You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Long live secession!
2005-01-25
The idea of an American right of secession -- a state's right to abandon the union -- today invites a veritable cyclone of scorn and bafflement. Secessionism, you will be told, is immoral, treasonous, seditious, the failed machination of slave-holding Southerners whose nutty dream died in the judgment of 1865. "What insanity it is to reopen this issue," says Pauline Maier, professor of American history at MIT.

What you will not hear is that secessionism is as old as the states themselves, that is was not always a reviled idea, that it cleaves to the heart of a celebrated but perhaps outmoded American principle -- the rebellion against centralized power -- and that it is a founding American act enshrined in our most revolutionary document. "[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive," counsels the Declaration of Independence, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Although secessionism today is politically impossible, if tenuously legal, the secession specter has arisen again, waking to the Declaration's call to self-governance. In 2005, it is the blue-state Northerners, bitter from the defeat of Nov. 2, who are, ironically, wearing its robes.
Posted by:tipper

#7  cmon folks - nobody serious in the 'blue states" or in the Dem party is interested in this. Its a pet of pundits and internet commentors. I dont read Salon anymore - theyve never been very serious, and while they were amusing when defending Clinton - they somehow didnt get the word from Raines et al that Clinton was NOT LEFT - theyve been a bad joke recently. Read Slate instead. No sessesh there.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2005-01-25 3:29:20 PM  

#6  Let's see: the Northerners had the legitimacy (who brought many Southerners to fight for the Union: eg Farragutt) the Navy and the industry but the Southerners had the better soldiers and generals (I know about Grant and Sherman but it took a looong time until they displaced the McLellans, Burnsides or Mc Dowells). Notice too that there were strong majorities for secession in all the slavist states.

This time the Union would have the Navy, the soldiers, the generals, at least as much industry and the legitimacy. Plus the fact that in many "Democrat" states the Democrat majority is small and given that many Democrats would not approve secession the moonbats would never get a majority accepting to secede (and still less spend blood and treasure or suffer hunger for the new CSA). In fact there would be no secession: you don't proclaim secession when you are Vermont and Massachusetts facing a war against 48 states.
Posted by: JFM   2005-01-25 3:20:22 PM  

#5  Secession makes sense if the political and cultural differences concerned are rooted in a fundamentally incompatible economic system. Slaveholding states whose economies were driven mainly by exports of cash crops indeed had a fundamentally different socio-political structure antagonistic to the North's industrializing, protectionistic political economy.

So what is the distinctive political economy of today's secessionist wannabes? Media professions, academe and interior design don't count. Try again, folks.
Posted by: lex   2005-01-25 11:47:41 AM  

#4  Notice how they invoke the wording of the Declaration of Independence but seem to ignor the words of the Constitution, Article I -

"To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
Posted by: Don   2005-01-25 9:21:08 AM  

#3  Yep, and it was us Dem's in 1860 and 2004 who didn't give a rats ass about freedom and human rights. Better them all shut up and obey their masst'ers. Them's not like us white folks.
Posted by: RobertByrd [KKK-WV]   2005-01-25 9:17:34 AM  

#2  And if Kerry had won these sanctimonious jerks would be mocking any similar calls from the "Red" states. ****ing crybabies.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2005-01-25 9:17:33 AM  

#1   In 2005, it is the blue-state Northerners, bitter from the defeat of Nov. 2, who are, ironically, wearing its robes.

Curiously, it's always the Democrats who want to split the country when they lose. Is there something karmic that makes the party that extreme, or is it just the natural home to the spoiled brats?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-01-25 9:06:46 AM  

00:00