Except that he *didn’t *make the trains run on time.
And since when is being late good, because it’s anti-fascist or for any reason? If that was Florence King’s exemplar of her theory, it’s pretty thin.
I’m only quoting the part I have an issue with, the rest of your post I think is dead on in most places.
I don’t think debating whether Texas should secede because it has the sads over Obamacare is what would be useful. I think debating whether a state has the theoretical right to secede is.
I do not find secession to be an imposition of the tyranny of the minority, but a permanent rescoping of the political unit of interest to one more congenial with the people’s desires.
There is something disturbing about an indivisible union. I think if we did not have it by historical accident, we would be shocked at the thought of it.
Why would they have to do that?
But we already have a process to rescope our political units: elections, legislatures, referendums, amendments, and so on. There is nothing so permanent about our nation’s legal and political system that the only recourse to a disgruntled state is quitting the union entirely.
Indivisibility seems much more the rule than the exception amongst nation-states. For every Czech Republic / Slovakia, there’s ten USA/CSAs and Georgia/South Ossetias, bloody civil wars triggered by separatist movements.
If you live in Alaska and Alaska secedes, you can either be an Alaskan or an American, but not both, as you were prior to the secession.
Technically, the federal government derives its powers from the Constitution, which the original states ratified. The Civil War established that a state can’t simply repudiate it.
Maybe it’s my Slovak-Czech heritage that makes it feel “right.” 
Quibble: just because we wind up with civil wars doesn’t mean those Constitutions don’t reserve a right to separate, as warfare is typically the breakdown of legal mechanism. To really analyze it we would have to tabulate what national/federal constitutions have to say on the matter. For example, IINM the USSR constitution specifically reserved the right of each republic to withdraw at any time. Now obviously, this wasn’t going to actually happen, but the letter of the law was that the subnational units did not irrevocably surrender their sovereignty, but merely “lent it.”
Could be. Were the U.S. a union of a few ethnicities, it might make more sense. As it stands, our division are much more ideological than ethnic, and ideology changes over time. Also, we have effective mechanisms to resolve disputes between competing ideas of governance and law in a conciliatory fashion. I’d say that if secession were ever justified, in the absence of historical ethnic differences, it would be in a non-democratic society where there is no peaceful way for dissenting ideas to be heard and voted on. Example: the various uprisings against Soviet rule in its satellite states.
So long as there’s a functioning democratic process, there is no justification.
Right, but the lack of such a legal mechanism is evidence that it’s seen as an undesireable feature for a state to have. Unless there are states that have such a process, which remains to be seen.
The Soviet republics were also based on ethnic nationhood. There really is no rational basis for allowing secession based on mere political disagreements that are exaggerated by political coverage and likely to be ephemeral anyway.
Ah, true, I need a better example.
I would make an exception for escaping tyranny, but that’s it.
Culture is the “middle way” that nations can divide, less “irreconcilable” than ethnicity and less mercurial than ideology. The persistence of our key regional division is the clue that it is not merely ideological, but something more. (While at the same time attempts like Thomas Sowell’s to root it in ethnic heritage seem to me to be entertaining overreach.)
And then there’s this, which may simply be the picture worth a thousand words.
Given that the substance of this regional division has been quite ephemeral, as the underlying issues have shifted immensely over the decades, I still hold that it’s not some sort of irreconcilable difference. Further, given that the key division of our historical moment is urban/rural, culture is less correlated to state of residence than perhaps ever before.
What point does this map illustrate, in your opinion?
State governments already pass all sorts of laws I disagree with, mainly because more voters and politicians want what I don’t, than do.
The Colonies had to fight for independence from England, and they got it. The victor wrote the history books, and the Colonists were heroes. (I got your “tea tax” right here, England).
The Confederacy lost their bid for independence, once again, the winners wrote the history. Apparently, that was a bad kind of independence. It seems that if Texas wants out, it will be judged according to standards set by the winner of the conflict. Since it’s in the interests of the mega-wealthy elite that States not secede from the Union, I doubt any will ever manage it
Yeah, are you suggesting that Baptists constitute a cohesive societal community in the United States?
For the 9 millionth time, Texas does not want out of the USA. Texas is more diverse than you think and our “independence movement” is a tiny band of inbred nutcases. Most of us think the defeat of the Confederacy was a good thing–especially the many, many Texans whose ancestors were freed as a result of that war.
Please, find another example…
That’s democracy for you. Did any of those laws strip you of your nationality, by chance? If not, then they aren’t comparable to secession.
Apples and oranges. The Confederate states were free and equal participants in American democracy, the colonies were not. The colonies had no ability to determine the leaders and laws that governed them.
Really? I’d say the ‘mega-wealthy elite’ would desire a nation that could serve as a tax haven, while still offering First World level accomodations, security, and rule of law. I think it’s more that it’s in the interests of *almost everyone *that States not secede from the Union.
Urban/rural is not primarily a cultural division, it is economic like “ranchers vs farmers.” Insofar as it ties in with broader divisions it is liked to our *ideological * (again, not cultural) division of inward-looking vs outward-looking (or nostalgic vs anticipatory), it is one idiom of the classic Coastal-Interior thesis of economically-linked historical development.
So while it matters, it doesn’t speak to the culture argument.
A regional-religious bond in the popular imagination that creates* a sense of “us vs them,” both for the south and also outside it looking in.
The choice of religion itself is irrelevant – the south might as well be Hindu. Co-location of both religious affiliation and regional identification is what matters.
(* “creates” here is either directly arising in the popular mind or just an easy handle for demagogues to exploit)
-
Any number of freedoms routinely threatened and functionally limited by a State may be more important to me than my citizenship, so they are comparable.
-
The subjects of King George in England were part of a Monarchy, not a Democracy. The Colonists willingly emigrated to an English Colony knowing full well that they and their progeny would be living by the rules set out when the Colonies were established. Their revolt was treason. They simply won, they were still traitors to England. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s winning apples and losing apples.
I won’t go into the economics and politics of Industrial Elite vs Agricultural Proletariat in the 19th Century because it doesn’t matter. If the South had won independence, slavery would have ended nearly as soon, it’s not the issue. The issue is that the winners write the history.
- If the ruling elite of the world wanted a State or States to secede, it would happen next week. I submit that you aren’t privy to what the masters of the globe really wish.
There was a time when it was primarily an economic distinction, but that is no longer the case; it is now also a cultural one. Example: views on firearms are a cultural item; in my area firearms are passed from father to son, shooting and hunting are family activities, and part of culture. From USA Today:
In many ways, rural Southerners have more common culture with rural Northerners than to urban Southerners. This is a fairly new trend, here’s a discussion of the history. Now, the line between culture and ideology isn’t always a bright one, I admit, but there is an urban culture.
The choice of religion is relevant, when it’s merely a subdivision of the same religion that dominates the rest of the nation, and has wide variance within itself; Baptists run a gamut.