I'm struggling to understand how the author can claim that secession is an act that runs counter to the founding of the US when the US was started by an act of secession.
And claiming "We just need a return to federalism" is like the colonists dismissing pursuit of independence by claiming, "Listen, we don't want to simply throw away the Enlightenment values of the British empire. We just need a return to the concept of representation."
Conservatives have been pushing, pleading, demanding a return to federalism for 50+ years and gotten scorn and greater centralization as a response. When it becomes clear that the differences of the people of a single society are intractable, peaceful dissolution is the best option. You know, "When in the course of human events..." and all.
The historian Gordon Wood has pointed out that the American Revolution itself was radical (as are all revolutions). It was not conservative. The American Founding was the creation of an entirely new system of government, and the throwing off of the old structures of authority. But American Conservatives seek to preserve/conserve the Constitution that the Founders created. The Founding wasn’t conservative. But conserving it is.
Radical is subjective. Many people consider Constitutional Carry to be radical, states rights to be radical, and while conservatives would refer to them as being hallmarks of the original founding, I would argue that so too is the concept of secession. I find it deeply disingenuous to recognize that secession is arguably THE defining act of the founding of the US, but argue that conservatives should reject it because you personally believe that conservatives should only embrace what was created, not how it was created.
Keep in mind that to the frog, the pot of warming water is the traditional and familiar. To leap out of the pot is to abandon order and tradition for the chaos of the radical and unknown. But while the frog does not know, we can recognize what remaining in that pot means for the frog.
"But conserving it is" .... No offense, but it doesn't seem like conservatives have done much conserving against the slow Fabianism of the last 100 years. Instead, it feels like many conservatives have some idealized vision of the US and are living in a fantasy that they can turn everything around. But the US is not a suicide pact. As we continue down the path of collapse, conservatives - who should have the historical awareness to recognize where the path leads - should be the ones calling to abandon ship, not to demand that we go down with it.
Just to add my two cents on the founding. The American colonies had no representation in Parliament and were not adopted into Great Britain as true realms or commonwealths. The Revolutionary period of American history was an independence movement, not a succession movement. There are many very significant differences between independence and succession. I think most of the founders would admit that if they had proper representation, either in parliament or through colonial assemblies allowed to govern quasi-independently, then they wouldn't have advocated for the measures they eventually embraced. As the Declaration of Independence itself says, "Prudence...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." The founders, to the extent they were radicals are revolutionaries, were thrust into those roles by a King and a Parliament who refused to acknowledge their rights as Englishmen. And that leads to my second point. I and many other historians and theorists argue that the American Revolution was indeed a uniquely conservative revolution and that's part of what sets it apart from the French Revolution. The patriots of the revolution were not radicals who were positing some new form of government or understanding of rights (at least not at first) but were positing that they held the same rights that English citizens elsewhere held, and they were drawn into conflict with the crown because they chafed against violations of the English rights tradition. Most of the issues that led to the conflict were issues related to English constitutionalism dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. The Revolution was largely fought, not to create something new, but to re-establish what had been encroached upon by Parliament and the Crown under William III and the Tory Party. The truly revolutionary part of the American Revolution did not occur until after the war, when it became obvious that thirteen separate colonies could not produce an agreeable society absent some overarching form of government. It was only after Parliament and the Crown had been overthrown and the colonies had attempted to go at things a confederation that a new form of government was sought and created.
My final crucial point is that the foundational plank of the US Constitution was the desire to create a more perfect union. Succession, then, is antithetical to the whole purpose of the document in that it would literally destroy the union. If American conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve the constitution then it follows that one of its major planks must be conservation of the union. There are, of course, other forms of conservatism to which a desire for succession might belong, but it cannot belong to American conservatism. The correct view should be that succession should hold the same requirements that armed revolution should hold: only after every avenue of redress has been exhausted or closed and only after the wheels of government have descended a society into a political state that amounts to absolute despotism. Short of these realities, both armed revolt and succession are not only illegitimate efforts...they are treasonous.
1. I don't feel like you sufficiently clarified the distinction between independence and secession. Yes, they wanted representation. And when they didn't get that, they declared independence and seceded from Britain.
2. If you're saying that their act of secession can be categorized as 'conservative' because it was an attempt to reestablish English rights/constitutionalism, then couldn't the same thing be said of those attempting to separate from an increasingly unrepresentative and illiberal federal govt? Reread the second paragraph of my first comment. And when the colonies didn't get their representation, they finally decided it was time to separate. There were many at the time that said the time wasn't right. That we hadn't exhausted all options.
3. Why would a single state leaving "literally destroy the union"? As I said to Mr Connelly, it seems like too many conservatives see the US as some kind of inviolable entity that can only grow and never shrink. A member leaving a club doesn't destroy the club any more than when a member joins.
Honestly, this paramount importance on preventing any state from separating is dangerous. It was the cause of the Civil War. While the secession was, of course, driven by slavery, it was Lincoln's single-minded pursuit of "preserving the union" that resulted in the war that killed hundreds of thousands. That is what I hope to avoid by convincing others that states have the moral right to peacefully choose to separate from a larger political entity.
4. And when do we consider every avenue of redress exhausted? When they declare their right to track and tax every dollar we earn and every transaction we make? No. When they authorize for themselves the right to record and store every individual's internet activity? Apparently not. When they eliminate borders and begin allowing non-citizens to vote? hmmm.. When they start taxing the very air we breathe? I wonder. When they allow politically acceptable groups to break the law while forbidding even self-defense to politically disfavored individuals?
This is a subjective line in the sand. You may not feel like we've reached that point yet, but many others believe we're far past it. This is not a position based in principle - just preferences.
5. Wow ... Claiming secession - nothing more than a democratic majority peacefully declaring their desire to peacefully separate political ties - is treasonous is exactly what the Redcoats said about the colonies; is exactly what China says about Hong Kong; is exactly what Spain says about Catalonia.
Your declaration that the time for secession has not yet come is not based on any principles - just your preference. And because of that, attempting to argue against secession can twist you all up in pretzels and put you on the side of terrible tyrants.
By all means, feel free to express disagreement with the pursuit of secession - using any utilitarian arguments you wish. But I think it's a problem for conservatives to attempt to argue against secession as a matter of principle.
1. Let me put my differentiation between independence and secession in context. Was India, the various provinces of Africa, Spanish America, or any other domain of colonial empire truly part of the countries they were controlled by? These colonies did not secede from a nation in which they were equal members, but second-class dominions ruled arbitrarily by what was ultimately an alien nation. They did not break off and create a new country, not really, but instead asserted their independence as a sovereign nation. And here's the crucial part: they didn't destroy a functioning political compact because they didn't get their way politically after having had a voice at the table, they asserted a violation of sovereignty because of the dominance by an outside, alien power and a pattern of behavior that demonstrated they were not equal members of a political compact but had been subjected to a form of domination. An independence movement is defined by sovereignty and by the creation of a new social compact that grants full rights to a people who had been relegated to second-class citizens within a colonial reality. Secession, on the other hand, is fueled, not by political inputs (rights, rule law, etc) but, by political outputs. It is a reactionary backlash against the results of the political process. It is often the purview of people who have full rights and citizenship, who can engage in the government the same as anyone, but whose interests have failed to gain influence in the process. A secession movement isn't a movement asserting sovereignty, rights, or the rule of law, but one that wants to break off into a smaller nation so they can have their way, so that they don't have to deal with the other interests of society.
2. I would say that in order to argue for secession from a viewpoint that isn't reactionary or destructive, you'd have to demonstrate that rights, sovereignty, and the rule of law have been dismissed to the point that we've descended into absolute despotism. I'd say that you'd have to demonstrate how certain groups of people had been relegated to a second-class form of citizenship and no longer had equal access to the political process. In order to claim the mantle of the American Revolution, you would have to demonstrate more than just political defeat within a free and open process. You would have to demonstrate true and systematic tyranny of the nature the founding generation experienced. If redress can still be sought through the government, however difficult, then there is no justification for a movement that destroys a political compact, whether peaceful or violent.
3. Abraham Lincoln answered and settled the question of secession. We aren't a club, we aren't a confederation, we aren't a treaty organization, and we aren't an alliance of fully sovereign states. The US Constitution is either a social compact that is inviolable and supreme as fundamental law, or it has no ultimate efficacy. When a state joins the union, it surrenders a portion of its sovereignty and agrees to submit itself to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. If states can choose to come and go as they please, then the Constitution becomes nothing but worthless parchment states would have the view that they maintained their full sovereignty and are able to dismiss the Constitution and its provisions whenever they come to disagree with it. Secession is treason, because it is a reversal of the agreement made when a state joined the union and submitted itself to the Constitution as the supreme law. Part of the political compact of the Constitution is that states and their people who join the union will operate as good faith actors in the political system and not disrupt the political order by threatening the efficacy of the Constitution or the laws made under the Constitution. (This is only the political theory of it. The geopolitical realities of shattering the union is another thread that could be expanded at length).
Additionally, blaming Lincoln for the civil war borders on a "lost cause" view of the conflict. It is the duty of anyone who takes the oath of office to preserve the union. Suggesting that the Civil War resulted from Lincoln's commitment to his duty as President seems silly.
4. You're focusing on outputs instead of inputs. Redress is an input. We had a Republican President not very long ago. We had Republican control of the Senate and the Hosue not very long ago. By all evidence, the Democrats are not going to hold onto things for very long. Every American citizen still has equal access to engage in the political process, we still have tremendous rights that few in history have ever had. Suggesting that any group of Americans has exhausted every avenue of redress is absurd. The Constitution largely remains intact and we are still free to a larger extent than most people in the world. We are even better off than we have been at other moments in our history. The Alien Sedition Act period, the institution of Slavery, Woodrow Wilson's war socialism, FDR's New Deal, the South's Jim Crow period...these were all periods of time that restricted freedom and political exercise far more than it is now. Again, advocates for secession are not objecting to a loss of political inputs, they want to break off from the country because they disagree with the political outputs. This is retreatism, defeatism, and a refusal to engage with other interests.
5. I think I've addressed the difference between secession and independence, and I think I've demonstrated why the Constitution must be held as an inviolable social compact in order to maintain its efficacy. Part of the entire premise of many aspects of the Constitution is that certain things are beyond the authority of any democratic majority to assail. We are a republic and not a democracy. Just like no democratic majority can or should assault our basic freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, no democratic majority can threaten the efficacy of the union or the Constitution by claiming the right to leave a perpetual political compact.
You can call my perspective preferences, if you like, but I have laid out quite clear principles for secession, in fact I laid out the founders principles as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution we have, the Union we have, are singular miracles that stand out in human history as shining beacons of light in a world otherwise darkened by the shadows of tyranny. I agree wholeheartedly with the founders that light and transient circumstances and, indeed, anything short of absolute despotism fail to rise us to a point that necessitates what would be a calamitous and ruinous affair no matter how you cut it. It is far from preference, it is the prudence that rises from consulting experience, the oracle truth. History should teach us that what we have is unique, it is singular, and it is exceptional, and I feel that calls for secession ingore the lessons history teach and are simply born out of anger that the political outcomes are not desirable.
I think I've demonstrated the clear principles of the Constitution and the Union. Abraham Lincoln is both the ultimate founder of American conservatism and the Republican Party as an effective institution because he staked out ground that sought to conserve the republic, the union, and the Constitution by any means. And, it is in keeping with that tradition that a true understanding of American conservatism is one that rejects assaults upon those pillars of American society.
“Too many conservatives see the US as some kind of sacred and inviolable thing.”
“ No offense, but it doesn't seem like conservatives have done much conserving against the slow Fabianism of the last 100 years. Instead, it feels like many conservatives have some idealized vision of the US and are living in a fantasy that they can turn everything around”
“ Conservatives have been pushing, pleading, demanding a return to federalism for 50+ years and gotten scorn and greater centralization as a response.”
“ I'm struggling to understand how the author can claim that secession is an act that runs counter to the founding of the US when the US was started by an act of secession.”
Here is a question for you: do you consider yourself to be a conservative? I mean that in complete good faith.
While my tone may at times come across as combative (I hope not overly so), I do want to mention that I very much appreciate your willingness to engage with comments that may disagree with your own views.
I can tell from your comment that we part ways on some fundamental philosophical questions, including basic definitional ones.
But ultimately, our disagreement comes down to your belief that we are approaching a point of no return (the frog in the pot), and my belief that we still live in a nation governed by the consent of the governed. You might say that I, “don’t know what time it is.” (If you don’t get that reference, I can point you in the right direction.)
I would counter by saying we don’t live in a Flight 93 moment, and that therefore storming the cockpit is not the last desperate act of conservation, but a radical and reactionary attempt to overthrow the order created by the American Founding. I still believe that changes can be made by working within the system, despite the advance of progressivism over the last 100 years.
I can understand that perspective. Though I would strongly disagree that secession is an attempt to "overthrow the order created by the American Founding". Too many conservatives see the US as some kind of sacred and inviolable thing. Yet we've been *adding* states to those original 13 since the founding. Remember that the last states were only added 70 years ago. Why is that acceptable, but one choosing to remove itself some kind of violation?
But beyond that, I'd argue the order was perverted - if not outright abandoned - long ago, and only increasingly so. At this point, secession isn't "overthrowing" anything. It's simply choosing to walk away.
You can believe that things can be fixed. It's not a horrible thing to be an optimist. But when you have one group that believes in the importance of private property rights, and another (growing ever larger) group that believes that "property is theft"; when you have one population that outright wants socialism and another that vehemently doesn't; you're not just a marriage with some annoying habits and disagreements about how best to spend money. There comes a time when you have to recognize there are fundamentally different and exclusively incompatible sets of core principles at odds here and that the best course of action is not marriage counseling, or even simply (getting more votes and) dominantly asserting your own preferences, but acknowledging the irreconcilable differences and taking the divorce.
Conservatives need to recognize that govt is not religious. It is not sacred. Perhaps it can be a useful tool to allow different groups to live under a common set of values. But when those groups begin to reject those common set of values, govt should not be so sacred that it cannot be reimagined; that borders cannot be redrawn; that groups can voluntarily go their separate ways in order to find a more representative govt. Which I would argue is exactly what the founding was all about and what conservatives should embrace, not reject.
If the current structure and borders are not inviolable and a new state can be added, I just don't see why removing a state is somehow an anathema. A club isn't overthrown or become destroyed because a member leaves any more than it does when an additional member joins.
First I’d say I’m not an optimist. I have hope, not optimism. I also believe in exhausting less-drastic measures before resorting to violent or extreme ones. But I’d also point out that the Constitution is in fact designed to create a nation in which different factions with fundamentally different values can coexist in peace. The American Constitution doesn’t need citizens to have a common set of values. Even if I think those values are important.
Do you honestly think that's working though? I mean, when those different values are between being chaste and being a prostitute, or between purity and drug use, yes, the Constitution can be flexible enough to encompass both of those concepts. But, as I mentioned before, we now have growing groups of people with views like "eliminate private property", "abolish police", "apply laws differently based on race" and "ban all guns". While the Constitution doesn't require citizens to have a *complete* common set of values, there are certain fundamental values that DO need to be shared or it merely breeds resentment as one side or the other has their values not just dismissed but actively rejected in lieu of the completely opposite values.
Also, just to clarify, secession is not violent. Secession is the alternative to potentially AVOID violence.
The problem with the author's scenario is that Trumpists increasingly reject it in favor of Soviet-style central control. They would brand this federalism formula as "leftist" and dismiss it out of hand. The author's blueprint is indeed the best course for America, but Trumpists would never support it and would continue to sow Kremlin-backed discord around the nation. The only way to make it work is to let the former Confederacy secede, let all the authoritarians move there to build their whites-only Utopia, and let the rest of us thrive with the author's classical federalist model, where true conservatism can flourish again out from under the orange blob that tried to smother it.
Thanks for your response. Yes, Trumpists likely will reject my argument, as they increasingly seem less and less conservative (as that word traditionally has been understood in this country). And more and more nationalist. It is interesting that they could be simultaneously nationalist, while rejecting some of the best parts of America. Make America Great Again without a reverence for what made America great in the first place.
I don’t see your secession scenario as at all likely. Trumpists are not clustered solely in the South, and many people living in the South are not Trumpists. Case in point: Georgia has two Democratic Senators today due to Trump’s post-election tantrums. Which makes a clean break very unlikely. To say it would be messy is an understatement.
I agree with your distaste for some of these new election laws Trumpist legislatures are passing. But some of them just roll back pandemic-related changes and in many cases by the time they get passed they are much less problematic than their original versions. But I’m not going to defend them. I’d need to actually read each bill, so on the whole I’d say I’m not a fan.
“A foreign-fueled cult of Jonestown-like personality“
I agree with the second part of that statement but not the “foreign-fueled” bit. It is a cult. But it wasn’t created by the Russians or something.
Now, for your Dixiecrat point:
Were there Trump voters influenced by racism? Yes. But I don’t buy the argument that the Trump phenomenon is just white backlash. He got more Latino votes than Romney. Also, good chunks of his voters have never lived anywhere near the South in their lives, so this can’t just be neo-Confederacy stuff. I grew up in rural VA (both Lee and Jackson were buried in my hometown) and saw plenty of neo-Confederates. (And developed a deep distaste for that “the South will rise again” stuff.) Most of then probably did vote for Trump. But that’s just one factor. It can’t be the sole cause (always reject monocausal explanations).
It's been my observation that both political parties have engaged in an over-exaggeration of Trump's true influence. I think the farther we get from his presidency, the more we're going to realize just how much of a flash in the pan he was.
I hope so. Lasting influence that is. Due to social media and the modern digital environment, I think he had a more attention-grabbing influence in the moment than any previous president. He had perhaps the most powerful cult of personality. But I sincerely hope he does not have a lasting impact.
There will definitely be traces, and in many cases strong traces, of nationalism and populism in America's political Right for some time. But these existed before Trump showed up on the scene and breathed life into them, and honestly represent perpetual and generational concerns that have always had to be dealt with in most of America's history. Frankly, with or without Trump, the kind of populist backlash we have seen is precisely the kind of thing that is to be expected given the circumstances of our political and social culture. If we don't address the roots of the hysteria and resentments, they are likely to continue...even if Trump were to pass away tomorrow.
I'm struggling to understand how the author can claim that secession is an act that runs counter to the founding of the US when the US was started by an act of secession.
And claiming "We just need a return to federalism" is like the colonists dismissing pursuit of independence by claiming, "Listen, we don't want to simply throw away the Enlightenment values of the British empire. We just need a return to the concept of representation."
Conservatives have been pushing, pleading, demanding a return to federalism for 50+ years and gotten scorn and greater centralization as a response. When it becomes clear that the differences of the people of a single society are intractable, peaceful dissolution is the best option. You know, "When in the course of human events..." and all.
The historian Gordon Wood has pointed out that the American Revolution itself was radical (as are all revolutions). It was not conservative. The American Founding was the creation of an entirely new system of government, and the throwing off of the old structures of authority. But American Conservatives seek to preserve/conserve the Constitution that the Founders created. The Founding wasn’t conservative. But conserving it is.
Radical is subjective. Many people consider Constitutional Carry to be radical, states rights to be radical, and while conservatives would refer to them as being hallmarks of the original founding, I would argue that so too is the concept of secession. I find it deeply disingenuous to recognize that secession is arguably THE defining act of the founding of the US, but argue that conservatives should reject it because you personally believe that conservatives should only embrace what was created, not how it was created.
Keep in mind that to the frog, the pot of warming water is the traditional and familiar. To leap out of the pot is to abandon order and tradition for the chaos of the radical and unknown. But while the frog does not know, we can recognize what remaining in that pot means for the frog.
"But conserving it is" .... No offense, but it doesn't seem like conservatives have done much conserving against the slow Fabianism of the last 100 years. Instead, it feels like many conservatives have some idealized vision of the US and are living in a fantasy that they can turn everything around. But the US is not a suicide pact. As we continue down the path of collapse, conservatives - who should have the historical awareness to recognize where the path leads - should be the ones calling to abandon ship, not to demand that we go down with it.
Just to add my two cents on the founding. The American colonies had no representation in Parliament and were not adopted into Great Britain as true realms or commonwealths. The Revolutionary period of American history was an independence movement, not a succession movement. There are many very significant differences between independence and succession. I think most of the founders would admit that if they had proper representation, either in parliament or through colonial assemblies allowed to govern quasi-independently, then they wouldn't have advocated for the measures they eventually embraced. As the Declaration of Independence itself says, "Prudence...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." The founders, to the extent they were radicals are revolutionaries, were thrust into those roles by a King and a Parliament who refused to acknowledge their rights as Englishmen. And that leads to my second point. I and many other historians and theorists argue that the American Revolution was indeed a uniquely conservative revolution and that's part of what sets it apart from the French Revolution. The patriots of the revolution were not radicals who were positing some new form of government or understanding of rights (at least not at first) but were positing that they held the same rights that English citizens elsewhere held, and they were drawn into conflict with the crown because they chafed against violations of the English rights tradition. Most of the issues that led to the conflict were issues related to English constitutionalism dating all the way back to the Magna Carta. The Revolution was largely fought, not to create something new, but to re-establish what had been encroached upon by Parliament and the Crown under William III and the Tory Party. The truly revolutionary part of the American Revolution did not occur until after the war, when it became obvious that thirteen separate colonies could not produce an agreeable society absent some overarching form of government. It was only after Parliament and the Crown had been overthrown and the colonies had attempted to go at things a confederation that a new form of government was sought and created.
My final crucial point is that the foundational plank of the US Constitution was the desire to create a more perfect union. Succession, then, is antithetical to the whole purpose of the document in that it would literally destroy the union. If American conservatism is defined by the desire to conserve the constitution then it follows that one of its major planks must be conservation of the union. There are, of course, other forms of conservatism to which a desire for succession might belong, but it cannot belong to American conservatism. The correct view should be that succession should hold the same requirements that armed revolution should hold: only after every avenue of redress has been exhausted or closed and only after the wheels of government have descended a society into a political state that amounts to absolute despotism. Short of these realities, both armed revolt and succession are not only illegitimate efforts...they are treasonous.
Thank you for your reply.
1. I don't feel like you sufficiently clarified the distinction between independence and secession. Yes, they wanted representation. And when they didn't get that, they declared independence and seceded from Britain.
2. If you're saying that their act of secession can be categorized as 'conservative' because it was an attempt to reestablish English rights/constitutionalism, then couldn't the same thing be said of those attempting to separate from an increasingly unrepresentative and illiberal federal govt? Reread the second paragraph of my first comment. And when the colonies didn't get their representation, they finally decided it was time to separate. There were many at the time that said the time wasn't right. That we hadn't exhausted all options.
3. Why would a single state leaving "literally destroy the union"? As I said to Mr Connelly, it seems like too many conservatives see the US as some kind of inviolable entity that can only grow and never shrink. A member leaving a club doesn't destroy the club any more than when a member joins.
Honestly, this paramount importance on preventing any state from separating is dangerous. It was the cause of the Civil War. While the secession was, of course, driven by slavery, it was Lincoln's single-minded pursuit of "preserving the union" that resulted in the war that killed hundreds of thousands. That is what I hope to avoid by convincing others that states have the moral right to peacefully choose to separate from a larger political entity.
4. And when do we consider every avenue of redress exhausted? When they declare their right to track and tax every dollar we earn and every transaction we make? No. When they authorize for themselves the right to record and store every individual's internet activity? Apparently not. When they eliminate borders and begin allowing non-citizens to vote? hmmm.. When they start taxing the very air we breathe? I wonder. When they allow politically acceptable groups to break the law while forbidding even self-defense to politically disfavored individuals?
This is a subjective line in the sand. You may not feel like we've reached that point yet, but many others believe we're far past it. This is not a position based in principle - just preferences.
5. Wow ... Claiming secession - nothing more than a democratic majority peacefully declaring their desire to peacefully separate political ties - is treasonous is exactly what the Redcoats said about the colonies; is exactly what China says about Hong Kong; is exactly what Spain says about Catalonia.
Your declaration that the time for secession has not yet come is not based on any principles - just your preference. And because of that, attempting to argue against secession can twist you all up in pretzels and put you on the side of terrible tyrants.
By all means, feel free to express disagreement with the pursuit of secession - using any utilitarian arguments you wish. But I think it's a problem for conservatives to attempt to argue against secession as a matter of principle.
I'll try to address your points.
1. Let me put my differentiation between independence and secession in context. Was India, the various provinces of Africa, Spanish America, or any other domain of colonial empire truly part of the countries they were controlled by? These colonies did not secede from a nation in which they were equal members, but second-class dominions ruled arbitrarily by what was ultimately an alien nation. They did not break off and create a new country, not really, but instead asserted their independence as a sovereign nation. And here's the crucial part: they didn't destroy a functioning political compact because they didn't get their way politically after having had a voice at the table, they asserted a violation of sovereignty because of the dominance by an outside, alien power and a pattern of behavior that demonstrated they were not equal members of a political compact but had been subjected to a form of domination. An independence movement is defined by sovereignty and by the creation of a new social compact that grants full rights to a people who had been relegated to second-class citizens within a colonial reality. Secession, on the other hand, is fueled, not by political inputs (rights, rule law, etc) but, by political outputs. It is a reactionary backlash against the results of the political process. It is often the purview of people who have full rights and citizenship, who can engage in the government the same as anyone, but whose interests have failed to gain influence in the process. A secession movement isn't a movement asserting sovereignty, rights, or the rule of law, but one that wants to break off into a smaller nation so they can have their way, so that they don't have to deal with the other interests of society.
2. I would say that in order to argue for secession from a viewpoint that isn't reactionary or destructive, you'd have to demonstrate that rights, sovereignty, and the rule of law have been dismissed to the point that we've descended into absolute despotism. I'd say that you'd have to demonstrate how certain groups of people had been relegated to a second-class form of citizenship and no longer had equal access to the political process. In order to claim the mantle of the American Revolution, you would have to demonstrate more than just political defeat within a free and open process. You would have to demonstrate true and systematic tyranny of the nature the founding generation experienced. If redress can still be sought through the government, however difficult, then there is no justification for a movement that destroys a political compact, whether peaceful or violent.
3. Abraham Lincoln answered and settled the question of secession. We aren't a club, we aren't a confederation, we aren't a treaty organization, and we aren't an alliance of fully sovereign states. The US Constitution is either a social compact that is inviolable and supreme as fundamental law, or it has no ultimate efficacy. When a state joins the union, it surrenders a portion of its sovereignty and agrees to submit itself to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. If states can choose to come and go as they please, then the Constitution becomes nothing but worthless parchment states would have the view that they maintained their full sovereignty and are able to dismiss the Constitution and its provisions whenever they come to disagree with it. Secession is treason, because it is a reversal of the agreement made when a state joined the union and submitted itself to the Constitution as the supreme law. Part of the political compact of the Constitution is that states and their people who join the union will operate as good faith actors in the political system and not disrupt the political order by threatening the efficacy of the Constitution or the laws made under the Constitution. (This is only the political theory of it. The geopolitical realities of shattering the union is another thread that could be expanded at length).
Additionally, blaming Lincoln for the civil war borders on a "lost cause" view of the conflict. It is the duty of anyone who takes the oath of office to preserve the union. Suggesting that the Civil War resulted from Lincoln's commitment to his duty as President seems silly.
4. You're focusing on outputs instead of inputs. Redress is an input. We had a Republican President not very long ago. We had Republican control of the Senate and the Hosue not very long ago. By all evidence, the Democrats are not going to hold onto things for very long. Every American citizen still has equal access to engage in the political process, we still have tremendous rights that few in history have ever had. Suggesting that any group of Americans has exhausted every avenue of redress is absurd. The Constitution largely remains intact and we are still free to a larger extent than most people in the world. We are even better off than we have been at other moments in our history. The Alien Sedition Act period, the institution of Slavery, Woodrow Wilson's war socialism, FDR's New Deal, the South's Jim Crow period...these were all periods of time that restricted freedom and political exercise far more than it is now. Again, advocates for secession are not objecting to a loss of political inputs, they want to break off from the country because they disagree with the political outputs. This is retreatism, defeatism, and a refusal to engage with other interests.
5. I think I've addressed the difference between secession and independence, and I think I've demonstrated why the Constitution must be held as an inviolable social compact in order to maintain its efficacy. Part of the entire premise of many aspects of the Constitution is that certain things are beyond the authority of any democratic majority to assail. We are a republic and not a democracy. Just like no democratic majority can or should assault our basic freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, no democratic majority can threaten the efficacy of the union or the Constitution by claiming the right to leave a perpetual political compact.
You can call my perspective preferences, if you like, but I have laid out quite clear principles for secession, in fact I laid out the founders principles as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution we have, the Union we have, are singular miracles that stand out in human history as shining beacons of light in a world otherwise darkened by the shadows of tyranny. I agree wholeheartedly with the founders that light and transient circumstances and, indeed, anything short of absolute despotism fail to rise us to a point that necessitates what would be a calamitous and ruinous affair no matter how you cut it. It is far from preference, it is the prudence that rises from consulting experience, the oracle truth. History should teach us that what we have is unique, it is singular, and it is exceptional, and I feel that calls for secession ingore the lessons history teach and are simply born out of anger that the political outcomes are not desirable.
I think I've demonstrated the clear principles of the Constitution and the Union. Abraham Lincoln is both the ultimate founder of American conservatism and the Republican Party as an effective institution because he staked out ground that sought to conserve the republic, the union, and the Constitution by any means. And, it is in keeping with that tradition that a true understanding of American conservatism is one that rejects assaults upon those pillars of American society.
“Too many conservatives see the US as some kind of sacred and inviolable thing.”
“ No offense, but it doesn't seem like conservatives have done much conserving against the slow Fabianism of the last 100 years. Instead, it feels like many conservatives have some idealized vision of the US and are living in a fantasy that they can turn everything around”
“ Conservatives have been pushing, pleading, demanding a return to federalism for 50+ years and gotten scorn and greater centralization as a response.”
“ I'm struggling to understand how the author can claim that secession is an act that runs counter to the founding of the US when the US was started by an act of secession.”
Here is a question for you: do you consider yourself to be a conservative? I mean that in complete good faith.
Personally and morally I'm a conservative and have been all my life. Politically, I would say I am now a libertarian.
I figured you might tend towards nationalism but your line about property rights did sound libertarian to me.
While my tone may at times come across as combative (I hope not overly so), I do want to mention that I very much appreciate your willingness to engage with comments that may disagree with your own views.
Thank you for that.
I can tell from your comment that we part ways on some fundamental philosophical questions, including basic definitional ones.
But ultimately, our disagreement comes down to your belief that we are approaching a point of no return (the frog in the pot), and my belief that we still live in a nation governed by the consent of the governed. You might say that I, “don’t know what time it is.” (If you don’t get that reference, I can point you in the right direction.)
I would counter by saying we don’t live in a Flight 93 moment, and that therefore storming the cockpit is not the last desperate act of conservation, but a radical and reactionary attempt to overthrow the order created by the American Founding. I still believe that changes can be made by working within the system, despite the advance of progressivism over the last 100 years.
I can understand that perspective. Though I would strongly disagree that secession is an attempt to "overthrow the order created by the American Founding". Too many conservatives see the US as some kind of sacred and inviolable thing. Yet we've been *adding* states to those original 13 since the founding. Remember that the last states were only added 70 years ago. Why is that acceptable, but one choosing to remove itself some kind of violation?
But beyond that, I'd argue the order was perverted - if not outright abandoned - long ago, and only increasingly so. At this point, secession isn't "overthrowing" anything. It's simply choosing to walk away.
You can believe that things can be fixed. It's not a horrible thing to be an optimist. But when you have one group that believes in the importance of private property rights, and another (growing ever larger) group that believes that "property is theft"; when you have one population that outright wants socialism and another that vehemently doesn't; you're not just a marriage with some annoying habits and disagreements about how best to spend money. There comes a time when you have to recognize there are fundamentally different and exclusively incompatible sets of core principles at odds here and that the best course of action is not marriage counseling, or even simply (getting more votes and) dominantly asserting your own preferences, but acknowledging the irreconcilable differences and taking the divorce.
Conservatives need to recognize that govt is not religious. It is not sacred. Perhaps it can be a useful tool to allow different groups to live under a common set of values. But when those groups begin to reject those common set of values, govt should not be so sacred that it cannot be reimagined; that borders cannot be redrawn; that groups can voluntarily go their separate ways in order to find a more representative govt. Which I would argue is exactly what the founding was all about and what conservatives should embrace, not reject.
“ Conservatives need to recognize that govt is not religious. It is not sacred. ”
We are in absolute agreement here. Where we differ is on the question of whether adding a state is any way similar to secession.
If the current structure and borders are not inviolable and a new state can be added, I just don't see why removing a state is somehow an anathema. A club isn't overthrown or become destroyed because a member leaves any more than it does when an additional member joins.
First I’d say I’m not an optimist. I have hope, not optimism. I also believe in exhausting less-drastic measures before resorting to violent or extreme ones. But I’d also point out that the Constitution is in fact designed to create a nation in which different factions with fundamentally different values can coexist in peace. The American Constitution doesn’t need citizens to have a common set of values. Even if I think those values are important.
Do you honestly think that's working though? I mean, when those different values are between being chaste and being a prostitute, or between purity and drug use, yes, the Constitution can be flexible enough to encompass both of those concepts. But, as I mentioned before, we now have growing groups of people with views like "eliminate private property", "abolish police", "apply laws differently based on race" and "ban all guns". While the Constitution doesn't require citizens to have a *complete* common set of values, there are certain fundamental values that DO need to be shared or it merely breeds resentment as one side or the other has their values not just dismissed but actively rejected in lieu of the completely opposite values.
Also, just to clarify, secession is not violent. Secession is the alternative to potentially AVOID violence.
The problem with the author's scenario is that Trumpists increasingly reject it in favor of Soviet-style central control. They would brand this federalism formula as "leftist" and dismiss it out of hand. The author's blueprint is indeed the best course for America, but Trumpists would never support it and would continue to sow Kremlin-backed discord around the nation. The only way to make it work is to let the former Confederacy secede, let all the authoritarians move there to build their whites-only Utopia, and let the rest of us thrive with the author's classical federalist model, where true conservatism can flourish again out from under the orange blob that tried to smother it.
Thanks for your response. Yes, Trumpists likely will reject my argument, as they increasingly seem less and less conservative (as that word traditionally has been understood in this country). And more and more nationalist. It is interesting that they could be simultaneously nationalist, while rejecting some of the best parts of America. Make America Great Again without a reverence for what made America great in the first place.
I don’t see your secession scenario as at all likely. Trumpists are not clustered solely in the South, and many people living in the South are not Trumpists. Case in point: Georgia has two Democratic Senators today due to Trump’s post-election tantrums. Which makes a clean break very unlikely. To say it would be messy is an understatement.
I agree with your distaste for some of these new election laws Trumpist legislatures are passing. But some of them just roll back pandemic-related changes and in many cases by the time they get passed they are much less problematic than their original versions. But I’m not going to defend them. I’d need to actually read each bill, so on the whole I’d say I’m not a fan.
“A foreign-fueled cult of Jonestown-like personality“
I agree with the second part of that statement but not the “foreign-fueled” bit. It is a cult. But it wasn’t created by the Russians or something.
Now, for your Dixiecrat point:
Were there Trump voters influenced by racism? Yes. But I don’t buy the argument that the Trump phenomenon is just white backlash. He got more Latino votes than Romney. Also, good chunks of his voters have never lived anywhere near the South in their lives, so this can’t just be neo-Confederacy stuff. I grew up in rural VA (both Lee and Jackson were buried in my hometown) and saw plenty of neo-Confederates. (And developed a deep distaste for that “the South will rise again” stuff.) Most of then probably did vote for Trump. But that’s just one factor. It can’t be the sole cause (always reject monocausal explanations).
It's been my observation that both political parties have engaged in an over-exaggeration of Trump's true influence. I think the farther we get from his presidency, the more we're going to realize just how much of a flash in the pan he was.
I hope so. Lasting influence that is. Due to social media and the modern digital environment, I think he had a more attention-grabbing influence in the moment than any previous president. He had perhaps the most powerful cult of personality. But I sincerely hope he does not have a lasting impact.
There will definitely be traces, and in many cases strong traces, of nationalism and populism in America's political Right for some time. But these existed before Trump showed up on the scene and breathed life into them, and honestly represent perpetual and generational concerns that have always had to be dealt with in most of America's history. Frankly, with or without Trump, the kind of populist backlash we have seen is precisely the kind of thing that is to be expected given the circumstances of our political and social culture. If we don't address the roots of the hysteria and resentments, they are likely to continue...even if Trump were to pass away tomorrow.