Secession: would it work?

Colin Woodard made the case for his vision of the United States as divided into a ”country of regions.” Woodard’s map shows his idea of the ’11 countries” or nations that make up today’s United States.

woodard's eleven nations
I’ve expressed my skepticism about Woodard’s classification of the regions of the United States, because, among other things, it’s an oversimplification. I think that the uncritical way in which many people have seized on Woodard’s ideas and his map to press an agenda of their own is not a good thing. It’s helped to popularize this oversimplified, and I think inaccurate, way of seeing the U.S.

Another problem I have with Woodard’s ideas, (and those of his predecessors who pushed similar ideas in earlier decades) is that Woodard is apparently of a liberal bent, and he obviously does not take racial/ethnic realities into account in his ideas about the future of the Dis-United States.

One thing about his ideas which I find absurd is his classifying the regions according to the people who settled there many generations ago. In the past I questioned how it could be argued that ‘Yankees’, or Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, could still exert influence over the Northeast when in fact there are, percentage-wise, relatively few of them still in the Northeast. In the article I link above, he argues that somehow all succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated to Yankee norms, just as his Danish ancestors assimilated to ‘Midlands’ culture. But yet after so many waves of immigrants have washed over parts of these once-United States, surely the footprint of the original settlers has been trampled over so as to be effaced and lost. He is arguing for some kind of quasi-mystical influence that lives on after the actual people who shaped the place are dead and their posterity moved thousands of miles Westward.

I find it hard to believe that the Somalis, for example, who are now being shipped en masse to, say, Minnesota, are absorbing the good old Scandinavian Lutheran ways of the early White settlers. But if one believes Woodard or his followers, this must be what is happening.

Some years ago, I wrote a good bit about secession, and in recent years that subject has become a much more discussed — and popular — topic. And finally someone has written a good piece discussing the improbable situation of our current United States of America breaking up along state lines, or even regional lines, per Woodard et al. From Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog:

Secession Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

“Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry’s donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.”

Read the whole thing at the blog. The writer takes into account the existence of many factions, including political/ideological as well as ethnic and religious groups who would not, or could not, coexist peaceably should the country break up into separate entities along existing state borders.

The obvious fact is that the powers-that-be have engineered much of the ‘diversity’ which resulted in the presence of so many incompatible and mutually hostile groups. This may indicate that they are hoping to control how a break-up of the United States would play out, should it happen.

It does seem that the more ‘diverse’ our country becomes, with so many competing if not warring groups, the less likely secession would be to change the situation to our advantage, as we would hope.

And maybe those in power are trying, among other things, to insure themselves against secession moves by irreparably breaking the cohesion of the country, sowing seeds of dissension and disunity, so that there can be no threat to the power of those in charge.

Update: I just found this related piece from The Roper Report, called Coloring within the lines. Written from the perspective of racial and ethnic divisions, it also questions the standard view of secession. It would seem that there is no easy solution, and that racial rifts would foil any attempt at a clean separation by region or state.

Secession for some, not others

I see that some Oregonians are talking of their state seceding after the Trump victory. Typical childish tantrum-throwing, sulking and ‘threats’ from the overgrown infants called ‘progressives.’

I thought it was bad enough during the G.W. Bush years, but the left has grown ‘progressively’ more unhinged with each passing year.

Why not let Oregon and California, likewise, go if they no longer want to be part of these United States? If a majority of Oregonians want to secede I believe (as did my ancestors) that they have a right to do so. After all, in a purportedly free country, how can we keep people in the Union by coercion or force?

However it appears that most of Oregon, comprising the rural areas mainly, voted Republican in this election; this Christian Trejbal quoted in the piece is evidently not typical of Oregon residents, though he may delude himself that he is. After all he probably associates only with other ‘progressives’ and lives in a bubble in one of the liberal enclaves: a big city or an academic town.

As for California, as it is now well on the way to becoming a majority Mexican state, maybe there is a case for that state to secede, based on majority sentiment. Some people have been saying for years that we should throw California to the Mexican government and in return they might stop sending their rejects and criminals across our border. I doubt California would be enough to satisfy them; if they could conquer it demographically, by stealth over the years, they can do the same with other states. Why facilitate the takeover? And if the border with Mexico was moved north, why on earth would Mexicans or other Latin Americans respect that border any more than they have respected the current border?

If California became part of Mexico, we would have to get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, and stop leaving the doors wide open for anyone and everyone to come sauntering in. But the thing that exasperates me most about this secession talk is that the media treats the Oregon and California threats as reasonable, while any talk from the South of secession meets with scorn. Even among conservatives online, many Northerners want to re-fight the War Between the States, throwing around words like ‘treason’ when any Southern state or state mentions seceding.

Why the double standard? Many Northerners want to play the role of a control-freak spouse, saying ‘if you leave, I’ll hunt you down and kill you. You can never leave..’ Half a million people died in the War Between the States because, dammit, the South had no right to break up the Holy Sacred Union. They had to be crushed, subdued, and humbled — even to this day, with the destruction of our monuments, the banning of our flag, and even the exhuming of our heroes. So let the northern states who want their ‘progressive multicult utopias leave, and let them live with the consequences of their actions. No sneaking back into our country, no restoration of citizenship. Or maybe if they begged to re-enter the Union they would have to undergo Reconstruction as their ancestors inflicted on the South. It would be fitting.

Independence, yes; secession, no?


The above meme was apparently from Tumblr, but I found it here.

The point it makes is obvious, and it was on my mind the other day, in the midst of the annual Independence Day hoopla. This year I confess I wasn’t feeling very festive about celebrating our evanescent ‘freedoms’, and I was also feeling the irony of so many comments on various blogs, condemning the idea of secession as ‘treasonous’ or at best, wrongheaded.

The point has been made by many people that our forefathers’ decision to declare independence from the British crown was secession, regardless of whether it was labeled as such. Our forefathers were subjects of Great Britain and they chose unilaterally to remove themselves from that political body and to become an independent, sovereign people.

Somehow, though, by 1863, the powers-that-be in this new nation ‘of, by, and for the people’ discovered a new principle: that for a constituent state of the Union to depart peacefully was ‘treason’ and that it must be punished by armed invasion and open warfare on the people who were, the day before, fellow Americans and who were stil kinsmen.

And the dogmatic, rigid Unionists of today, most of them Northerners, still insist that the South committed treason and that they had to be brought back into subjection by armed force — and taught a harsh lesson under the Orwellian-named Reconstruction.

To add more irony to irony, many of the same ‘conservative’ Americans who cheered the Brexit result, and applauded our British cousins for choosing to leave, rejected talk of ‘Texit’ or any secession movements in this country.

And ‘we’ think only liberals are a bundle of contradictions.