Secession Has a Downside
John Payne offers some thoughts on the case for secession. This is a popular topic among paleoconservatives and many libertarians — both groups like the decentralist implications of secession. The former (and some of the latter) feel great affinity for the old South, and the libertarians are acutely aware that secession is one of the few forces that can destroy a modern state, even one so powerful as the Soviet Union.
I’m sympathetic to these arguments, but there’s reason to pause. Secession can destroy a state — but may create two (or more) states in its place. It may “decentralize” politics in one sense, only to concentrate power in another way by creating a closer, more intense identification between society and the state. (This is the flipside to decentralism making “government more accountable to the people it governs.” What if accountability/identification is a two-way street?)
The worst-case scenario if the U.S. were to split along its traditional North-South divide would create an even more hostile environment for libertarians and traditional conservatives than the one that obtains now. The North, shorn of the Republican-leaning South, could become much more like a European social democracy, with an even more intrusive administrative apparatus, and probably without losing the U.S. penchant for meddling overseas. You’d get a more “humanitarian” warfare state and a more comprehensive welfare state. Meanwhile, the South, without the interference of Northern voters, would elect an endless succession of Dubyas pursuing crony-capitalism while engaging in all kinds of military misadventures.
Now, one could suppose that if the U.S. had broken up in the 1860s, both regions would have cultivated their virtues instead of their vices. Maybe they would have, but it’s far from a sure thing. Moreover, further clashes between the two confederations could have been expected as both tried to expand westward. Continuing conflict would have created quite a temptation for European powers to play the two Americas off of one another to the benefit of, say, Britain, France, or Germany. One can easily imagine the two Americas being lured into World War I, possibly on opposite sides, by the Europeans or by their own elites.
Then there’s the relationship between nationalism and secession. Most secessions of the last century, and continuing today, have been expressions of nationalism. But paleoconservatives and libertarians know that nationalism is greatly detrimental to the traditions and liberties they cherish. Secession also tends to lead to war, either as the central authority attempts to prevent the secession or as minorities within the seceding unit fight for independence or reunion with the old central authority. Such wars also undermine the things traditionalists and libertarians care about.
Returning to the American case, what about the critical question of constitutionality? The answer is that the Constitution neither allows nor forbids secession — the Constitution’s answer, in effect, is “don’t ask that question.” That’s the correct answer because responding to the question of secession in any other way would destroy the Constitution: even if only a few states secede, once the principle is granted, any state may leave whenever it pleases, weakening the Constitution to nothing. But if secession is not possible at all, the states may not leave even when the central government becomes overbearing, and if this principle is established in fact — as it has been — the result is the destruction of the federal system, rendering the Constitution a dead letter. The only way to have kept the Constitution intact was not to press the question in the first place.
In the America that we have, libertarians and paleos can argue that we’re left with the worst of both worlds, Southern militarism and Northern socialism. That’s true, but clearly there are times, as in the 1990s, when the worst elements to some extent impede one another. Even the alternation between social-democratic statism and nationalist statism may be preferable to consistent rule by one side or the other, to the extent that each side has to retrench when it returns to power. I’m not saying either liberty or tradition can flourish in this environment — neither does — but it may very well be less poisonous than one in which social democracy or nationalist militarism enjoyed overwhelming support.
Maybe there’s something to the Madisonian notion that extensive, heterogeneous republics are less tyrannical than smaller but more consolidated ones. Of course, an extensive and consolidated republic is much worse, and that’s the direction in which we continue to move. The two environments in which decency can survive are the sub-national and, perhaps, the authentically federal. Does either of those possibilities have a chance? If not, our last hope might be a stalemate between nationalist and post-nationalist evils that prevents either from attaining uncontested power.
I enjoyed this piece; your argument regarding Federalist No. 10 and the idea of the large, diverse republic being best to guard liberties–as opposed to the smaller republics, which Madison correctly labelled as pure-democracies, able to be tyrannized by the majority–is well founded. This is a strong case for union. I believe, as you do, that the Constitution provides for the operations of a prosperous and peaceful Republic of many States and peoples. However, even though it might not be found in the Constitution itself–States do hold sovereignty, as do their respective peoples. This was the notion of the Virginians–George Mason, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s writings affirm this and his notes are as much to be regarded as Madison’s and the Federalist Papers.
Now, as for your historic examples, you must be careful. You are correct that if things turned out differently after the Civil War the European Imperial powers may well have played the two sides into subservience but, you are assuming that WWI would have happened even if the Confederacy gained legitimacy in the eyes of Lincoln (lets not forget that it was legitimate in the eyes of Rome). This is just postulation as two a history that is not Truth. Also, you try to split the United States along the “traditional North-South divide.” This is impossible because America can’t be split along those lines again, the country is self-evidently much different today (i.e. California). You fall into the historicism trap here when trying to compare different epochs. You can’t defend the claim that secession can’t be justified with examples of what might have happened if the south had actually seceded from the union.
You also provide a hasty generalization of southerners and northerners. Not all southern states are comprised with the “dubyas” you describe–look at South Carolina–and not all the northern states are full of socialists (see the libertarian success in New Hampshire). I believe your over all argument though, that I assume is secession (and the resulting war) is neither necessary or proper and that our federalist system can work, is correct–maybe just clean it up a bit.
It is very important weigh the downsides against the upsides to Secession. Mr. Kilgore, TX GOP gubernatorial candidate, made his decision that secession is the best option in 2004.
While this is certainly a thought-provoking article, I have a different view on your point that “… the Constitution neither allows nor forbids secession — the Constitution’s answer, in effect, is ‘don’t ask that question’.”
There are three grand principles our States can call upon—either one of which—can be used to justify secession:
1. The Declaration of Independence establishes the right of the people to withdraw from a government not effecting their safety and happiness as one of our Natural God-given rights as so stated: “… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, …”
2. You are right that the Constitution does not “forbid” secession, and since the central government was not granted that domain, that’s all that matters. Also, there is not even a hint of a premise in the Constitution suggesting, “don’t ask that question.”
3. Finally, as Jeff has already pointed out, these States were the sovereign party to the Compact and therefore fully vested with the right to decide their own political fortunes.
For these reasons, I believe it is abundantly clear that a State, or any other political subdivision (e.g. county or city), through the will of their people, has the right to a government of their own choosing. Of course, they need to weigh the benefits of their attempt at independence with the consequences of their action—but it is their right, and their right alone, to make that decision.
Very true. Secession turns government from something far away and hostile to something closer to home and, apparently, more responsible and benign. People who oppose taxes and restrictions of far-away governments may be more willing to grant greater power to “our own” government. So the welfare state may well grow — in the North, certainly, but also in the South — as will restrictions on freedom, egalitarian and environmentalist in the North and moralistic in the South.
But no “half-America” would intervene abroad as much as the United States has. Resources in each successor country would be less. It would also be harder psychologically to muster the confidence to intervene. A Northern republic more in line with Europe wouldn’t feel the need to act unilaterally in the world. Quite possibly, like Europe, it would become psychologically unable to do so. A Southern republic would also find it hard to leave its mark on the world. One can’t claim to be the world’s “necessary nation” if one didn’t find it necessary to maintain the 50 state continental federation. If one decides that Washington can’t decide what’s right for Texas or Mississippi or South Carolina, it’s hard to see how those states together could tell Iraq or Gaza or Russia how to manage its affairs.
What’s questionable, though, is the idea that there’s some paleo ideology standing above or outside all this. If you want localism — government that’s rooted in a given area or region and responsible to the people there — you’re going to be limited by what the people there want. Paleos have been able to play with political fantasies, because there’s been no chance of their getting their own way. If secession does come, paleo philosophy may not provide much guidance about what to do next.
Bill Miller is certainly correct that the parties to a compact — in the case of the Constitution, the states — may dissolve the compact. So I’d agree that secession was legal. On the other hand, the impetus or “original intent” behind the Constitution was to create a more centralized government regardless of state objections — thus the Constitutional Convention deliberately exceeded its mandate to propose revisions to the Articles of Confederation, and the Framers went to great lengths to stack the deck in favor of ratification by establishing separate conventions for ratification instead of going through state legislatures. None of that negates the basic point about the original parties being able to exit at a later time, but that’s why I say the Constitution itself does not answer the question, and implicitly demands that it not be asked. There are, of course, no actual “exit clauses” or provisions in the Constitution.
Jeff’ is right that in my worst case I was assuming World War I would still happen. Whether or not WWI could have happened much the same way or not is debatable, but U.S. history before the Civil War shows the extent to which America was exposed to great power intrigues. Things would have had to work out very well indeed for a divided U.S./CSA to have steered clear of future wars between major European powers. The British would still be tugging one or both Americas toward intervention.
In the abstract, though, the North might have fewer opportunities to intervene abroad without Southern boys to use as cannon fodder. And the South, though proud of its military heritage, might be little incline to intervene anywhere without Northern elites to designate Hitlers-of-the-week.
I take Jeff’s point that the North-South divide isn’t the relevant one today. An Oregon-Washington-Northern California “Cascadia” might be heavily enviro-socialist, but would otherwise be a nice place to live, and probably not too interested in getting into wars with anyone. Various parts of the West and Midwest would probably mind their own business and leave their citizens alone, too.
One other consideration, though, is that the political demands and military advantages that led to union in the first place might well lead to union in other configurations, and quite possibly a worse union than the one we have under the Constitution. Paleos and libertarians are accustomed to criticizing, for good reason, the direction the Union has taken. But we shouldn’t rule out the prospect that things could have been even worse.
[...] American Conservative Blog, presents a case against secession in these United States. Mr. McCarthy Read Full Article. Comments [...]
The point that people forgets when they talk about Secession is that keeping a Federation is very difficult. Almost all Brazilian states tried secession one time or more(In the Ninetieth Century the central government had to resort to European mercenaries to keep the country united, savaging the treasure), several others states besides Tejas and California tried Secession in Mexico, the Spanish America soon would be divided in several territories.
Keeping the option of Secession open as a part of a federalist package was the only way to convince the colonies to join the Union(The local elites would never gave up power). On the other hand, if the Constitution openly allowed Secession the Union would be extremely fragile.