.jpg)
(Photo: Sean P. Harris)
The secessionist movement has been gaining momentum and media attention for a number of years. The argument of many secessionist organizations often cites the 10th amendment and the current weakening of state’s rights under the control of the growing federal government. While the issue of secession may be constitutionally plausible, many states and organizations are so preoccupied with the question of “can we secede from the union?” that they fail to recognize the deeper question—“should we secede, and if so, is it economically and socially plausible?”
My recent article “The role of secession in the 2010 Texas governor’s race” explored the secession movement in Texas as it relates to Texans and Governor Rick Perry’s upcoming gubernatorial bid. In it, I drew correlations between some TEXAS organizations and their decidedly “confederate” viewpoints. I went on to explain how his speech at the Texas TEA party in April may prove to hurt Governor Perry’s reelection campaign through association with these viewpoints.
Although I never implicated other pro-secession states nationwide as having “confederate” leanings, many of the responses I received to this article consisted of heated accusations that I am trying to tie the whole national movement into a slavery issue. As a result, I decided to examine the movement from a national perspective rather than a regional one. For this purpose, I will use Vermont as an example because their state secession movement is the most fully developed and realistic one I have encountered in my research. Two areas I would like to explore in this article are the economic and social implications of secession.
The economic implications of secession:
One of the most predominant arguments for secession has been over the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Many state legislatures are at odds with the federal government over strings attached to stimulus funding. The simple solution would be to not take the money; if there is no money, there will be no strings attached. Problem solved, right? I don’t think so. Even those states that have the biggest complaints about the role of the 10th amendment in relation to federal stimulus have taken the money anyway. Why? They need it to keep their local economies running. There has been moaning from states like Texas and Florida who have rejected stimulus packages intended to pay for things like unemployment (which social conservatives are ideologically opposed to), but it amounted to little more than the stomping of feet and the clinching of fists.
Our very own Texas Statehouse Examiner made the point in his recent article “Debunking secession in Texas”, that “Texas cannot afford to lose the benefits of statehood rather than nationhood. Having an army, for example, is nice. Having the best in the world is better. Highway funds, healthcare (though limited), interstate commerce—all these things are nice perks of being a state. If you’ll remember correctly, these are amongst the reasons we joined the Union after our foray into nationhood (Google “Texas Revolution,” if you must). Besides that, I’d like to see Rick Perry deal with immigration any better than the Federales have.”
Andrew Roush makes a good point, but it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the economic logistics of an actual secession.
Now, Vermont seems like a plausible case because their state and economy are fairly small and localized. Vermontrepublic.org is a website dedicated to raising support and the issues surrounding secession from the United States (although their main grievances are related to overreaching actions of the Bush administration and not the current Obama administration).
Their main advocate is Thomas H. Naylor who is professor emeritus of economics at Duke University. He is a prolific author and Vermont resident whose work focuses greatly on strengthening community and simplifying the American way of life. In his essay, “Could Vermont Survive as an Independent Republic?” he addresses issues related to the economic independence of Vermont should it secede from the union.
He describes Vermont’s economy and the possibility of surviving as an independent republic. He goes on to say “Some skeptics of Vermont independence equate secession with economic isolationism and ask, ‘Where will Vermont get its food and its energy, if it secedes?’ Presumably from the same sources that it currently does.” Notice that he inserts the caveat “presumably” before he describes some specifics of trade between Vermont and other states of the union as well as other countries.
This is a huge assumption to make considering that we don’t know how anyone will react in the event of an actual state secession. And, it is an assumption on which one should not base the secession of an entire state (no matter how small).
For me, the following excerpt is the most poignant part of Mr. Naylor’s argument:
“as a crucial counterbalancing factor to the national debt share, a seceding state is not without major bargaining power, since it has a legitimate pro rata claim on all of the assets of the federal government, including land, forests, mineral reserves, waterways, highways, buildings, military bases, military hardware, gold reserves, foreign currency reserves, U.S. government loans, etc. Assuming that the combined assets of the United States have a value in excess of the national debt, which is quite likely, the claim that a state must cover its share of the national debt becomes moot, if giving up its share of assets is seen as an equal trade-off.”
Again, he is assuming that the United States will be willing to compromise and work to make Vermont’s secession possible which I think is highly unlikely.
I respect Mr. Naylor for his intuitive examination of Vermont’s economy and the possibility of the state’s secession. However, his essay amounts to little more than suppositions and hypothetical meanderings about what could happen in the event of a state secession; it contains some statistics about Vermont’s economy, but does little in the way of an actual quantitative approach to state secession. I applaud and support Thomas Naylor for his effort and his emphasis on community and localization, but I think his approach is idealistic.
The social implications of secession:
Secession would have a greater impact on the social structure of seceded states and on the nation as a whole than most people realize. It brings up further questions of protectionism and “state-nationalism” through the concept of negative identity. Historically, American citizens and the nation as a whole define themselves by what they are not. During the days of the Soviet Socialist Republic, the rise of McCarthyism gave the American people a division with which to juxtapose their own identity—communism. By defining other nations as communist, we could then define ourselves as patriots. Now that the cold war is over, we use Muslim extremists or “terrorists” as the negative identity by which we qualify ourselves as patriots.
This is just an example. Within the United States, we further divide ourselves by our political ideologies. It is not enough to say that we are all Americans or that we are all humans. We, as the party in the electorate, draw lines which we stand behind—lines that define who we are and, perhaps most importantly, who we are not.
By promoting the idea of secession, we draw more lines with which to divide our nation. Now, not only are we liberals or conservatives (or somewhere in between), we are secessionists or nationalists. Not only are we black or white, male or female, rich or poor, we have become citizens of different nations altogether.
The Solution:
I support the idea of localizing our regional economies. Furthermore, I do not support globalization or even nationalization on many levels. But, the citizens of America should pull together in an attempt to strengthen ourselves and our society. I think it is possible to localize our production and, by doing so, streamline the efficiency of the way we do business while increasing cultural understanding between Americans and even the rest of the world.
Some may think this is idealistic. I think it is no more idealistic than the idea of state secession. In any case, we can only improve ourselves by attempting to strengthen the bonds between American citizens and accepting (though not necessarily agreeing with) the viewpoints of others even if they are divergent from our own.
Comments
Can we secede? I don't care if US courts think secession is legal or not. Just like George Washington and Sam Houston didn't care that the British and Mexican governments said secession was illegal. I believe the US government will work with Texas to provide a peaceful separation.
Should we secede? Yes. Washington continues to ignore the 10th amendment and Texas is not in a suicide pact with the US government. Until Texas independence, Washington's mandates on transportation, education, housing, health care and family issues will continue.
I see all these comments in digital ink about whether or not Texas can secede. The answer to that question is extremely simple. If myself and other real Texans are willing to die to see their children live in a free country, are you that live in other States willing to die to keep us ? Everyone reading this blog knows the answer to that question . . .
It's not whether it is legal or not, the feds by passing cap n trade in the house and most likely will be passed in the senate giving full control over the way of life of all Americans.
This bill also is the largest tax increase in the history of the US and will destroy the economy of Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and any other state that relies on energy and agriculture.
The time for mid term elections is still over a year away and the best we can do is get and opposing force to stop the insanity. By the time 2012 comes along, we will be in so much debt and the economy in shambles that we will never recover. It's a matter of time, we don't have it anymore. Secession may be the only solution.
Get me out of the US, I can't afford it anymore!
People will still be able to work together as a country or state even if we do cast aside the federal government. Ever since the Federal Reserve Act our country has been in bondage. Increasingly, the federal government has continued to tighten it's grip over every aspect of our lives. The recent climate bill passed by the House could be the last gasp for our country as we know it. Seceding does not automatically mean our country is at odds with each other. Many people on both sides of the fence understand the dangers of rogue government, namely Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Our country has been stolen from us and is not the republic it was intended to be. We need to take it back. Secession is about saying no to tyranny, but it should be used, like violent conflict, as a last resort.
As a Southern Nationalist I would dearly love to see all States within the Confederacy revive that pact within the confines of the 10th Amendment. Some would disagree, some would agree, but one irrefutable truth is that the aggression and methods of the federals in Washington were and are unconstitutional. An old and ongoing wrong is still wrong. Hurrah for Texas!!!!
Every 4th of July I wish that I was independent from the Federal Government. I hope Vermont will pave the way to independence for my State of Washington.
We need to take our country back. Vote those traitors out of Washington.
I am a veteran and I took an oath many years back to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
-Thomas Paine, The American Crisis (1776)
As a Registered and Certified Delegate representing the State of Tennessee in the Southern National Congress, I can tell you that there are men and women, from fourteen Southern States who are building for the People of the South, a new forum where the concerns of the People can be voiced in a way no longer possible within the United States Federal Government. The People are not represented in Washington, only the banks and big company leaders.
But for the first time since 1861, an "All South Congress" was born in the shadows of the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina in December of 2008. Over 100 delegates from fourteen Southern member states came together and began forming a new representative body FOR THE PEOPLE! We meet again this September to continue our work. You want freedom for your grandchildren? We are going to have to put down the remote and get off our @$$es.
Learn more! www.SouthernNationalCongress.org
www.MidSouthMedia.net
D. R. "Doc" Smith Sr.
Tennessee
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Sam Adams
"Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations." - Sam Houston
"Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." - Sam Houston
"Each time that Texas has joined a union, be it United States or Confederate, we have acted against the enlighten wisdom of our destiny. When the Republic of Texas arises this time, No flag will ever fly above the lone star again!" - Me
REPUBLIC OF TEXAS 2010!
www.texasnationalist.com
I believe there are many patriots in America that know secession is going to be the only way to institute the intent of the founding fathers. If the new constitution of the seceeding states uses the original constitution and limit the governments power, there will be many people wanting to enter your new country. I wish my state would take action to throw off the federal governments attempts to eliminate individual freedoms. God bless freedom.
You may as well give up now. You won't fight. The statists know it. Because of this, we are already lost. Look every person in the eye that you encounter today. See any intestinal fortitude there? See the will to spill blood or have blood spilt? Do you think it will cost any less? This is all just a bunch of hot air.
You quote an article which states: "Texas cannot afford to lose the benefits of statehood rather than nationhood... .Highway funds, healthcare (though limited), interstate commerce..."
I ask anyone reading this to please see the Wikipedia article titled: Economy_of_Texas
From Wikipedia: "In 2008, for the seventh year in a row, Texas led the United States in export revenues. ... The ship channel at the Port of Houston—the largest in the U.S. in international commerce and the sixth-largest port in the world.[8]"
According to the Tax Foundation: "As a whole, Texas is a "tax donor state" with Texans receiving back approximately $0.94 per every dollar of federal income taxes... "
------------
I think it's pretty clear that Texas can survive on its own. Anyone who thinks otherwise it forgetting that federal money has to come from somewhere and the a large part comes from Texas.
Also, you write: “Texas cannot afford to lose the benefits of statehood rather than nationhood. Having an army, for example, is nice. Having the best in the world is better. ... —all these things are nice perks of being a state."
Sooo, let's talk about Texan defense contracting. Specifically, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics,Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control,Bell Helicopter Textron, DynCorp, AECOM, Computer Sciences Corporation, Vought Corporation, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, BAE Systems, DRS Technologies, EDS, Perot Systems, Alliant Techsystems and Elbit Systems.
Additionally, Kellogg Brown & Root maintains its headquarters in Houston and the Southwest Research Institute is based in San Antonio.
Moreover, the economy of Texas is nearly the same as that of Canada. I don't see anyone saying that Canada can't field an army or build roads without help from the US federal govt.
@Jake,
you use wikipedia as a source?
League of the South, dixienet.org is all about states rights.
You can't really act as though states could just refuse to take the "stimulus" money from the feds when they (the people who live in the states, you know, the people who pay the taxes that fund everything the government does) already had their money taken from them. Of course they're going to take it back in whatever form they can get it in. The choice the federal government gave us is "we're taking your money and you can either use fund a bunch of useless pork spending or we're just going to funnel it elsewhere."
People act as though money from the federal government is manna from heaven. No, it's taken from the exact same people who, according to you, wouldn't be able to get along without it. Need a military? Need roads? I don't see why donor states like Texas and Florida couldn't afford their own if they didn't have to pay the feds.
And yeah, we should accept the differing viewpoints, which is why we shouldn't expect everyone to agree on one set of laws for 300 million people.
The Arizona problem brings to mind whether a state that entered the union from territorial status has a different standing regarding secession than an original colony or a state like Texas that joined as a Republic. How can a state be sovereign within the union if it wasn't sovereign in the first place? I'm just sayin'....
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!