred-odd years has been Labour or Conservative, minority voters have a choice of minor parties to vote for in the hope that they may make a breakthrough. Or possibly being a junior partner in a coalition…

Winner takes all elections make viable third parties difficult.

McK is of course correct. Nothing will happen nor should unless sentiment swings more towards one side or the other.

Cerdic, what Churchill said about democracy -- it is the worst of all systems, except for the others -- applies equally to the two-party system. The electoral college winner-takes-all is why the two-party system continues.

And populists have been saying at least since the Tea Party (no, not THAT one, the one after the 2009 recession) that we in fact have a uniparty, with neither Reps nor Dems really responsible to the voters nor interested in anything beyond their own aggrandizement.

No human institution is forever. That includes political arrangements. Treaties ratified by the US Senate are part of the supreme law, according to the constitution, yet treaties are disavowed by one or another party when it decides the treaty no longer serves its interests.

Of course no political arrangement can satisfy all interests at all times; there are always trade-offs. We maintain "the forms to which we are accustomed" until "a long train of abuses" all tending in the same direction "evince a design" to act against our vital interest, first and most individual liberty.

I have freedom of speech and of religion. That is NOT because of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from legislating to restrict them, because they already exist before the government is formed (natural rights). Nor would a repeal of the First Amendment deprive me of natural rights. It would instead trigger the final natural right, the right of revolution. I am bound by the social contract only so long as the other party, the state and its government, respects and protects my liberty.

So Hurrah for the union! And God bless the USA! but neither union nor government is an end in itself, and my loyalty is ALWAYS contingent on their achieving their legitimate purposes, at least minimally.

SBmini +1

We learned to "distrust" gov't with Vietnam …

We learned recently the net & mass news media can be a much more powerful "tool" than it should be. The news media, etc., has become more of a propaganda arm. Then actual "news". Oh and also still don't trust your gov't …

I think the way forward is not to divide the nation in two, nor it is to create new states. Rather let counties switch from one state to another.
So the rural eastern parts of Oregon and Washington could become one state and the western parts of Oregon and Washington could become a second state. The over all number of states would remain at 50 but the counties would be shuffled around so that they are in states with like minded neighbors.
You could also put eastern California states in Arizona or Nevada, again the number of states would stay the same, but some states would get larger and others smaller.
Russia and China would benefit from the US splitting up. Chine would control Hawaii and the Western US pretty quickly if they split from the union. The Western US has no nuclear sites and would not likely spend enough on defense to maintain readiness, IMHO.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

A further point. As long as it is about money (or the equivalent like land) you can split the difference. You can draw a line and split the nation slave and free. But when the issue becomes moral, and existential, you cannot compromise. That was the key change between 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, and the 1850s.

SOME of the issues dividing red and blue today are compromisable, at least if we draw some lines differently. But some are about core values, what sort of society we shall have, and in the end one side or the other must prevail. And that is unlikely to happen peacefully.

My county talked about secession 50 years ago, feeling ignored by the legislature in Boston. But then we looked at the alternative, Albany, much closer, and decided to forget the whole thing as we realized that being ignored was okay with us.

By the way doc, as different as NYC and Upstate are, they are codependent in many ways and the rural areas are not all conservative.

We are far more bound together now than we were during the ACW. Any county looking at secession should use their heads and not just their hearts. The grass is always greener…. especially in times of discontent, but the promised land may not be where you think it is. This is the biggest problem with secession anywhere, IMO.

Secession ain't going to happen …

Sadly, the Federal government has become far too: large and bloated, employs far too many people, ponderous, unresponsive, activist, and far too well funded.

It is way beyond time to address that, and to greatly trim the staffing and funding for it, with the exception of our military.

States' rights are constitutional, and should be protected.

One thing that I don't see anyone talking about is the number of representatives based on the population. In 1910, there were roughly 1 representative per @275,000 people (and it was less than this 100 years earlier). Today there are over 750,000 people per representative. The limitation? The size of the room that Congress people sit in.

This is a huge issue in my mind as most people have never met, and will never meet their representative at that ratio.

We live in a technological society. Isn't there a way we can increase that number of representatives so that more people feel like they are getting represented?

I don't believe this is a quick band aid fix, but I do believe it would help more people feel as if they are getting represented and reduce the silly gerrymandered districts that both sides use.

A great point. And the issue of campaign finance reform means that nobody can be elected without being owned before even having a chance to run.

Government spending is only partly about employees. The pork for each state has a long history and draws massive and sometimes questionable funding. Neither party will let go of this practice.

How we get integrity into government is the issue.

The system is broken. Perhaps it may lumber along for decades -- how long was the Ottoman Empire the "sick man of Europe"? -- but there are likley to be continuing stresses, such as another plague, a war, a financial collapse etc. Pretty much bound to be. I very much doubt the national authority is up to it.

And Texas may decide they are tired of being invaded. Abbot won't but his successor might.

And yet, look around at the other big powers. We are far from being the Ottoman Empire near the end.

Most people in Texas are doing pretty well.

The global system is in tatters. As bad as the 1930s. We are on the cusp of world-wide conflict and collapse. Rogue nations are unchecked, international trade is disrupted, and the decent states have lost confidence.

Most people in Texas are doing pretty well.

Except for the border communities.

Exactly, Bill, and I did not mean my comment to even remotely suggest the border crisis is not important or has an impact. The crisis in Central America which is fueling all that is never seen as part of a solution, maybe forcing us to go medieval and restore order on the border. IMO, this must be done before we can tackle the big picture, but we have argued about this for many years.

Most people do not live on the border, I believe.

The impact of the world pandemic on economies, political instability, crime, mental and physical health, etc. will take years to abate. Over one million Americans gone. As many as 20 million people world wide, nobody really knows how high the toll is. The disruption reached every corner of the globe and exacerbated every issue and challenge we were already facing.

Doc, how do you think college students see the future? The ones I am in contact with mostly have their sleeves rolled up. Some kids from Iran have been a revelation. China, India , Eastern Europe. They dream of coming here to live. Their American peers may be more entitled, but are basically the same. Not afraid of science. Even know some history. They know politics and shun the current mess. Their turn is coming.

They do not have pearls to clutch. Cell phones….

Ha, you are right about cell phones.

Alas, my last exposure to undergrads is now several years past, and was NOT encouraging then. Mainly they seemed terrified of speaking out on any topic lest they offend someone. I hope your optimism is well placed.

But that the young would "shun the current mess" is NOT unexpected, and is encouraging.

I think the ill effects of the open border extend far beyond the border counties. The drugs, and the unemployment (especially for poor blacks), and the drain on resources.

That said, I do have SOME hope, if not confidence, that the American culture, sick as it is, may transform immigrants, illegal or not, into Americans. Hispanics have an admirable work and family ethic, and the Democrats may be disappointed in the long run when many of them succeed and turn into Republicans.

Except for the border communities.

Yes our Southern borders are being overrun by illegal aliens along with criminals like drug dealers, gangs, sex traffickers, terrorists, etc. This is a real crisis. That many of our elected & appointed leadership seems to be ignoring. It may be on purpose, to fit a skewed agenda, etc., IMO ?

A large number don't want to turn themselves in to CBP, LEO, etc. That are not here to do anything but bad. If you are here for work, why are you trying to not be intercepted by CBP, LEO, etc.? Most are here because they can't find work at home. Those, IIRC, are called economic immigrants. They don't qualify for asylum, sanctuary, etc. They should be sent back to where they came from.

Just because a family or female has children with them does not qualify them for entering the USA. They must do it legally, like many of our kin have done 100 or more years ago. Our appointed & elected officials are ignoring the laws or only follow the laws that fit their agenda.

That is not what they were elected for. Allowing millions of illegal aliens is doing nothing for "we the people". They talk about immigration reform. It way too late now to talk about that at this time. The priority has to regain control of the border. Shut it down. You have to repair the big hole in the hull before you try to do anything else.

It has 0 to do with race or ethnicity. It is a matter of not just logistics i.e. $ but National Security. And the gov't following the laws of the USA. The criminals, drug runners, etc. are using the flood of illegal aliens as cover. Costing the USA 300 drug related deaths daily. That alone should be enough to shut the border down.

Illegal aliens that are caught and on the terrorist watch list should be sent to Gitmo. Any illegal aliens that are seen and catch wearing camo clothing. Should be considered enemy combatants and sent to a POW Camp, i.e. Gitmo. If you are wearing camo you don't want to be caught. Why ? I'm sure it is not for the greater good … Or get a job at a fast-food place, etc.

Try to sneak across any border in many places in the world wearing camo or otherwise. Avoiding capture, you'd be considered a spy, terrorists, etc. maybe even shot outright.

Shut the border down, build the wall and more, Drones are great but they can't physically stop anyone, round up any illegal aliens and send them back to where they came from. It has nothing to with anything but National Security and wasting $ on illegal aliens/criminals. This must be stopped and those in our gov't that are responsible must be punished. Starting at the very top. Don't just go after the pawns. Only following orders is no excuse.

Legion, yes, absolutely.

Otherwise at some point Texas declares itself to be invaded and acts in defiance of any federal authority.

As I said, IMO you cannot fix the big picture issues without stabilizing the border first. Shut it down, give us a breather to consider a better policy, bring up the humanitarian issues in Central/South America with the UN, try to stop the mass exodus from there with a coalition of aid. They are starving, have no work, getting murdered. Venezuela barely has a government.

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV, Section 4, Paragraph 1: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestics Violence.

Doc

Creo que ellos fallaron 😉

Well doc sounds like a "Mexican" standoff … per se. The Feds won't protect border states from a de facto invasion. No one … I mean no one, the Founding Fathers or otherwise thought the Fed Gov't would let anything like this happen.

If Washington, Jackson and Grant could time travel, they'd have a long list of people in the Fed Gov't to slap … repeatedly. About the head & shoulders.

bring up the humanitarian issues in Central/South America with the UN, try to stop the mass exodus from there with a coalition of aid. They are starving, have no work, getting murdered. Venezuela barely has a government.

Well the UN probably won't be too good at this. They still need US $ to do much of anything, AFAIK. Of course, they could always get $ from some of the other P5. Like Russia & China … 😆

They are starving, have no work, getting murdered.

Sadly IMO at this point … it becomes better them than us. No need to be sorry … just being a realist. 300 US drug deaths daily from Chinese drugs sold to the Mexican Cartels crossing the border is the bottom line. Not to mention the gang members, terrorists, etc. that are flowing across the border. With the other illegal aliens. The footage looks like Mao's Long March.

Closing the border iron tight. Is the first step. Saving many of our lives at the cost of others. Sounds harsh and some may consider it so. I think it is called social Darwinism. So don't put me up for a Nobel Humanitarian Award.

Again, those in our gov't responsible for this crisis, and there are a number, humanitarian or otherwise must be punished.

Just like all our allies we left in A'stan. And brought back many that didn't work with us, including some criminals. Now in the US living on taxpayer $. USD But that is another Fed Gov't self-made crisis. Someone keeping track ?

Legion, I am agreeing with you! Close down the border. Then get some sort of coalition together to address the collapse of these countries near our border.

We cannot help with the crisis in these countries until our own border is secure. It is step number one. Then we can assess how to deal with the big picture. It is harsh, but we cannot go on like this doing next to nothing IMO. No the UN will not be too good at this but it is their job. Mexico obviously comes to mind as well.

And its hardly an invasion, nor does the intent of the law here pertain to unarmed non-military refugees. This is not a military incursion with purposeful intent to seize property or a government, attack citizens, or violate a sovereign border. The crime of aggression is well-defined in international law. Ukraine is an invasion. This is a bunch of refugees with all the vagueness that implies, including bad guys joining in.

But its not legally an invasion, as far as I know, and you could not get away with invoking a response on that basis. Not that anyone could stop us. But we would all be responsible for anything Texas does. Unless it secedes first!!

How many cartel death squads does it take to make an invasion?

One is too many, but they still do not relate to the intent of the articles you cited unless you want to go to war with Mexico. My opinion. It's a technicality perhaps, but we need an agreement with Mexico with some concrete measures agreed on.

To go back a bit closer to the original topic, you guys ought to realise that there is an inbuilt conservative (i.e., Republican) bias in the upper house, with a number of small north-eastern states having the same number of Senators as more urban states that are much more populous.
From an outside viewpoint this causes virtual paralysis in any Democratic government – Biden's honeymoon period is now over ! Also, your electoral college is biased towards the Republicans, with at least the last two republican presidents being voted for by a minority of the voters, not the majority.
In that case, perhaps it's the big cities that might look for independence ? Or California – with its economy larger than most countries ?

@Dagwood, you seem to be complaining about the Electoral College which helps keep the United States from splintering apart.

The Electoral College is simple. The US isn't a direct mob-rules democracy, but a Federal Republic.

That means that the various States have agreed to cede certain powers to the Federal government, *and* it is the various STATES are who actually elect the President of the Republic, not the simple majority of the population.

The Electoral Collegeis designed to force *compromise* rather than one side or the other securing minoritarian or majoritarian dictatorial rule. It is designed to result in the best outcome (or least worst, depending on your view) for the most people, as practical.

The Electoral College is a tool to guarantee that States and many Americans do not get disenfranchised in real terms. If all of "fly over" country is dominated by a handful of mega cities, and those mega cities dictate everything across a broad, diverse range of peoples, how long do you think anyone else will want to stay in the Union?? Why would Wyoming care to be part of a Union in which its people's interests are no longer represented, in which the mega cities dictate policy to them and treat them like serfs?

And the men who designed the EC knew this tendency of human nature. They understood the historical clash between urban and rural (and suburbs), they understood the proclivity for the city folk to want to dictate to the rural folk, and how that always ended up in civil war and conflict.

They also wanted to avoid parliamentary factionalism and instability and knew that in the drive to win that people would bend or break the rules to get what they wanted. Thus no fractional votes in which different parties form temporary coalitions or can permanently gerrymander or vote rig to win -- it's winner take all.

It's clear and decisive (until recent election games I guess though, eh?). The Electoral College works as intended and has worked well since our Founding.

@Dagwood

In that case, perhaps it's the big cities that might look for independence ? Or California – with its economy larger than most countries ?

I would LOVE to see that happen! Let's see the "blue" counties and two of the top three Metro Areas of CA (SF and LA) split off and form the new State of Pacifica, and let the rest of California go free and be able to gain local control over their resources, their public policies, their law enforcement policies, their tax and public spending policies. Sign me up!

Oh, here's the 2020 Election County Map for CA – Blue = voted Biden, Red = voted Trump. Guess which part produces all the food, energy and resources consumed by the State??

As an explanation of the map:

1. The big $$ wealthy parts of the State are really the immediate San Francisco Bay Area and parts of Los Angeles County that comprise the industries we call "Silicon Valley" and "Hollywood." I would include Marin and Sonoma County (Heart of the Wine industry which always follows pop culture left trends)

2. The Coastal Counties on the north Coast of the State have become, in essence, "bedroom" communities of wealthy Silicon Valley tech workers who have left the Bay Area for the "simple life." They vote their SF values and politics and dominate previously "Red" extraction industry counties that supported fishing, timber and other industries.

3. The bit that extends slightly into the center of the State is Sacramento, the State's Capitol and seat of power of the Democrats and their $$$$ spending.

4. All the Red bits include San Diego and the US military bases (perhaps more "purple" now with immigration/internal colonization and tens of millions of $$ spent by the Democrats), all of the areas of the State that produce all of the food, energy and resources consumed by the Blue counties and other parts of the US.

SB, yes, yes.

Fun fact: did you know there is one change to the Constitution that would require all fifty states to approve?

ARTICLE V
…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.