Welcome to the Real America(TM)!

Real American so fired up with love of country and hatred of our komminiss socialist atheist Muslim President that they want to secede from the union.  It’s like loving your wife so much you want to divorce her.  Me: I’m old fashioned and think that the first mark of love is that you stay.

I wonder if people try to secede after every election or if this is a new thing among the outer fringes of the Thing That Used to be Conservatism.

  • David Collins

    Comparing patriotism to marriage? That’s silly. If we’re wingnuts for wanting to leave this union, then what does that make George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al.?

  • tz

    If one spouse kills the children, divorce is the proper course. We’ve stayed together for 40 years and 55 million murders. Unlike 1860, the states wishing to keep the holocaust going demand the pro-life stay in while planning gay bigamy. Do you love your children enough to divorce the spouse?

  • John Burd

    It remains to be seen whether, as a matter of simple feasibility, a nation as populous, diverse and geographically massive as ours can adjust to the sort of one-size-fits-all government that, for example, determines how many calories are to be permitted in school lunches from sea to shining sea.

  • Tim Youree

    Mark, I went to college in Texas. In one of my history classes the professor pointed out that Texans are different. There was a survey done of people from all over the USA about their identity. I am not sure how the question was asked but people from Texas said they saw themselves as “Texans” more so than “Americans.” No other state got any replies like that.

  • Elaine S.

    “people from Texas said they saw themselves as “Texans” more so than “Americans.” No other state got any replies like that.”

    Maybe because they really were a “whole other country” at one time?

    I suspect that these “secession petitions” are, like nearly all online petitions, worth no more than the paper they are written on (to paraphrase Samuel Goldwyn). They are mainly a means for people disappointed with the direction of the country to vent their feelings. Even the petitions that reach the threshold for White House response probably aren’t all that serious — 20,000 signers is still only a tiny fraction of the entire population of Texas, after all.

    • ppeter

      Agree with you. Secession has been a running joke for decades. Today, it is less likely than ever. Texans would be satisfied with a return to constitutional federalism… but what are the chances of that?

      • Raul De La Garza III

        See further, West Virgina…

  • Kirt Higdon

    Peaceful secession should be the ultimate check on a power-mad and homicidal tyranny, but unlike the Soviet Union, Washington’s evil empire will not permit a peaceful dissolution. The skies of Texas are already patrolled by armed drones.

    • Ted Seeber

      I tend to agree. When talking to Cascadia Separatists I get a bit outsized- I say they’ll never let us leave without nuking Anchorage, Seattle, and Portland.

      The problem is, with the urban/rural divide, some think that would be no great loss.

  • Andy

    This sort of harkens back to a previous set of comments where people complained about African-Americans and Spainsh-Americans and Asian-Americans, why didn’t they just see themselves as American – now a new group Texas-Americans? But according to many commenters we are all Americans, I guess, unless of course some want to secede.

    • Raul De La Garza III

      In the event of successful separation from the Union, Texans shall remain Texans.

  • Bill

    I think you try and fight. You don’t say “screw you guys I’m going home!”.

    • Raul De La Garza III

      Fight? For how long shall we fight? Until August 1, 2013 when the HHS mandate goes into effect for all states and Catholic businesses and institutions? By then, it will already be too late. No. The Secession movement must begin now if for no other reason than to telegraph peacefully but meaningfully the grievances we have with our federal system, our God King for these many decades.

  • Chris M

    I agree it’s silly, Mark, but much like the Occupy Wall Street crowd, perhaps these angry folks clamoring for change have some valid complaints despite their over-the-top drama queenish reaction?

  • http://moss-place.stblogs.org Peony Moss

    Oh, there was secession talk after GWB’s re-election – there were folks talking about Vermont seceding (don’t know if they were actual Vermonters, or whether they bothered to ask the opinions of anyone outside their clique). Then there were all the celebrities who were promising to move away (don’t know if any of them actually did.)

    • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

      There’s been a tiny but long-standing movement in Vermont for independence, dating to way before Bush.

      • SpasticHedgehog

        Oh Vermont. New England’s hippie sister who doesn’t shave.

        • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

          Hee! I grew up just south of Vermont, so I know it well.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    It wouldn’t be silly at all to secede if there was a chance in Hell the government would allow it. But the US is like the Hotel California (with a slight alteration), “You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”

    Another proof that we are living in a police state…

    • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

      But is there any country in the world that would say to secessionists “Ok, if you want to leave, that’s fine with us”? Wouldn’t that lead to governmental chaos?

      And does that mean that the U.S. of the 1860s was a police state, because the federal government would not let the southern states leave? Should our government let any state leave at any time for any reason, and if not what would be the guidelines for determining when to let a state secede? And who gets to decide on those guidelines, and evaluate the claims of the seceding state?

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        I think it is very reasonable to think that it might have been better to let the southern states secede rather than have the roughly 500,000 war dead that we ended up with. This was almost 2% of the population of the US at the time – equivalent to 5 million dead now.

        If wanting out because of being forced to accept the murder of unborn babies in those states is not a good enough reason, I’m not sure what could be a good enough reason. (I’m not saying that this is their primary reason.) At a certain point, generally, if secession is denied, revolution becomes inevitable, and that means a lot of dead people. The same considerations governing a just or unjust war would apply. The American Revolution was fought for less.

        I doubt it would ever happen in our country at this point, though. People have too little courage and principle for that, and they know full well that the US government would rather have another Civil War than allow it to happen.

        • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

          How many slaves justify not having the Civil War casualties? How many slaves dead because of mistreatment, abuse, lack of basic necessities? I’m not an expert on the Civil War, but I do feel ending slavery was enough of a justification (even if it was not the justification of each person involved).

          As horrific as abortion is, I don’t see tearing apart the nation (with or without war) as the solution. Yes, I realize the analogy between slavery and abortion is often a good one, but it is not perfect, and I think the particulars and practical, physical issues surrounding abortion make it not a good reason for secession or war.

          Moreover, warfare has changed quite a bit, and we are capable of so much more devastation and mass killings, and less willing it seems to discriminate in our killings, that a civil war would be far worse. If slavery really were an issue today, I don’t think civil war would be be the best way to get rid of it. In other words, it’s not just about the gravity of the issue, but also social, technological, historical, cultural contexts, too. (Sorry for rambling, I’m basically thinking as I am writing.)

          Also, assuming a federal government that does let states leave, how would that work, exactly? Two countries forming a kind of hopscotch pattern? What if the demographics in each state change — do the states then move between each country, as successive generations change their stance on abortion? What if individual states are divided on the issue — do they become physically divided? Would towns and cities be allowed to leave the country of their own state to join the other? Would or should further secession based on other issues be allowed, or only for abortion?

          Finally, I don’t think it is fair to say that pro-lifers who are not willing to fight an actual war over abortion are cowardly or unprincipled.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            But the point is: it would be manifestly and grossly unjust for the federal government to fight another civil war rather than allow secession. What is the overriding reason to prevent Texas, for example, from leaving the Union that would justify the large number of deaths?

            Only with an issue as serious as slavery is there even a POSSIBLE justification for a civil war. I don’t really agree that it was justified, though. On the same token, we would be justified in invading any number of countries around the world because of gross violations of human rights RIGHT NOW.

            I think that basically reasons for secession may or may not be unjust, but the federal government would be grossly unjust to take up arms to prevent it.

            • Raul De La Garza III

              +1. The federales should allow it to occur without giving cause for bloodshed. It would make little sense to go to war with Texans just to keep her in the Union without justifiable cause. Of course, I can only imagine that mammon, or the potential loss thereof, would be the primary reason why the federales would care to shed blood of Texans. They are already power mad and any potential loss to that power would necessarily inform their war-minded sensibilities.

            • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

              Ok, but my point is that secession is a huge thing with drastic economic, cultural, and social, governmental, legal consequences. Do you feel that the U.S. government should allow any jurisdiction to secede if it wants to, regardless of the reason, the consequences, the hastiness or short-sightedness of the decision? If a state (or even a town) wants to secede, do you feel the only two options are to either allow it, or use military force to prevent it?

              I’m curious, too, if the putative Texan secessionists have given serious thought to the consequences. I once read that California is the only state with a large and diverse enough economy to survive as its own country. I get standing up for the right thing, but wouldn’t it be a pyrrhic victory if you completely destroy your community in the process?

              • c matt

                If a state (or even a town) wants to secede, do you feel the only two options are to either allow it, or use military force to prevent it?

                What other option is there, assuming the seceding party won’t just drop its demand?

                • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

                  Negotiation? Compromise? Acceding to smaller demands re abortion or whatever rather than the larger demand for secession? Changing hearts and minds re abortion? Whether or not either side avails themselves of these, rather than refusing to budge from one’s position, the options are available. Secession/civil war should be an absolute last resort.

                  (If it does get to the last resort choice between secession and war, then I am going to get all waffly/lawyerly and say that which option is better depends on the specific circumstances, which can’t be determined right now when all we have is one petition signed by a tiny fraction of Texans in the heat of post-election dismay.)

              • Raul De La Garza III

                When the people of Texas declare Independence by secession or any other lawful means, it is a constitutionally protected act, not subject to review by the United States or its judiciary, military, police forces, legislative or executive branches.

          • c matt

            I don’t follow you – are you saying slavery is enough of a justification for civil war, but abortion is not? I don’t see how abortion could be less evil than slavery.

            Or are you saying that the geographical accidents of slavery ca. 1860 made it a more practical possibility to secede than that of abortion today?

            • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

              It’s not just a question of which is less or more evil. I think the physical aspect of abortion — that it involves the physical body of a woman, that the pregnancy is almost always unplanned and unexpected, that there are serious problems with the way we treat women in general and unwed mothers in particular, that we do not offer enough support to women to help them with their pregnancies and after, and so on, make it hard for me to see how an actual war over abortion would be a good way to handle the issue.

              Then there is the current state of warfare, which is vastly different that it was 150 years ago, and which I think means we need to be much much much more careful about engaging in war. As much as I hate abortion, I do not want to see even more death as a result.

              Then, yes, there are geographical, political, and legal accidents that do affect the practicality of secession.

              • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                Nobody is saying that an actual war over abortion is a good way to handle the issue. However, secession could be a good way to handle a federal government which has gotten too big for its britches and will not allow local jurisdictions to have their own laws about abortion (and many other issues)

                If the FEDS decided to start a war over it, then the moral blame would lay on them.

              • Ted Seeber

                “that the pregnancy is almost always unplanned and unexpected”

                Just like the slave happened to be black, right? Doesn’t ANYBODY else see the inherent bigotry in killing off the unplanned, the unwanted, the unexpected?

          • Ted Seeber

            I’m sure we have a Confederate Papist here who will set you straight on why the South thought they were fighting- and it was NOT to preserve slavery.

            Slavery was just the excuse.

            • Confederate Papist

              I’m just taking it all in Brother.

              But you are correct, people forget that the institution of slavery, though abhorrent in 20~21 century America, was du jour of many Western and Eastern societies. The American South did not invent it, and there were many slaves in the North as well. Grant released his slaves in 1866 when it was officially outlawed. Lee freed his slaves during the war, for their safety (the sympathetic Union army was laying waste to everything and everybody (men, women and children, black and white) in Virginia) and many of them refused to leave out of loyalty to the family.

              There’s more, but this is about states seceding now…

      • Raul De La Garza III

        “Where you foresee apocalypse, I see hope…”

      • j. blum

        Yes, the US, or at least parts of it, did resemble a police state in the 1860s. Lincoln threw “secesh” legislators and newspaper men in jail, suspended habeas corpus, occupied portions of Missouri and Maryland to keep them from seceding. An author named Sprague wrote a book called Lincoln and Liberty back in the fifties that documents all this.

        • http://hezekiahgarrett.wordpress.com Hezekiah Garrett

          Oh, hell. Lincoln repeatedly threatened the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT with indeterminate imprisonment if he should decide against the Executive on questions regarding the legitimacy of suspension of the Writ.

          Beadgirl,

          That means that Lincoln, the dude in the tall black hat, had claimed the power to imprison people without benefit of charges, much less trial, indefinitely. Your nation is founded on a document called the Constitution, which expressly forbids such an action under a doctrine called “Writ of Habeas Corpus” which is a fancy latin way of saying “Show us the body!” And when the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger Taney, intimated in a local case in Maryland he was judging that executive suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus might possibly be unconstitutional, the dude in the tall black hat responded by dispatching US Marshalls to stalk and intimidate Taney. Taney had every reason to take this threat seriously, since Lincoln had already imprisoned several legislators of LOYAL US states, indefinitely and without charges, merely to prevent the legislatures they were members of from voting on anything, making it impossible for them to secede.

          I know, that’s a lot of convoluted nonsense, I know, and if you cant be bothered to crack a history book or two, I will be happy to elucidate further. But, of course, the US was a police state during and after the Civil War. In fact, until very recent memory, post 9/11, there wa snothing in America to compare to the police-state tactics of the 1860s and 1870s.

          • Confederate Papist

            Don’t forget the Federal occupation of New York City. The mayor considered secession from New York State and the US so his city could openly trade with the Free Trade Confederate States, but Lincoln sent troops there to quell that. They also had Union Army “representatives” greeting immigrants, basically telling them if they want to become citizens, put on the blue and shoot at the guys in grey….what a lovely man this Lincoln was…

          • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

            I’m well aware of some of the horrible things Lincoln did, Hezekiah, I have in fact opened a a history book, and I was even a lawyer for a while, so I know what habeas corpus means. No need to be condescending.

            • Confederate Papist

              Secession was to be the final message to the central government when the States felt like the central government was over-reaching it’s authority. Mainly it was a threat…that worked until the 1860′s.

              Google “Hartford Convention”, the South was not the first to secede. In fact, the State of New Jersey tried many times to secede, by themselves and tried to get others to join them…Central Atlantic Confederacy or somethinorother…can’t remember exactly what they tried to call themselves.

              It was a commonplace thing. Remember, thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire, the strongest and mightiest on earth, at the time. It can be done.

        • Confederate Papist

          Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a lot about this too.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    It wouldn’t be silly at all to secede if there was a chance in Hell the federal government would allow it. But the US is like the Hotel California (with a slight alteration), “You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.”

    Another proof that we are living in a police state…

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Maybe Puerto Rico should think twice about checking in, despite the results of the latest referendum.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        They really should. They have the best of both worlds right now….US would protect them, but they pay no federal income tax, as far as I’m aware.

        • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com Beadgirl

          Eh, it’s more complicated than that. P.R. can’t vote for president either, and it loses some federal benefits.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            Unless there are some viable choices, it’s not much of a loss that they can’t vote for President.

  • Linda C.

    It really is much more like this: “We’ve stayed together for 40 years and 55 million murders. Unlike 1860, the states wishing to keep the holocaust going demand the pro-life stay in while planning gay bigamy.” Even the Church recognises the tragic necessity of separation in some cases, and secessionists typically have zero desire to join another country (which would be analogous to remariage after divorce); my understanding is that they desire the abuses to stop and to be left in peace.

  • Raul De La Garza III

    Catholic first, Texan second, American last. I support the petition for Texas secession. Cast off the chains and machinations of the Tyrant, God King and the repeated federal intrusion, unsupported by the Constitution for these past many decades. To wit,

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of Texans…

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      I do find it odd that the colonies successfully used this argument to secede from Britain, but when the South tried to use much the same argument less than a century later to secede from the US it suddenly didn’t apply anymore. Or when some indigenous tribes didn’t want to be governed by the “Great White Father” who kept blithely breaking treaties with them, the principles in the Declaration of Independence inexplicably didn’t apply to them, either. (Didn’t an Indian nation recently secede from the US?) Strange.

      • Linda C.

        That would be the “Republic of Lakotah”, which was a cause espoused mainly by the late Russell Means, and his followers.

        Successful revolutions/secessions typically respond to their own success by refusing the right of anyone to revolt against THEM.

        • Ted Seeber

          Wow- I hadn’t heard of this. Looks like they are even pro-life- accusing the United States of an attempt at genocide:
          5. INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS
          We will continue to use the available international forums and Courts to bring attention to the continuing Genocidal policies of the U.S. Government. Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: “Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
          - Killing members of the group;
          - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

        • Confederate Papist

          Don’t forget the Conch Republic, also known as the Florida Keys…

    • ppeter

      If you actually think secession is a possibility, you’ve conveniently forgotten a little thing called “Reconstruction”.
      That + 17th Amendment = the States have no rights.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        I”m not saying anything about possibility. Just wondering why the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence were so selectively applied later on.

        • Raul De La Garza III

          Oh, well…I guess I will just lay down and continue to allow the federales to get away with what ever they can. You folks have little spine, it seems. So ready to throw in the towel are you? O Lord open up my lips so that I might be verbally defeated on some blog site by fellow Catholics and Americans…

          • Confederate Papist

            I’m with you brother! I signed the Florida (where I live) and Georgia (where I’m from) petitions.

            God Bless Texas! (except Austin…heh, heh! Just kidding!)

            • Raul De La Garza III

              “Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations.” -Sam Houston

              Prophetic words for a time such as this. General Houston argued against Texas secession prior to the Civil War for as he saw it then, the liberties of Texans were not trampled upon. However, in these latter times the rights of all Americans, Texans or otherwise are and have been under attack. The time for the secession argument to be made is appropriate.

          • ppeter

            No, don’t lay down, but do something that’s actually doable, like convincing your fellow Americans, and not pure fantasy, like sitting around wishing for secession.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            >>> You folks have little spine, it seems. So ready to throw in the towel are you?

            Secession wouldn’t help my state one bit. The state gov’t here is just as bad as the feds, if not worse, so it would just be the same-old same-old. It might benefit Texas, though.

  • c matt

    First, the United States is not a sacramental covenant – I am a little surprised at the comparison. Second, the United States (originally, at least) was not supposed to be a single political entity, but a union (remember that word) of several political entities – e.g., “states”. Regardless, it is not much of a “union” if one party wants to leave, and the other wants to keep her in by force. But it is practically impossible to secede – the US, including each of its states, is owned by corporate multi-nationals. Unless you can somehow make it in their best interest for the US to break up, it ain’t gonna happen.

    • Confederate Papist

      You are correct. King George signed thirteen treaties, one for each colony…not one, even though the colonies had created the Continental Congress…they were not the central authority with whom the king had to negotiate.

      The union was to be voluntary. There was a lot of yelling and screaming about how the country was to be…two schools of thought prevailed, the Jeffersonian (limited, small central government, local is better) and Hamiltonian (big powerful government, subsidies, internal improvement projects, corporatism, central banks). Jefferson prevailed, although the first setback was the trashing of the Articles of Confederation in favour of the Constitution (small victory for Hamilton). Hamilton’s dream came true, and more than he would have imagined, when Lincoln was elected and literally enacted (without Southern opposition since they left) many of the Hamiltonian ideas…in addition to printing money to finance the war on the South (all the tariff money was gone). Lincoln cared less for the plight of the black man, North or South. Google “Illinois Black Laws” and you will find that a state senator by the surname of Lincoln was a major advocate of the law. And lest we not forget that he tried to organise many “repatriation” projects to send the blacks back to Africa so there would be a lily-white USA. The Lincoln they write about in school and portray in movies is not the real Lincoln.

  • Ted Seeber

    It is silly and meaningless- there is no evidence of any petition on that site EVER being granted. Still I signed anyway, because despite it all, I just can’t agree with federalism anymore.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      I find the whole premise a bit strange. If a state wants to secede, they should just TELL the feds rather than petition the feds. That gives the federal government an authority which they evidently don’t believe it has. The state should have a vote on secession first, and then inform the Feds. Sending a petition to DC looks basically like sour grapes.

      • ivan_the_mad

        “Sending a petition to DC looks basically like sour grapes.” I think that’s exactly what it is.

        • Raul De La Garza III

          I doubt seriously Texans give a damn about what you think on this matter. I know that I don’t.

          • ivan_the_mad

            Cool story, bro.

      • Ted Seeber

        When I went to sign Oregon, it was “to allow a vote”, not to directly secede.

        Such a vote would overwhelmingly be defeated by the 60% of urban, federalist, Democratic Oregonians living in Portland, Salem, Bend and Eugene (to the detriment of the other 40% of Oregonians who are overwhelmingly Republican and live a partially independent existence without city services).

  • Kirt Higdon

    Hysterical Lincoln-worshipper Glenn Beck was ranting on the radio this morning that secession was illegal and uneconomic and that secessionists were stupid and crazy. He certainly persuaded me what to do. I went to the petition website and signed the petition for Texas secession. Oh, the Beckster also expounded on the stupidity of giving the Feds your name, e-mail, and zip code in order to sign the petition – as if our rulers don’t have that information already.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      “uneconomic”?

      • Ted Seeber

        I can see his point there. Subsidiarity in general is uneconomic in that it fights against Economy of Scale, which steals jobs away from local workers. Subsidiarity is protectionist in that way.

        Just imagine trying to run an interstate business having to deal with tariffs at every state border.

        [Homer mode on] mmmm….Tariffs[/homer]

        Distributionists LONG for that kind of autonomy.

      • Ted Seeber

        An example (if a bit extreme):

        Walla Walla Washington and Lake Labish Oregon both have the right type of low sulfur soil needed to grow sweet onions. If both states secede, I could easily see a 1000% excise tax on onions springing up on both borders, to protect the local market.

        Burgerville would have to start serving Lake Labish Onion Rings in Oregon, and Walla Walla Onion Rings in Washington every fall, cutting into their current deal with farmers in Walla Walla (but likely raising the price so much that those farmers won’t notice), and forcing them to buy half their onions from Lake Labish.

        This to Glen Beck is a horridly uneconomic situation that must be avoided at all costs- up to and including a dictatorship in Washington DC to stop it.

  • Confederate Papist

    This is not just confined to America, either. Quebec, Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Venice, the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Sudan….

    • Confederate Papist

      Vermont’s effort has been around for a loooong time.

    • Mercury

      Well, the problem is that ETA’s bad press and disgusting tactics, as well as the fact that the Basque Country’s biggest cities are now majority Spanish, have led to a situation where it seems most Basques themselves are not keen on secession.

      Also, as far as various European regions seceding, there is something more sinister at play there: the constant power-grabbing of the EU is making it so that sovereign European nations states are losing their raison d’etre, and if they’re all going to be ruled by a cabal in Brussels anyway, they might as well break away. Why does it matter if Catalonia is in Spain or a revived Kingdom of Aragon, if none of these are truly sovereign entities to begin with?

      Also, I’d be astonished to find that the majority of Scots are willing to break away from England. After all, Scotland sort of inherited England and not the other way around. But more importantly, could Scotland stand on its own two feet economically? I’m not so sure, but this might be one of the reasons why Scotland and other regional entities with historical claims are so rabidly pro-EU – Brussels welcomes any pretense for breaking up the power of nation-states.

      To add to your list, though, I have heard some Germans talk about Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria petitioning to become cantons of Switzerland …

      • Confederate Papist

        I was going to add some of the Germanic regions, but I wasn’t entirely sure…thanks!

        BTW – Vermonters want to secede because they believe the DC government isn’t *left* enough…wow…

  • tz

    Conversely, according to Matt Drudge, there is a parallel petition so that anyone petitioning to secede would lose their citizenship. Yea! The Bishops – the USCCB where the number of miters is only exceeded by the number of crooks – would then consider me “undocumented” and give me sanctuary, free food, free health care, and the rest! Things I can’t get as a documented AmCit. The only thing Catholic Charities DON’T ask for is a baptismal certificate. “Your papers please…”. They need the social security number to run a credit check and to know where to send the debt collectors if your insurance denies the claim.

  • Dante Aligheri

    This is an interesting debate. Personally, I agree with the above commentators that (I concur with the Confederate Papist on Lincoln for the most part) – if the justification for the Revolutionary War is moral – then the South had the right to secede from the Union. However, for precisely this reason I take the opposite position that the Revolution was an unjust war. Even if one could make the argument that the rights of Englishmen were denied, I do not believe new taxes necessarily grievous enough to mandate war – especially when the Revolution by no means was a universally accepted cause among the people. Certainly the Nat Turner Rebellion and Native American resistance were far more justified, and the U.S. did not take kindly to those. In fact, one of the major causes of the Revolution was the fact the British tried to protect Native American land by preventing colonists from settling past the Appalachians. In the end, the revolutionaries found it much easier to tear down a government than to build one and found themselves in the same moral position as their former government – realizing that very fact upon ending the Whiskey Rebellion.

  • Elaine S.

    Sheesh, did a bunch of Tories and Confederates get stuck in a time warp and decide to visit this blog or something? :-)
    I’m not exactly ready to jump on the secession from the U.S. bandwagon at this point, through I think that there is nothing inherently immoral or sinful about secession in itself, PROVIDED the intent is to protect the natural rights of ALL the seceding state’s residents, including their right to practice their faith. Of course, the South made the grave mistake of joining “state’s rights” and “slavery/racial segregation” at the hip for so long that it’s now virtually impossible for most people to separate the two concepts — kind of like “reproductive freedom” and “abortion on demand”.
    If a secession petition were used as a sort of bargaining chip simply to get the federal government to be less intrusive and more respectful of the genuine social and cultural differences between states — which after all, are similar in size, population and lawmaking authority to many independent nations — then I could see supporting it.
    Personally I believe a more feasible approach might be to allow the red parts of certain blue states to break off and form new states — for example, downstate Illinois (where I live) or upstate New York, or rural California. Though I don’t favor the “secede from the U.S.” petition if there was a petition to secede downstate Illinois from Chicago, or even just sell it off to Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky or some combination thereof, I’d probably be one of the first in line to sign it….

    • Dante Aligheri

      That’s an interesting idea. I wonder how many representatives these new states would receive. I guess my only question would be if the demographics changed again would the states be reformulated every time. kind of like the census nowadays.

      Maybe the best option would be to elect the executive via the popular vote and get rid of the “winner takes all” system we have.

      • Elaine S.

        “if the demographics changed again would the states be reformulated every time”
        I don’t think it would happen with every census, but if state boundaries were adjusted, say, every 50 years or so that might not be such a bad idea. Current state boundaries exist for a variety of reasons, not all of which make sense. There’s a really interesting book on the topic called “How The States Got Their Shapes,” which was also made into a series on the History Channel. If you’ve ever wondered, for example, why Oklahoma and West Virginia have panhandles, this is the place to find out.
        Other interesting books and articles on the topic of state boundary realignment to reflect economic and cultural reality include this map of a proposed nation of 38 states:
        http://www.tjc.com/38states/
        Probably wouldn’t go over too well with Alamoans and Shawneeans though….

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          “How The States Got Their Shapes” is a great show! Which is rare for the History Channel nowadays.

        • Mercury

          I’d like to buy that book.

          The issue here is that ONLY the states have the authority to mess with their own borders or divide themselves up. Washington cannot just redraw state lines – there is literally no legal authority to do so.

    • Ted Seeber

      Long before I was involved in Cascadia Separatism, I was friends with many members of the State of Jefferson movement in Southern Oregon and Northern California- deeply conservative areas trying to break away from the liberals in Salem and Sacramento, who ruled by diktat it seemed from hundreds of miles away.

      Closest thing we ever got was the anti-Gay government in Klamath Falls, where for a while in the late 1980s/early 1990s Assault and Battery was defacto legal IF you called somebody a fag first (the city government refused to grant the district attorney funds to investigate such a case).

  • kenneth

    Whatever else Obama’s election did, it certainly got the Tin Foil Hat crowd into Olympic fighting shape….

  • Kirt Higdon

    Of course under current circumstances, secession is impossible because of the willingness and ability of the evil empire to use deadly force to prevent it. Hell, Pakistan would like to secede and is savagely punished for it on a daily basis.

  • Irenist

    Most of the Texans calling for secession are white Republicans. Although this is not yet reflected in its elections, Texas is a majority non-white state. By 2014, Hispanics will be the plurality (largest single group) in Texas. By 2020, Hispanics alone will be an outright majority, and Hispanics, blacks, and Asians will be a non-white supermajority. Most of these people don’t want to secede. Neither do the ever-increasing numbers of Northern whites (many young and college-educated) who have moved to Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, and San Antonio for jobs and affordable housing in the last few decades. If Texas were to secede from the Union, the Rio Grande Valley and the populous cities of the Texas Triangle would probably secede from Texas. Best to nip such foolishness in the bud.

    • Kirt Higdon

      At one time in the 19th Century, there was a short-lived attempt to set up an independent republic in the Rio Grande Valley. What’s the problem? As far as the immigrants from elsewhere in the US pouring into Texas for jobs and affordable housing, it seems like they’re already making their personal secession from the rest of the country. Whether or not they would want to go all the way to political separation would depend on relative conditions in Texas and the rest of the US. Those who initially fought to make Texas an independent country included both US immigrants and Mexicans and mixed families. (Jim Bowie, for example, was married to a Mexicana.) There are many, many such mixed families in Texas today.

    • Ted Seeber

      I would think those people would want to rejoin Mexico at this point. Better economy.

  • Chris-KABA

    It’s hardly surprising that people would jump at the chance to sign petitions that make their voices heard far more than participation in American pseudo-democracy….

    Nothing will come of the petitions, but many people are recognizing the fact that they are rapidly being replaced by millions of migrants who are attempting to turn America into a copy of the countries they came from.

    As such, I think it’s less a matter of people saying “Screw you, I’m going home” than it is of many Americans voicing their desire to live in America, not another country that used to be America.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X