Posted under Lincoln & Sovereignty and Secession
One of the more notable deaths of 2012 which went unnoticed was that Thomas Naylor. The Mississippi-born Naylor who was an economics professor at Duke, started an organization entitled “The Second Vermont Republic” an organization dedicated to restore Vermont as an independent county as it was after Revolutionary War until 1795. Naylor started SVR in 2003 in the wake of the Iraq War and with the Help of Kirkpatrick Sale accomplished making secession being more than something “Southern”. Secessionist history and movement and independent republics have existed throughout American history in all corners of the country.
Naylor’s recent death may very well deflate the SVR movement, as per usual when original and charismatic persons pass away. While there are persons ready to take Naylor’s place who believe in the SVR cause, politically it remains impotent and doesn’t have very many activists. It’s growth took place during the Bush II Administration when there was some thought of a “permanent” Republican majority might have made some leftist Vermonters to wonder if breaking away from the U.S. was a feasible idea. Since Obama took over, forget about it. As one wag put it “What’s the worst nightmare of a SVR member? An Obama presidency.”
Of course as SVR member will point out not a lot has changed between the previous two administrations but to the kind of Vermonter the group had to convince to join that doesn’t matter. Our gang is in power, everything else is just gravy. And the same goes to the opposite end of the political spectrum. Talk to me all you want about all these secession petitions given over the White House web site but in terms of raw numbers it doesn’t mean much in comparison to the number of registered voters in each state. Even in Texas, which had the highest amount of petitions, the totals are but a drop in the bucket compared to the state’s population. Obama’s Administration really hasn’t sparked secessionists movements. Southern Republicans dream about taking back the whole country, not how they’re going to break away from it lest they might have to pay the full costs for all the goodies they get back from the Feds. Even in Europe where there are strong nationalist and secessionist parties and serious movements, the results are still disappointing. Scotland will hold a referendum soon but few think it will pass and Catlans couldn’t figure out which independence party they wanted to back, during recent local elections and their cause has been put into some doubt, and this amid the worst economic crisis since the depression.
However, it should be pointed out secession has ceased being the taboo subject it was perhaps 20 to 30 years ago. It has happened around the world, peacefully in some cases (Czech Republic and Slovakia) and violently in others (Sudan, East Timor). A West which basically tore the old Yugoslavia asunder can’t claim secession is illegitimate cause. Even in the U.S., the fact that Rick Perry revived his political career in 2009 just by mouthing such sentiments shows the same to be true. As I said the work of people like Naylor has helped in this regard and will be his legacy.
Even so don’t hold your breath to see it happening in the U.S. anytime soon. Not because it would be necessarily politically unpopular but because we know what the response of the central government will be, and that’s violent coercion. And it doesn’t matter who occupies the Oval Office. Slave holder Andrew Jackson threatened to level Charleston harbor during the Nullification Crisis and knowing him he would have too if things came to blows. And of course we can’t forget the Cult of Lincoln, who to many is the real Founding Father of the country. The critical acclaim the movie Lincoln shows there’s a powerful nationalist Left in the nation and with their allies in the nationalist Right make it almost impossible for any secessionist or independence movement to exist outside ideology as SVR has found out. Any time Naylor would conduct meetings of secessionist groups across the country he come under vicious attack by Vermont leftists because those meetings would include the League of the South. Such attacks caused splits in the movement which only served to weaken it.
Perhaps a more obtainable and realistic goal than political secession is cultural secession. The Scots, Catlans and Quebeceois have already achieved this in being seen as a distinct people and Southerners have the meas to do this as well (after all, the League of the South declared cultural secession from the U.S. back when the group was first formed in the early 1990s). A people have to be created first before any talk can begin of self-government. Anything less just leads to disaster as Italy found out early in its history.
Tom Naylor did a lot of good work changing people’s perception of secession. But his dream can only be realized if Vermonters see themselves as a distinct from being Americans and what they value and believe in and do is distinct and separate from the rest of the country. Secession is as much a cultural act as a political act and those advocating it can’t lose sight of this fact.
James on 02 Jan 2013 at 3:46 pm #
This piece is needed cold water on the secessionist movement. Perhaps we can say that, as a contemporary phenomenon, the secessionist movement has passed through its first stage. Now comes the second phase. In the first phase, advocates of secession (mostly conservatives of various stripes during the Clinton years) seemed to believe that simply mentioning the word secession to those disgusted with the leftward tilt of the country would made it happen. That was not the case. Now, in the second phase, secessionists are going to have to do two things, two much more difficult things at that. (1) seek allies across ideological lines. If secession is viewed as a right-wing position only then the push for secession is seriously weakened. Now, let’s face it, it mostly is a right-wing idea in that leftist ideology is one of constant consolidation and centralization. These serve the true desires of leftism for uniformity and equality. However, there are some leftist who nonetheless (due to various ideological quirks) find their interests or inclinations served by decentralization. These, I find, to be most often green leftists who have problems with modern American capitalism and consumerism, etc. They can be useful allies. (2) The second thing is to mount realistic, relevant and continuous arguments in favor of secession that speak to issues larger than which party controls Congress or who occupies the White House. Look at those countries where secession is most seriously being considered. Advocates of secession there are building on a long history of friction and conflict and their arguments are broadly based and not dependent on contingent factors like temporary political reality. Secession advocates must also ask (and offer an answer to) the very difficult question of what happens after secession. If the argument is that secession will usher in some kind of utopia then that is foolish and doomed to failure. Consider contemporary advocates for Southern secession in the U.S. today. Grant that, somehow, these states (or a significant number of them) did secede and that there was no forced effort to coerce them back into the Union. What then? Who would govern? What policies would this independent Southern nation pursue? If the answer to the first question is the people Southerners have currently elected to Congress and their state legislatures is this really an improvement? If the answer to the second is the current platform of the Republican Party is that an improvement? All of these questions, and more, will be asked and advocates of secession must offer answers if they hope for their movement to get anywhere.
Matt Weber on 02 Jan 2013 at 4:56 pm #
Secession in the US is currently solely a cultural phenomenon, which dooms it. Culture alone isn’t enough, there has to be a concrete economic interest which was provided by slavery the first time. That is not only absent this time around, but the opposite situation obtains, and as many lefties will gloat the red states generally take in more revenue than they provide. It turns out you can buy an empire much more easily than conquering one.
Currently, a makers vs takers milieu is setting in that may provide the basis for a future secession, but there are conflicts with culture there as well as difficulties due to not being geographically based. Immigration may also result in carving off of various territories to immigrant groups, but I don’t see it happening outside of a major economic retraction of some kind.
As for coercion, I’m not sure. If the deep south, MI AL GA and SC seceded, I’m not at all sure that large effort would be spent to retain them. The liberals that make up DC generally don’t like any of these places or the people in them anyway, and their leaving would push the politics of the rest of the country to the left. Alaska could probably secede right now, it doesn’t happen because there is no tangible benefit. Texas, despite its red state-ness, will not be allowed to secede because it is too economically important. Ironically, it is probably the Republicans that are determined to avoid secession at all costs, because any state leaving would make their dismal electoral prospects even worse.
savrola on 02 Jan 2013 at 6:19 pm #
No state is going to leave the union peaceably. Secession diminishes confidence in the central government which derives its authority from the ability to print money and its nuclear arsenel.
Secession is a pipe-dream for adult babies.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 02 Jan 2013 at 11:01 pm #
James,
You ask some thoughtful questions. I’ll try to address them.
First, I see the breakup of the DC Empire as inevitable. It’s broke, and getting deeper in debt day by day. Its military is over-extended. History teaches that things change; that no political unit can last forever – worse, it teaches that oversized regimes that squander their resources are doomed to shortened life spans.
Add to that the demographic revolution that’s building, and we have a volatile mixture of trends.
Peaceful secession is the only answer. It is DC’s size that makes it authoritarian, wasteful, and inept. It cannot hold together a disunited population, nor can it govern such a population. Just look at the mess DC is in right now.There’s no possibility of consensus.
I agree that we need to bridge the ideological divide, and we’re doing just that. I was sent to represent the League of the South to the North American Secession Convention sponsored by the Middlebury Institute. I was honored to meet Thomas Naylor and Kirkpatrick Sale, both liberals who are, as you correctly say, “green leftists who have problems with modern American capitalism and consumerism.” We did not agree on everything, but recognized DC as a far greater threat to our liberty and well-being. So the process has begun.
I don’t know of anyone who offers secession as “some kind of utopia.” As a paleoconservative, I don’t believe any kind of utopia is possible or desirable – humankind was meant to strive and fight, and any kooky notion that human nature can be transformed will only end in disaster – witness communism and Jim Jones.
Finally, I don’t think there’ll be a “New Confederacy” in the South. In my mind, that, too, would be too big to succeed. I think a future of small region- and city-states is far more likely and sustainable.
Bottom line, there’s a great deal to be worked out, but it will be happen as movements and their leaders deal with problems, not from some grand blueprint.
Savrola on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:52 am #
Are you the author of Confederates in the Board Room?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 03 Jan 2013 at 1:43 am #
Savrola,
Why, yes I am, and thank you for asking.
savrola on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:27 am #
Can I buy a copy?