Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.
The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.
Then, google the following topics:
(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."
Last but not least, google, "Texit."
Buckle up! Here we go!
A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?
No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.
In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.
In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.
The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.
Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.
(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.
Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.
Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.
Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.
In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.
A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.
Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."
In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!
Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."
Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"
For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.
Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.
Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.
Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.
The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.
With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.
(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.
Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."
The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.
You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!
Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!
Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!
Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.
Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.
The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.
Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."
Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."
From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.
The latter argument should be a most winnable one.
I am assuming that you've never read the decision in Texas v. White, which is hardly an "obscure" case. The court held that the Union was intended to be perpetual, and that absent a general revolution, it could not be dissolved, and no state had the power to leave it without the consent of all the others. The majority held that Texas did not enter into a compact with the other states when it joined the US, but instead agreed to subordinate itself to an already-existing political entity. Therefore, Texas' ordinance of secession was null, as were all actions taken by officials operating under its alleged authority or toward the furtherance of its ends. Such actions, the court said, were "treasonous and void." Further, those who committed such acts were not actually legal officials of the state.ReplyDelete
This is settled law. Absent amendments to the Constitution proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention and ratified by three fourths of the sates, the kind of changes you are talking about are not possible, at least within the law. Of course, if we ever got to the point where vast majorities of Americans no longer wanted to live under the current arrangement the law might become practically moot, but there is very little evidence of such majorities existing.
On the question of Texas secession: I imagine that if anyone actually looked at the practical problems associated with separating from the US, the idea would not look so attractive.