Stupid Statements 101: "Secede and Survive!" or, Why Secession is NOT the Answer

There are those in today's society who think that secession is the answer to the problems currently facing America. Naturally, all of the ones I've encountered - which number three so far - are Southerners. I've been giving this a great deal of thought, and what follows are my opinions as to why I feel that secession is not the answer.

First and foremost, there's the obvious legal reason: Secession has been deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In 1861 the question of the constitutionality of secession had never been approached, so there was no legal precident saying one way or the other. Obviously, a large portion of the nation thought that secession was legal, and there was another larger portion of the nation that felt otherwise. In any event, there was nothing to say that it was illegal, so secession happened. Personally, I don't think it would have made a difference one way or the other; the Southern states were hell-bent on secession, and nothing was going to stop them.

But that's not the case today. In the case of Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700), Chief Justice Chase, writing for the court in its 1869 decision, said:

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

Personally, I disagree; I think secession is 100% constitutional, but until the present-day Supreme Court issues a different opinion, the legal fact is that secession is illegal. This means that the Federal government would be 100% justified in using Federal troops to enforce the law. (Whether or not those troops would actually follow the orders is another topic entirely.)

Now for some other reasons that people may not have fully considered.

In 1861, the Federal government wasn't anywhere near as entwined in the day to day operations of the states as it is today. Federal intervention in the daily affairs of the states was minimal, as it should have been. But that was then, and this is now; here's what would happen in THIS day and age if all ties to the US Federal government were severed:

1) All Federal funding for roads and highways - gone.
2) All Federal funding and assistance for public education- gone.
3) All Federal funding and assistance for home loans - gone.
4) All Federal funding for railways - gone.
5) All Federal funding for state-level safety programs - gone.

The seceding state(s) would now have to pony up the money to carry out these programs on their own. And if they had the money to begin with, they wouldn't need Federal assistance, would they? And of course, the loss of Federal funding would mean the loss of jobs that had been created and sustained by the Federal funding, which would mean a rise in unemployment.

But it gets worse. Much worse.

For the seceding state(s), ALL import/export activities would stop immediately, and would not be resumed until import/export agreements could be hammered out with the other states in the United States and the other countries in the world. This could be a lengthy process, and in the mean time the seceding state(s) would literally be living behind a self-imposed blockade - nothing would be coming in, and nothing would be going out. That means jobs would be lost, income would be lost, the supplies for day to day life would very quickly run out, and that would lead to a whole lot of civil unrest among the people. And just who do you think the people are gonna take their frustrations out on? The government they just seceded from, or the leaders who put them behind the self-imposed blockade?

All businesses with Federal contracts would be shut down, since the Federal contracts would be nullified by the secession. More loss of jobs, more loss of income, more unemployment - again, until an agreement could be reached to resume the contracts, IF the US Federal government chooses to do so. And nothing says they do, you know. Nobody likes to have the hand that feeds someone bitten by the one being fed.

All Federal military bases located in the seceding state(s) would close, and all of the civilian jobs at those bases - gone. More unemployment, which would get worse as the local businesses that depended on the base being nearby would suffer a drastic loss of revenue due to the drop in customers. And when the bases close, the US government may very well do exactly what they did to Clark Air Base in the Philippines when it closed - they tore down every single building on the base rather than turn them over to the Philippine government, and they even blew up the runway and carted off the chunks of asphalt to dump in the ocean. Who says they won't do the same to the abandoned bases in the seceding state(s)?

With the closing of the Federal military bases and the departure of Federal troops, the seceding state(s) would be left nearly defenseless. The National Guard wouldn't be able to help, as the US government would invariably Federalize the Guard and take control of the troops, suplies, and weapons. The desertion rate among the state Guard units would skyrocket, and those troops would now look towards their State Militia instead. But as of this date, only 22 of the 50 states have active State Militias. Of these 22 states, only 8 of them are Southern states. And most of the state militias are unarmed units, with no stockpile of state-owned weapons to fall back on.

Any currency issued by the seceding state(s) or the government formed by the states would be worthless, since it would have no gold reserve or trade agreements of any kind to support it. It literally wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

All shipments of goods from states still in the Union would stop until an agreement could be reached between the seceding state(s) and the Union states. This would include food, gasoline, and electricity.

The borders of all states still in the Union and neighboring the seceding state(s) would invariably be closed, either at the direction of the state government or the Federal government. That means NO interstate travel or transportation, which effectively means the seceding state(s) are now behind a self-imposed blockade on sea AND land.

International travel between the seceding states and foreign countries would stop until an agreement could be made to allow it. This includes the foreign countries agreeing to recognize the passports of the seceding state(s) or the new government formed by the seceding states. And your US passpoprts? Throw them away because they're useless now, and hope it doesn't take a few years for the new country's passports to be recognized by the rest of the world.

Mail delivery from anywhere outside of the boundaries of the seceding state(s) would stop, again until an agreement for services could be reached - if at all. Again, nothing says that Uncle Sam has to turn the other cheek and be nice, you know. He could just fold his arms across his chest and let the seceding states stew in their own juices behind their self-imposed land/sea blockade.

Those are the reasons I came up with in about 30 minutes of serious thought, and I'm not sure there aren't more that I can't imagine.

There are some very key differences between 1861 and today which play a major role in why secession won't work today. In 1861 the United States was mostly rural, it had been in existence for less than 90 years, and the people were much more loyal to their individual states than they were to a Federal government. They never thought any other way - they were loyal to their states first, and that was that. They were also much more self-sufficient then than we are now - for the most part, the people in the rural areas made their own clothing, grew their own crops, and raised their own livestock for slaughter rather than rely on supplies from outside their community. The individual states didn't rely anywhere near as much on the Federal government to survive then as we do now.

It wasn't like that in 1861, but it sure is now.

I'm sure there are those out there who will decry me as not being a "true Southerner" because I don't support the idea of secession; to that, I say bullshit. Nowhere is it written that I have to be pro-Secession in order to be a "true Southerner." I was born in Richmond, Virgina, the former capital of the Confederacy, and am damned proud of it. I have three ancestors that I know of who fought for their home and the Confederacy, and I'm damned proud of that, too. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be in the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I'm open to - and welcome, actually - sane, mature discussion on the points I've raised here, but I'll say right now that I will NOT under ANY circumstances respond in ANY WAY to any asinine, immature comments and/or name-calling, except maybe to tell you to kiss my Rebel ass. Other than that, you WILL NOT get a response from me. Personally, I don't care what you think of me - my life, my future, and my income don't depend on it, so why should I care?

And if you don't care for my opinions, that's fine too. You're most certainly entitled.

Deo Vindice.

IHC