Balkinization: Break It Up [?]. Richard Kreitner and American Secessionism

Break It Up [?]. Richard Kreitner and American Secessionism

Sandy Levinson

“To give the victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only, are necessary.” Thus wrote Abraham Lincoln in notes that he used to prepare his notable speeches. One can, of course, question the empirical validity of his assertion; that it was necessary, in fact, to expend 750,000 lives in order to procure victory for the righteous cause of ending chattel slavery in the United States. The ballots that elected Lincoln as president were not remotely sufficient.

But Lincoln’s statement, and the contrast between “ballots” and “bullets” has also been used more generally to denounce the legitimacy of the very idea of secession inasmuch as the formula was offered—and accepted by many analysts afterward—as a knockdown argument against Southern secessionists. We settle disputes, it is argued, through elections. Losers do not have the right to pick up their balls and establish a brand new playing field out of the existing field of play. Discussions of “constitutional hardball,” which are rife these days—and a major theme of Mark Tushnet’s new book discussed in a recent symposium here on Balkinization—include lots of possibilities, including Court-packing or even, should GOP controlled states refuse to certify electors in states Biden carries after November, the refusal by the Democratic House to seat any members of those states’ congressional delegations (inasmuch as they would, however Republican, no longer comport with what is expected of a “Republican Form of Government”). No one—or perhaps it should be said “no one who is respectable—is suggesting the ultimate form of hardball, withdrawing from a Union that one might argue has become at least as illegitimate, in important respects, as the British Empire was in 1776.

It is, obviously, difficult to the point of impossibility to discuss the Confederate secessionists without taking full account of the actual reason for secession, which was, as Alexander Stephens laid out, the maintenance of white supremacy and slavery. But anyone interested in the broader issue of secession and secessionism, especially Americans, should realize that the country exists only because of a violent secessionist movement that seceded from the British Empire and proclaimed its independence in 1776 on the basis of the universal right of those who ae “governed” to “consent” to their governors. This requires us to have a robust theory of what counts as adequate “consent” and, more to the immediate point, whether the mere opportunity to “cast a ballot” is sufficient to require the losers to continue membership in a Union that they believe, also in the language of the Declaration, is not conducive to their “happiness.”

Several recent books provoke this posting. Two of them, by Jesse Wegman and Alex Keyssar, specifically concern the electoral college, the egregious and indefensible system by which we select our presidents. I shall have much more to say about them, as well as an additional book by Ohio State Law Professor Edward Foley, when Balkinization publishes an extended symposium on their books in September. But perhaps the most obvious feature of the electoral college is its separation of “ballots” from the actuality of producing the winner. The only ballots that really turn out to count are those belonging to the 538 electors who get to choose the president, whether we conceive of them as exercising their own judgment, as was arguably originally envisioned, or serving as the almost literally mindless echoes of the partisan electorates that placed them in office, as the Supreme Court suggested was their proper role in their recent decision involving so-called “faithless” (or what some of us prefer to call “Hamiltonian”) electors. An almost three-million popular-vote margin of ballots in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016 proved irrelevant to preventing our being “governed” (if that is really the right word) by a sociopath whose malevolence is tempered only by his incompetence.

But enough about 2016. Think back now to 1860, when Abraham Lincoln became president while receiving only 39.8% of the popular vote in a four-candidate election. He won a handy majority in the electoral college, however. His election sparked the secession of South Carolina and other states. We’ll obviously never know what would have occurred had there been a different system of election in operation, whether “ranked-choice” voting or a formal run-off between the two top contenders, Lincoln and his fellow Illinoisan Stephen A. Douglas. One might, of course, cheer the result because it triggered the conflagration of civil war. Perhaps John Brown was right that the country needed to be purified by blood sacrifice, as Lincoln himself seemed to suggest in his Second Inaugural. If that’s the case, then the Electoral College deserves praise for doing its own part in generating the war. What more need be said?

But support for Lincoln’s suppression of secession, because the secessionists were in fact evil men promoting an evil cause, does not really provide a complete answer to the profound issues posed by secessionism, as revealed most dramatically by the very Declaration of Independence that Lincoln repeatedly used as the touchstone of what America was really about. This, after all, is the importance of his dating the beginning of the Union sanctified at Gettysburg to “four score and seven years” before 1863, which is 1776, not 1787, when the Constitution was written or even 1788, when it was ratified (or 1789, when George Washington took his oath of office). The legitimacy of secession, of course, was the general topic of another Balkinization symposium a couple of months ago on the very interesting books by Timothy Waters (Boxing Pandora) and Francis Buckley (American Secession). Waters, as some of you may recall, affirmatively defended the idea of relatively easy secession from existing states; Buckley offered a number of very good reasons why the United States would be better off breaking up, though he ultimately counseled against it.

I mentioned in my own contribution to that symposium the forthcoming publication of Richard Kreitner’s Break It Up: Secession, Division and the Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union. It is now available, and it deserves very wide reading and discussion. Although I offered an enthusiastic blurb for the book, I want to quote from two other endorsements also on the back jacket. One is by Eric Foner, certainly one of the most distinguished American historians and the author of what remains the standard history of Reconstruction, as well as a classic book on Lincoln. Foner describes Krietner as offering “a powerful revisionist account of the troubled history of the American nation, showing how secessionist movements have made their appearance at numerous times, and in numerous parts of the country.” Not only was America born as the result of a secessionist movement; it has also had many children, so to speak, who learned from the Declaration that they might themselves emulate the Founders. Rick Perlstein, another distinguished historian, describes Break It Up as “a paradigm-transforming accomplishment…. I don’t know if I’ve ever been more excited to endorse a new book.” For good reason!

Secession was doubly present at the creation, so to speak. There were not only the thirteen colonies, relative to the British Empire. The finest lawyers in England (and many in the colonies, who became the “Loyalists”) shared the view that the British settlers who comprised the majority of the “patriots” had no right to secede. Also present though were Vermonters, who had seceded from New York and New Hampshire to construct their own independent country. It’s not that they didn’t want to join the other colonies that styled themselves the United States of America; rather, the American secessionists apparently thought their principles applied only to the Empire across the sea, and they refused to treat Vermont as a free and independent state. So, although Ethan Allan and the Green Mountain Boys provided important aid to their fellow secessionists, Vermont actually entered the Union only in 1791, when, like George III, New York and New Hampshire recognized that their cause was lost.

But, as Kreitner amply notes, Vermont was most certainly not the end of the story. There were a host of breakaway movements from various state, even if they are now known only to specialists. (Christian Fritz has a marvelous book, American Sovereigns: The People and America’s Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War, that, among many other things, delves into these various secessionist movements.) More important, though, were the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, penned by Jefferson and Madison, respectively, which included overtones of secession within their bitter attacks on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Kreitner quotes the ever-hotheaded Jefferson as suggesting to Madison that if the laws weren’t repealed, Virginians must “sever ourselves from that union we so much value . . . & in which alone we see liberty, safety & happiness.” And even Madison, the more sedate of the dynamic duo from Virginia, had written in the Virginia Report that although the “rupture” of the Union was “among the greatest calamities which could befall” the country, it was “not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers.” The Resolutions are (in)famous for proposing that the Constitution was a compact not among the united American people that Jefferson, righty or not, had evoked in the Declaration, but, rather, among the “sovereign states” that comprised the Union. And consent given could presumably be taken away. Although Madison later denied that he was a legitimate source of aid and comfort to John C. Calhoun and other South Carolina firebreathers, it is hard to say that they did not offer a possible, albeit contestable, interpretation of the Doctrines of ’98.

As is well known, Jefferson and Madison, as presidents themselves, appeared to a number of Northeastern Federalists, not without reason, as overreaching in their claims of executive power during the Embargo of Jefferson’s administration and then the War of 1812 during Madison’s tenure. These Federalists thus contemplated secession in order to escape the thumbs of what they perceived as a Virginia political dynasty of slaveholders hostile to the interests of a quite different section of the United States. Historians may differ as to how serious the threat really was, but there appears to be no doubt that the “s-word” was bandied about by some significant political figures.

More interesting, in a way, is the fact that William Lloyd Garrison, accurately describing the Constitution as a “covenant with Death and an agreement with Hell,” advocated “No Union with Slaveholders” and, therefore, the secession of the North from a thoroughly indefensible Union. Obviously Garrison was at that time dismissible as a crank, and never became more than a marginal figure in American politics; there was never the slightest possibility of an abolitionist secession. But imagine, even as a thought experiment, the secession by upper New England, which, perhaps, might look to the prospects of joining Canada., a country that had no worries about having to comply with the hated Fugitive Slave Law. Indeed, some Black anti-slavery activists advocated a mass movement to Canada in order to achieve the taste of true freedom. So one might wonder if we would build—and protect with federal force—monuments to James K. Polk or Millard Fillmore if either had sent American troops to Massachusetts or Maine to “kill [their] friends and families] as “a token of [his] love” for the Union? (Fellow devotees of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton will recognize the words from a wonderful song by King George III explaining his willingness to suppress the American secessionists who were violating their pledge of submission to him as the British Monarch.) Ironically or not, James Buchanan, a justified contender for worst president in our history (at least behind Donald J. Trump) agreed with Lincoln that secession was illegal, but, unlike his successor, believed that the national government was without power to prevent it. “The fact is,” Buchanan told Congress in his farewell Message of December 6, 1860, “that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.” One might wonder what our reactions would be to this statement if, for example, it had been offered to justify refusing to prevent by force the secession of New England? Is Buchanan not offering his own version of “malice toward none and charity toward all” avant le lettre? But that, of course, is not the context for Buchanan’s statement. He was calling for what might be termed maximal “charity” and minimal “malice” toward white supremacist slaveowners, whose interests he had faithfully endorsed throughout his presidency. Better to inflict the dogs of war—or so most of us might well think.

The great mystery of the Lincoln Memorial is exactly why Lincoln deserves it. Was it because he manifested an unusual devotion to the Constitution? (Hardly) Or that he preserved the Union? (Possibly, but why should that be enough?) Or that he became the agent by which chattel slavery was formally ended, both by proclaiming the Emancipation Proclamation (but only in territory not controlled by Union forces, which, of course, also excluded the four slave states that had never left the Union) and, more importantly, by being willing to support Grant and Sherman in what later historians would describe as “total war” devoted to ending the slave regime by any means necessary? (That may indeed be worth the memorial!)

As one perhaps expects, Kreitner spends far more time on the period 1776-1876 than on developments thereafter. As a practical matter, Appomattox was widely viewed as having closed the book on secessionism as even a rhetorical possibility in American politics. But his final chapter, “Divided We Stand,” notes that its spirit has never been completely suppressed. Most contemporary secessionists are easily identified with the right; as he notes, however, perhaps the most eloquent call for rethinking the nature of our Union came from George F. Kennan, who in a 1993 memoir described the United States a “a monster country” fatally infected by “the hubris of inordinate size” (and military power). “There is,’ Kennan wrote, “a real question as to whether ‘bigness’ in a body politic is not an evil in itself.” He therefore advocated dividing the United States into “a dozen constituent republics,” including “city-states” comprising New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. (This requires mention of another important just-published book by Ran Hirschl, City, State, Constitutionalism and the Megacity, which focuses on the reality of the dominance of ever-larger “megacities” and the baleful inadequacy of almost all national constitutions, certainly including our own, with regard to this fact.)

So return to the initial themes, first, the relationship ballots (and elections more generally) and the necessity to accept the results, come what may, perhaps because of bullets and bayonets; and second, the notion of “hardball” as part of the contemporary political debate. If Donald J. Trump should be “re-elected” (even if one is a non-believer, it is tempting to add “God forbid”), it will be only because, as in 2020, the Electoral College mechanism has worked perversely a second time to displace the popular vote winner, undoubtedly Joseph Biden, and replace him with the “loser” who, nonetheless, by hook and crook, has managed to eke out the 270 votes that really count in our political system. And no one should have any doubt that his re-election would be a true calamity for whatever remains of the notion of the United States as a “Republican Form of Government.” Barack Obama was absolutely correct in his speech to the Democratic National Convention. We would be ratifying, or so it would be claimed, a kleptocracy governed by a would-be dictator (and his family) who can easily find lawyers willing and able to justify whatever he wishes to do under capacious readings of the Vesting Clause of Article II of the Constitution and the “delegations run riot” by Congresses since the New Deal of power to presidents they actually trusted to stay within reasonable limits.

So why should “Pacifica”—or other parts of the country—feel obligated to remain within such a Union? One might ask that question even if, by some devilish miracle, a majority of Americans in fact voted for the sociopath. But almost no serious political observer expects that to happen. Everyone seems to agree that Trump’s hope, such as it is, lies exclusively in the Electoral College and successful voter suppression in, say, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. So if that happens, why shouldn’t California, with roughly ten times the total population of the United States in 1790 and a far more robust economy than the new country had at the time, be entitled, along with Oregon, Washington, and other states wishing to join them, feel entitled to declare their own independence and embark on a new future that did not require them, as a juridical matter, to take seriously anything done by Donald J. Trump, or, at least, any more seriously, as a legal matter, than the actions taken by any other foreign leader, such as the President of Mexico or the Prime Minister of Canada? Even if one thinks, as Buckley ultimately does, that secession would be a bad idea, is it something that should at least be on the table (or on the wall, depending on which of those two metaphors one prefers) for discussion this election season? Perhaps it would clarify what is really at issue.

If one opposes even thinking about such a possibility, is it because of a commitment that “we,” or at least all American citizens, are trapped within an iron cage of our “Americanness,” which includes living under the shadow of a radically defective Constitution as manifested particularly in the electoral college, or simply because of pragmatic belief that “liberals” or “progressives,” recognizing that victory is within our grasp even within the electoral college system, should do nothing to frighten anyone potentially willing to vote for Joe Biden? So let’s not talk about tax increases (necessary though they are); of packing the Court (an absolute necessity should Ruth Ginsburg have to leave the Court and Donald J. Trump and Mitch McConnell replace her with Amy Barrett or Neomi Rao; or the measures that might really have to take, such as reparations, if we are to come to grips with our 400-year history of white supremacy and concomitant racial subordination? Let’s just applaud Biden as the equivalent of the 1920 candidate (and winner), Warren G. Harding, who promised a “return to normalcy.” If that’s the winning strategy, let us all bend to it. All of you, therefore, can simply denounce this particular posting (and Kreitner’s book) as unAmerican and beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

Still, Kreitner persists. His book is not only a fascinating overview of all of American history, well worth the accolades it gets on its back jacket. It is also, if not literally a call to arms, at least a call to open our minds to an intellectual discourse that is, in its own way, as American as apple pie. He offers the altogether apt comment that “[w]e need to re-create our country.” And he was writing, of course, before Covid-19 supplied the savage MRI that revealed the extent of our various class and racial privilege systems for all to see (and experience). “Our shredded national fabric,” he writes, “demands attention beyond mere mending.” If we do not make radical changes, then, “just as the 1787 compromises over slavery led to the country’s first crack-up,” other compromises rooted also in 1787, such as the pernicious Senate and Electoral College, “may well lead to a second. To avoid that fate, we will have to find a way to truly and thoroughly unite—not again, but for the very first time.” Then, he concludes: “taking the Union for granted, we neglect the work that will be needed not merely to save it, but to do so in such as way as to make and keep it forever worthy of having been saved.” Are we up to the task? And, if not, why should we expect all who currently share the identity as Americans to wish to remain together?

Posted 2:26 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Our history suggests secessionists are our representative democracy's losers because they fail to convince voters outside their corner of the nation to support their preferred policies.

The Democrats would be better served working to convince heartland voters to support their Democratic socialism, rather than launching their second losing secession effort. Donald Trump commanding the military in opposition to Democrats attempting to remove "Pacifica" from the union with only defunded police departments at their command would be a far more one-sided affair than the prior Civil War.

While watching Pacifica Democrats frog marched in hobble chains and orange jump suits before federal courts to give their pleas to sedition charges would have a certain entertainment value, why should anyone cheer on this misbegotten party to cause even more suffering to their grossly misgoverned states?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:57 PM

There's a lot to digest here and I'm babysitting a 6 month old, so my comments might be disjointed.

First off, I think we need to keep the terms clear. "Secession" is not the proper term to apply to the Revolution. It was, as the name says, a *revolution*. AFAIK, no American at the time ever claimed any right of "secession". In fact, the only usage I know of was by Burke in 1777. It's anachronistic to apply the term to the Revolution.

Second, it's important to recall why the slaveholders did use the term. It's because they didn't want to use the term "revolution" nor to exercise a "revolutionary right". That brought to mind inconvenient subjects like "natural rights" -- life, *liberty* and the pursuit of happiness -- which they didn't want their slaves to hear, much less act on. They therefore re-purposed the word "secession" to mean a separation to which they had a legal, Constitutional right.

Everybody at the time understood this distinction. Lincoln directly refuted it in his First Inaugural:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."

There was, to Lincoln and the Unionists, no "Constitutional right" involved.

We should not be adopting slaveholder framing if we want to discuss the issue.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:09 PM

Now to the proposal of some form of separation. I don't have a theoretical objection to it. What I do have are objections to the exercise of it except in limited cases, and to the mechanics of it overall.

The exercise of it has to be consistent with democracy. This means that the slaveholders couldn't do it. Aside from the basic inconsistency of slaveholders with the whole concept, secession can't be used in a "take my ball and go home" sense. That's a repudiation of democracy. In a democracy, you have to abide by the results; if not, you're in essence claiming the right to minority rule.

So for me, any separation has to be mutual. If CA, say, wants to leave, the feds have to agree, just as if we wanted to create a new state within the boundaries of the existing one.

Then there are the mechanics of it. How do we divide up the nukes? The military? The debt? What do we do about folks who might be "left behind" either way (Rs in CA, say, or Ds in OK)? Short of good answers, mutually agreed, to these questions and more, I'm agin it.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:23 PM

"While watching Pacifica Democrats frog marched in hobble chains and orange jump suits before federal courts to give their pleas to sedition charges would have a certain entertainment value, why should anyone cheer on this misbegotten party to cause even more suffering "

Huh, I figured Bircher Bart would want hundreds of monuments built and maintained to them. I guess he only feels that way about secession in the name of white supremacy and slavery.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:02 PM

Mark, I like your distinction between the Revolution and the Confederates secession. Good stuff.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:05 PM

Thanks.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:26 PM

"To avoid that fate, we will have to find a way to truly and thoroughly unite—not again, but for the very first time.”

This is a thought provoking statement. How long have we been in a real sense unified? Can a large country be unified? North v. South, rural v. urban, racial and ethnic divisions, how do you get a polity where a big chunk doesn't resent the heck out of another big chunk? The pat, facile answer that our dishonest Birchers parrot is that the federal government needs to do less for that, but that's obviously silly, some of our most divided periods were during times of relatively very little federal government involvement (and that's not to mention what often gets elided, the 'divides' existing within regions for marginalized populations such as black slaves).

In another thread Bircher Bart, every stepping on rakes a la' Sideshow Bob, brought up Sweden to try to make his anti-Covid restrictions argument. Now, of course, from what I've read Sweden had comparatively many more deaths *and* took more of an economic hit than it's more responsive Nordic neighbors. But there's another point from the same sources that interests me: Sweden saw a significant decrease in economic activity even without certain stay at home measures because Swedes to a significant extent simply stayed at home *voluntarily.* One thing that is legendary (perhaps mythical) is the idea of Scandinavian homogeneity or maybe get-alongedness. And perhaps this is easier in a smaller geographical unit (Vermont is famously more like many Scandinavian nations on a bunch of social indicators). But can a large nation like ours be anything but one where a big chunk of people feel put upon and out by the rest of or a big chunk of the nation? What possible governmental system would ameliorate this? And, maybe, should it be ameliorated (Southern white supremacists surely felt sorely aggrieved during Reconstruction, as they should have, and even more so).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:11 PM

I don't think that very many want separation from the rest of the country. After all, if you are apart from people, you cannot make them do what you want, and you can't make their lives miserable (except by your absence -- and speaking only for myself, I would not miss a lot of the right-wing people I know, even though I am closely related to a few.)

No, they don't want separation, they want dominion. And that is a recipe, not for secession, but for violence.

# posted by

C2H5OH : 6:23 PM

Before we split up the country, maybe we should try shutting down the internet. It seems to produce a great deal of the division and bitterness that so plague us.

# posted by

mls : 6:38 PM

Is the real division in the US geographical, or is it cultural? As indicated by comments recently by our resident Bircher, the Right is more and more animated by the idea that 'cultural elites' that live in the cities, professionals or the 'knowledge class' are the enemy, forcing good ol' working class rural boys tow the former's line. Trump's utter crassness and lack of professionalism becomes a plus for them, a thumb in the eye to those that have told them they can't tell blonde jokes, smoke cigarettes, and joke about killing Muslims at work.

I mean, we don't so much have blue and red states as blue and red localities. Austin Texas is incredibly liberal, the Southwest of Virginia very conservative. Take a really, really red one party state like Utah: Salt Lake City's mayor is Democratic. Take a really, really blue state like Oregon: they have staunchly rural areas that are as krazy konspirital konservative as our Birchers here. Our poor polity is so supercharged with American ideas of federalism that we think of everything, even this discussion, in terms of states. But states are quite diverse and polarized.

One of our Birchers, Brett, used to talk a lot about Subsidiarity, the idea that localities need to make most decisions. It was, like much he says, deeply dishonest and confused of course (note conservatives oppose letting localities decide not to display Confederate monuments, cut local police funding, engage in affirmative action or gun control, etc., etc.,). Perhaps an honest effort of Subsidiarity could solve things (or is that a form of secession?).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:58 PM

I realize I've just posited what could be two ideas: a cultural divide between the 'knowledge class' and affiliated groups and a white working class and affiliated groups as well as an actual geographical division, urban vs. rural. Mea culpa (though I bet there's significant overlap there). Just wanted to note the idea of secession re states might be simplistic.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:00 PM

Mls:

The internet is as divided as the nation.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:02 PM

Mr. W: Is the real division in the US geographical, or is it cultural?

Yes. Our culture is divided between urban v. suburban/rural, rather than regions as in the past.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:06 PM

First off, I think we need to keep the terms clear. "Secession" is not the proper term to apply to the Revolution. It was, as the name says, a *revolution*

This is utter BS. If the British win the Revolutionary War, all the "Revolutionaries" get tried for treason to the Crown, which they were surely guilty of, and get executed. I am against the death penalty, so that would be unjust, but certainly every single one of them deserved life in prison for betraying their country.

What happens is when the traitors win, none dare call it treason.

Same with the Confederates. I hate the Confederates. But if they had won, and forced the Union to sue for peace, they would have still been traitors. But they would have been successful traitors, which is what revolutionaries are.

It's romantic to talk of revolution. Every violent anarchist talks of revolution. Even politicians talk of revolution. But real revolution, not the metaphorical sort, is treason and it is secession. There's no distinction between one group of slaveholders in 1776 and another group of slaveholders in 1861 in terms of terminology.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:12 PM

It's very doubtful that suburban can be lumped with rural.

This also isn't dissimilar to our past. Rural v. Urban splits have been with us prominently for much of our history. Many state police forces were created because local urban police wouldn't enforce things like prohibition or anti-striker efforts. The Democratic politician Bryan was largely a rural candidate. Etc.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:13 PM

Second, it's important to recall why the slaveholders did use the term. It's because they didn't want to use the term "revolution" nor to exercise a "revolutionary right".

This is BS too. MANY Confederate publications talked of the "Second American Revolution" and invoked the rhetoric of July 4, 1776.

For various reasons, history calls them secessionists. Again, though, slaveholders in 1776, slaveholders in 1861. Two groups of evil people, one won, one lost.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:14 PM

We should not be adopting slaveholder framing if we want to discuss the issue.

And you do this every time you invoke the language of 1776. Those people were slaveholders.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:14 PM

"This is utter BS."

Is it? Empirically did one group use the rhetoric and logic of revolution and another did not?

"real revolution, not the metaphorical sort, is treason and it is secession"

This isn't right. The Soviet revolution wasn't secession.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:16 PM

Having said all that, Mark's conclusion is correct. In practice, there's two ways secession works:

1. The secessionists successfully commit treason and win the war.

2. The secessionists reach an agreement with the remainder of the polity to secede.

At any rate, nobody's seceding now. We are all in this together.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:16 PM

"And you do this every time you invoke the language of 1776. Those people were slaveholders."

Google search reveals: "Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 owned slaves."

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:18 PM

Is it? Empirically did one group use the rhetoric and logic of revolution and another did not?

As I said, Confederate publications often referred to July 4 and called it the Second American Revolution.

The distinction Mark is drawing is a false one.

At any rate, it isn't really important whether they used different rhetoric. Both were groups of slaveholders who used lofty human rights rhetoric they did not believe in
committing treason with the intention of splitting from their mother country.

This isn't right. The Soviet revolution wasn't secession.

That's because there is form of revolution, not germane to this discussion, where people simply overthrow the central government.

What we are talking about is breakaways. And either all breakaways are attempted revolutions or none of them are. You can't draw a distinction between 1776 and 1861- especially since in both cases, it was about securing the right to rape their slaves without interference from the central government.

# posted by

Dilan : 7:19 PM

I posted my 7:16 as Dilan posted his 7:14. But I'd like to see evidence that many Confederate publications talked of the second American revolution, or that many Revolutionary publications talked of secession.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:20 PM

Mista:

This is the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Every person covered in red was a slaveowner.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/piGD1YCIelHWHkcKJNdWUJCv6CE=/0x0:2976x1969/920x613/filters:focal(1422x743:1898x1219):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65218781/Declaration_of_Independence_dots___Arlen_Parsa_HQ.0.jpg

# posted by

Dilan : 7:21 PM

"Ardent Confederates had choice names: the "Second American Revolution"

Source: National Park Service.

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/4/sec1.htm

# posted by

Dilan : 7:23 PM

"You can't draw a distinction between 1776 and 1861"

That's ludicrous. For one thing, the latter was pretty plain that slavery was the cornerstone of what they were fighting for, not so much the latter. The latter also devised a Constitution more centered around the institution. You're engaging in Bircher Bart level hyperbole here.

"What we are talking about is breakaways."

I'm curious, is the Haitian independence a secession, a revolution, a breakaway...or something else? Is there a difference between breaking from an empire, perhaps far away, and a bordering nation?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:24 PM

""Ardent Confederates had choice names: the "Second American Revolution"

Thanks for the citation, seems a good point then.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:26 PM

41 of the 56 as to signers of the Declaration, so good point.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:28 PM

Mr. W:

Urban populations massively outnumber rural ones. This is not our divide.

Suburbs are not monolithic, but the burbs are filled with refugees who fled the cities.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:28 PM

Ok, so how come defenses of slavery were not mentioned in the Declaration and subsequent Constitution but were replete in the Confederate secession proclamations and subsequent Constitutions? That kind of thing seems like a distinction (largely slaveholders revolting/seceding for non-slave holding reasons vs. largely slaveholders revolting/seceding for slave holding reasons). It seems hard to buy that the latter were just worse at PR.

Take another historical example. The Roman Senators who rebelled against imperial rule were slave holders, but it's hard to argue their rebellion was motivated by their slave holding.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:32 PM

"the burbs are filled with refugees who fled the cities."

Interestingly they didn't go to the rural areas...

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:33 PM

Iirc more people are moving out of rural areas than are moving out of cities.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:51 PM

"how come defenses of slavery were not mentioned in the Declaration"

They were, albeit indirectly. For example, one passage says "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us". Jefferson had some other passages in there which got stricken. And of course lots of people besides Samuel Johnson recognized the hypocrisy of seeking "freedom" while owning slaves.

That said, the revolutionaries didn't say they were revolting to preserve their right to keep slaves, as the traitors of 1860 did. They didn't need to do that in 1776 -- slavery was legal all over the colonies at that time.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:55 PM

Secession can't work for the US. There's no neat dividing line between the factions, Imagine the blue seceding from the red on this map. Even in California, most of the state is inhabited by Republicans! Why should they agree to be dragged out of the country just because the President they voted for won?

# posted by

Brett : 8:10 PM

"Interestingly they didn't go to the rural areas"

Actually, they did. The suburbs generally were rural areas bordering cities, before they moved there and transformed farmland into suburbs. My own family moved into a rural area in the 70's, and I watched with my own eyes as it became a suburb over the decades.

# posted by

Brett : 8:14 PM

The not neat dividing line was cited in a recent book about abolishing the electoral college (or at least having a national popular vote compact) to underline how the current system confuses reality. The two senator rule also does this.

This SL post is too much for me to really parse, but a bit of a reply. One, I think Lincoln's election does show how the Electoral College didn't work as some say it should at a key moment. It did not help stop a regional candidate. An instant run-off or some other system that provided a ranked choice approach very well might have meant a President Douglas. Or, his vice president, since Douglas died in a few months.

I wish to avoid the "secession" debate as to phraseology. I think in principle, as I said before, there might be extreme cases where secession was warranted. I might have been John Dickinson (if not as snarky as his 1776 musical performance). It is a matter of justice and the complications of breaking off. It should be a national effort, just like it was when parts were added by treaty, sale or annexation.

A region might try to secede without authorization if the national government is truly unjust. This would be revolution. It might be just in the right situation.

# posted by

Joe : 8:36 PM

The citation to John D. does not mean I'm granting the American Revolution was "secession."

# posted by

Joe : 8:38 PM

That's ludicrous. For one thing, the latter was pretty plain that slavery was the cornerstone of what they were fighting for,

You are right. The Confederates were honest about it. It wasn't until the Lost Cause got going that they started lying about it.

Whereas the American revolutionaries did everything they could to pretend that slavery wasn't the non-negotiable pre-condition of secession that it was for them. When they got to the constitutional conventions, of course, they made sure it was written in and protected (and again, deliberately tried to obscure what they were doing).

But no protection of slavery, no American revolution. It was a precondition of the whole thing.

I'm curious, is the Haitian independence a secession, a revolution, a breakaway...or something else? Is there a difference between breaking from an empire, perhaps far away, and a bordering nation?

Only distance. Remember Sarah Palin's husband? Alaska is far away from the rest of the US. It would still be secession (and a treason).

Ok, so how come defenses of slavery were not mentioned in the Declaration and subsequent Constitution

Slavery actually was mentioned in the Constitution, several times. They just didn't use the word "slavery". But they mentioned it. The Slave Importation Clause mentions it. The Three-Fifths Clause mentions it.

It mentions slavery in the same way that "rhymes with smashmortion" is a mention of abortion.

And that's actually important, for the exact opposite reason as some historians claim it is. It's important because it is what prosecutors call "consciousness of guilt". The Confederates- say this for them, they were loud and proud and honest about it. The American framers enjoyed just as much slave rape as the Confederates did, but they wanted to keep it on the down low, because they knew it was wrong. They didn't use the word "slavery' in the Constitution for the same reason the Nazis tried to destroy their extermination camps and talked in code about the Holocaust.

# posted by

Dilan : 8:56 PM

Before we split up the country, maybe we should try shutting down the internet. It seems to produce a great deal of the division and bitterness that so plague us.
# posted by Blogger mls : 6:38 PM

Shutting down Faux “News” would be far more effective.

Since that isn’t an option, we probably have to register as many Hispanic and young voters as possible to make sure that scum like Sniffles and Brett never win another election.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:13 PM

Brett: Secession can't work for the US. There's no neat dividing line between the factions

Geographical dividing lines exist between blue megalopolises and the rest of the country. However, neither are particularly functional without the other.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:28 PM

Demographics are going to solve most of the red/blue problems. It's just a matter of time.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:37 PM

"However, neither are particularly functional without the other."

I think that it would be relatively easy for the rest of the country to *become* functional without the cities. Rather more difficult for the cities, though, they're inherently not self-sufficient, rather than incidentally not self-sufficient.

And I think Covid 19 and the riots may just have started the decline of megalopolises in the US. Basically every big city is hemorrhaging population at the moment.

# posted by

Brett : 8:34 AM

"Demographics are going to solve most of the red/blue problems. It's just a matter of time."

That's an interesting remark, but it doesn't cut the way you think. The country as a whole, like basically every developed country, is in demographic free fall due to people not having children. It's being papered over with massive levels of mostly illegal immigration, which is the source of the demographic replacement Democrats are banking on giving them the country. Literally, you have been importing a new citizenry because the existing one wasn't to your taste.

But even in this regard the country is heterogeneous. Looking only at actual citizens, not the people here illegally, (Who are the source of most births in, for example, California.) the "red" areas are drifting down in population, and the "blue" areas are in a vertical power dive. Cities have, throughout all recorded history, been population sinks: Where people went to enjoy life while they died without replacing themselves. With the birth dearth, this has just become more extreme.

So, it all hinges on illegal immigration. If Biden wins, and carries out his threatened mass naturalization of all the illegal immigrants, and opens the borders to anyone who wants to come here, sure: You'll win the resulting ruins: For a generation the US will be a Democratic one party state, until it goes the way of Venezuela or Mexico.

If Trump wins, and manages to shut off illegal immigration, and ideally proceeds with mass deportations of those already here illegally? Then the natural tendency of Democrats to die childless will reverse those artificial demographic trends, and together with the decay of the cities, make the US a Republican nation.

This really is, IMO, the last election that really matters, it will dictate the future of the country, will dictate whether the country HAS a future. I'm old enough that I probably won't have to live through the ruin if Biden wins. I'm trying to convince my son that Musk's Mars colony would be a good option for him, because I'm not terribly optimistic about it.

# posted by

Brett : 8:52 AM

Brett/bb:

Waves of immigrants rarely stay with one political party.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:11 AM

Brett: I think that it would be relatively easy for the rest of the country to *become* functional without the cities. Rather more difficult for the cities, though, they're inherently not self-sufficient, rather than incidentally not self-sufficient

The blue megalopolises generally include our large ports, financial centers and much of our industry. The rest of the nation would be much poorer without this infrastructure.

Blue city states would not be remotely self sufficient, lacking nearly all the food, water and other resources necessary to operate. Because our military class falls on the opposite side of our cultural divide and the bases are nearly all outside of the megalopolises, the proposed city states would be defenseless.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:18 AM

Bircher Brett's comment is equal parts racist (why assume immigrants will create Mexico or Venezula here? Did the Italians create Italy? the Irish Ireland?) as it is lacking in self awareness (Bircher Brett literally 'imported' an immigrant from a third world country by marrying one). Incredible.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:55 AM

Just dropping in to point out some massively ridiculous things:

1. Cities have the means to gather, store, and distribute food. Rural areas do not.
2. Virtually all rural areas except the far reaches are now served by central water, supplied from the cities or from central locations, because the rural water in most of the agricultural areas is polluted and unsafe.
3. Power sources are likewise located largely in the cities (except, of course, for wind-farms ... and some large lignite-burners which would be inoperable in a rural-urban separation, as they supply the power to distribution centers...in the cities...)
4. The idea that the rural areas have the military skill is very similar to the mistake that the Confederacy made in thinking that they had the edge, thanks to the likes of Robert E. Lees. Ask: which could ramp up military production quicker and more effectively, and have the manpower, the cities, or the rural areas?

The cities and the rural areas today need each other far too much for either to survive separately.

# posted by

C2H5OH : 9:57 AM

I personally would never live in a big city, but they are the cultural and economic dynamos of modern (heck, all) nations. See Richard Florida's work to name one.

When people move to suburbs they move to *metropolitan* ones, close to central cities. Almost no one moves to actual rural places, there's little there culturally or economically.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:57 AM

"Waves of immigrants rarely stay with one political party."

Well, Bircher actually makes an important point (stopped clocks and all I guess).

Conspiracy kooks like Bircher Brett love their theory that the 'Democrats are importing a new populace to replace the one we had, and then things will be like California with one party liberal rule.' People like Bircher Brett love their conspiracies to be existential (Bircher Brett has tons of moral relativism and nuance reflection for the Confederacy and not a jot or tittle for his current political foes). But like most krazy konservative konspiracy theories there's little 'there, there.' First, illegal immigrants don't drive California's Democratic wins because almost no illegals vote. Second, the GOP of California created Democratic dominance there by doing exactly what Bircher Brett does: demonize immigrants. Wilson's foolish measures sealed this deal. Third, this is not set in any stone, in fact when the GOP there went immigrant friendly by nominating an immigrant, the Guvernator, they saw him in charge there for years and years. The problem in California for the GOP is their self fulfilling prophecy. Lastly, no one is 'importing' migrants, they are coming here for various reasons including that like Bircher Brett's own spouse. He needs badly a Manichean worldview with an evil cabal, but all that's happening is that more and more people are, as Reagan explained, drawn to our great nation. At most you could say Democrats are just less enthusiastic about *stopping* this, but that's not *importing,*

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:27 AM

"1. Cities have the means to gather, store, and distribute food. Rural areas do not."

You've got to be kidding me, you actually believe that? How are you going to gather, store, and distribute food, when you can't create it in the first place?

And, where the heck did you get the idea that rural areas can't gather, store, or distribute food?

# posted by

Brett : 10:41 AM

Rather more difficult for the cities, though, they're inherently not self-sufficient, rather than incidentally not self-sufficient.

More fantasy from Brett. Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that NYC became an independent country. How would it feed itself? How could it possibly exist.

Duh. The same way it does now. It would buy food from food producers located elsewhere, unless you imagine that those producers, out of sheer malevolence, would sacrifice the profits available from serving that large market. There is a long history of cities existing on their own, and prospering, by providing a variety of financial and trade-related services to the countryside.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

The same goes for the farmer. You'd think a libertarian would have some familiarity with Adam Smith.

# posted by

byomtov : 10:46 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:48 AM

The cities and the rural areas today need each other far too much for either to survive separately.

We all need each other. Secession is stupid.

# posted by

Dilan : 10:48 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:49 AM

C2H5OH: 1. Cities have the means to gather, store, and distribute food. Rural areas do not.

To start, we are discussing seceding blue megalopolises versus the rest of the nation.

Blue megalopolises possess some food processing and warehousing facilities, but that is about all.

2. Virtually all rural areas except the far reaches are now served by central water, supplied from the cities or from central locations, because the rural water in most of the agricultural areas is polluted and unsafe.

Every suburb and small town in which I lived had their own water sources and water reprocessing facilities.

3. Power sources are likewise located largely in the cities (except, of course, for wind-farms ... and some large lignite-burners which would be inoperable in a rural-urban separation, as they supply the power to distribution centers...in the cities...)

No blue megalopolis is energy self sufficient. Blue states often refuse to build additional energy capacity to keep up with population growth and depend on out of state power sources (see, e.g., CA, the largest part of the new Democrat "Pacifica.")

4. The idea that the rural areas have the military skill is very similar to the mistake that the Confederacy made in thinking that they had the edge, thanks to the likes of Robert E. Lees. Ask: which could ramp up military production quicker and more effectively, and have the manpower, the cities, or the rural areas?

Cultural differences, not skills.

We have developed a military class of families which provide the majority of military personnel generation after generation. My family is part of this class. All the men in my immediate family have served almost since getting off the boats. The Irish fought for the Union, the Germans fought in the Spanish American War and WWI, the Italians who married the German/Irish women have served in every war since WWII.

Since Vietnam, the wealthy and Mandarins which rule the blue megalopolises have become anti-military and almost none of them serve.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:19 AM

Brett/bb:

Waves of immigrants rarely stay with one political party.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:11 AM

They’re sure as hell not gonna be voting for the racist mess that the GOP has become.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:19 AM

bb:

A few years back, some pollster cross tabbed Hispanic voters by what generation American they were, whether they intermarried non-Hispanics and their partisan self-identification. Second, third and fourth generation Hispanic-Americans were more likely to have intermarried and vote Republican than first generation Hispanic-Americans.

On the other hand, there is a multi-generation class of government dependent Hispanics who reliably vote Democrat.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:37 AM

"And, where the heck did you get the idea that rural areas can't gather, store, or distribute food?"

I know quite a few rural people who live 45 minutes away from any grocery store, much less restaurant. The Bircher angle on this topic is quite funny, we have examples of thriving city-states today (Singapore) and throughout history. If anything there's not an equivalent of rural societies.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:40 AM

"there is a multi-generation class of government dependent "

Were we talking about the military?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:41 AM

" All the men in my immediate family have served"

Oh, he was talking about his own multi-generational family government dependence.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:42 AM

Mr. W: I know quite a few rural people who live 45 minutes away from any grocery store, much less restaurant. The Bircher angle on this topic is quite funny, we have examples of thriving city-states today (Singapore) and throughout history. If anything there's not an equivalent of rural societies.

Singapore is the exception to a world of nations states which proves the rule. Singapore imports nearly all of its goods, services and resources. Unlike blue megalopolises, Singapore does not have a large dependent class to support. Nearly its entire adult population is gainfully employed working to trade for the goods, services and resources it lacks. But for US protection and its location at the end of a long peninsula dominated by a peaceful neighbor, Singapore's security situation would be untenable.,

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:51 AM

BD: "All the men in my immediate family have served"

Mr. W: Oh, he was talking about his own multi-generational family government dependence.

You are part of our anti-military and increasingly anti-police Mandarin class and the reason Blue megalopolises lack the military to defend themselves if they seceded. My nephews might be part of the military force Trump would send into crush any secession and arrest the Democrat sesech.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:57 AM

New York City has a lot of land to grow food etc. if it came to that, putting aside 21st Century means (not involving eating people). A chunk of the Bronx, e.g., now is used for a zoo and a botanical garden.

But, yes, it probably won't come to that.

Brett's comment is charming. Mass immigration in the late 19th and early 20th Century had growing pains. Europeans had among them anarchists that significantly used violence, including assassinating a POTUS and trying (and in some cases actually) using bombs and so forth to cause more bloodshed. Others had problems too.

For some time, non-white immigrants have been coming here, putting aside those coming from places like Puerto Rico (part of own country, so they aren't really immigrants). They have worked hard, served in the military etc. It is unclear why this generation's allotment here would be any different. Time doesn't suggest otherwise. Trump supporters talking about "illegals" and concerns about people not adapting to our values also is a bit amusing.

# posted by

Joe : 11:59 AM

"You are part of our anti-military and increasingly anti-police Mandarin class and the reason Blue megalopolises lack the military to defend themselves"

Oh, I'm not anti-military. My son is a current Marine and my wife served in the first Gulf War. It's because I'm familiar with the military that I know about its socialistic policies. Bircher Bart just doesn't want to admit that his family has been getting a government check (and health care, and student loans, and home loans, etc., etc.,) for generations.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:03 PM

"anti-police Mandarin class"

Lol, says a defense attorney! Rivaling Bircher Brett for lack of self awareness here.

Btw, Mandarins in history were often 'lawyers' and they also usually had military roles too.

Least self aware person contest might be a tight one!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:06 PM

Mr. W: Oh, I'm not anti-military. My son is a current Marine and my wife served in the first Gulf War.

The next thing you will post is you are not racist because you have black friends.

The question is how your wife and son tolerate you? ;^)

It's because I'm familiar with the military that I know about its socialistic policies. Bircher Bart just doesn't want to admit that his family has been getting a government check (and health care, and student loans, and home loans, etc., etc.,) for generations.

I have no problem acknowledging the military paid me for my work. After all, we paratroopers did and still do more before 9 am than most people do all day.

This has nothing to do with socialism, which is the government directing the economy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:17 PM

Please, my suburbanite friends. Don't try and lecture me about self-sufficiency out on the farm. I grew up on what was basically a subsistence farm far out on the prairie. We grew our own vegetables, canned them, grew our own chickens, hogs, cattle -- and butchered them. I milked cows by hand. I herded the herds, slopped the hogs, and all the rest.

That way of life is gone except for a few people who enjoy misery for whatever reason. Farming today is largely a corporate enterprise, subsisting on loans from banks (and the small-town bank has gone the way of the farm I grew up on -- they're branches of national banks.) They don't even raise their own chickens -- although quite a few people here in the cities do.

As for me, I buy my eggs in cartons. I gathered enough in my youth that I feel no need to anymore...

# posted by

C2H5OH : 12:42 PM

A few years back, blah...blah...blah...
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:37 AM

Too bad that you've become even more openly racist than you were a few years ago. Immigrants will not be voting for your white supremacist dumpster fire.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:47 PM

Aren't eggs from bunny rabbits?

# posted by

Joe : 12:56 PM

I can certainly see why Bircher Bart would not want his family getting government checks and lifetime services characterized as it actually is, his FYIGM is rough.

Also, doing more before 9 am, lol, as my son and wife will tell anyone it's a lot more hurry up and wait than anything else.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:09 PM

Also, from what I've been told by family and friends in the military, the Army is for those not tough enough to be Marines or smart enough to be Air Force or Navy ;)

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:31 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:59 PM

Mr. W: Also, from what I've been told by family and friends in the military, the Army is for those not tough enough to be Marines or smart enough to be Air Force or Navy ;)

:::heh:::

I've been talking trash with my USAF pilot brother and my Marine cousin for years, so I won't spare your wife and jarhead son.

The USAF is United Airlines for the Army Airborne. The Marines are the folks who failed the ASVAB test necessary to enlist as regular leg Army infantry. Ask your kin to translate what I just said for you. Maybe when I have time in the evening, I'll tell you about how my paratroop company showed the Marines how to capture a beach during their amphibious warfare school at Little Creek, VA back in '84.

Also, doing more before 9 am, lol, as my son and wife will tell anyone it's a lot more hurry up and wait than anything else.

Putting aside the enlistment propaganda commercial to which I linked, the usual airborne training drop had us assembling at Pope Air Field with equipment weighing more than we did in the late afternoon, chuting up, then waiting for a couple hours laying on the tarmac for the USAF transports to arrive after their pilots had dinner, waddling onto the planes with all the gear hanging off us, flying 40 minutes into SC and back to Ft Bragg, NC, then jumping at 600 feet with about 700 other troopers into the pitch dark, assembling on the ground and then knocking off a week of training in the boonies.

Yes, there is a whole lot of "hurry up and wait" before we do more than most people before 9 am in the morning.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:00 PM