Thursday, August 6, 2009

American Regional Secession – WSJ says “yes” – I ask about Security

Before we get started, I would like to thank Ol’ Snaggle-Tooth Jones for his consistent coverage of the increased call for state’s secession in local and national media. Watchdogs like Jones keep the discussion happening.

Jones wrote an interesting article which pointed to the Wall Street Journal’s US News Story (not an Editorial, mind you) suggesting that the United States would be stronger should the Union unravel under the increased bloating of the Federal Government. It is an interesting read, and I can openly agree that in the long run, a more free state makes a stronger union… as such, a loose confederation of states, I believe, is in the best interest of personal freedom… but what about “national security”?

Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States of America has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, either through war, trade, or brute. There is little doubt that a split in the union of the states could potentially spark a subtle invasion of influence… similar to what the US did to Russia after the collapse of their union. Is there doubt in anyone’s mind that Russia, China, or other states of varying levels of influence would undoubtedly begin jockeying for position for favor of the individual states? I also ask, what about the internal conflicts already in existence in the US, and how will that affect certain portions of the newly free regions? Will the secession of the many states result in utter chaos and lawlessness in certain regions of the Americas?

Let’s look at California, as is done in the WSJ article. California can be easily subdivided into 3 regions – North/Central/South, hypothetically.

Northern California would include the greater region of Southern Oregon, which was the earlier proposed State of Jefferson (abandoned after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The state never materialized, but the collective disdain for Sacramento and Salem has never diminished. This mountainous region is rich in raw material, lumber, ore, and water. Taking with it a sizable portion of the northern Sacramento Valley for agricultural needs, Northern California would have the potential to become an economic powerhouse, completely self sufficient, and defendable from foreign invasion – three things which are necessary to the existence of a strong state.

Central California – the desert turned into an agricultural oasis. Central California would likely continue to operate much like the California of today, though with a more balanced budget, I am sure. Central California would range from the northern Sacramento valley to the hills separating the valley from Los Angeles. This region would be culturally diverse, but would be required to band together for the survival of the port cities. It would be a region rife with hardships regarding longevity, as the smell of liberty may leave those working the fields asking the question “to what end?” Would Central California exist as an oasis of sexual freedom, a bohemian paradise? Or would there be such a conflict with the central valley that Bay Area culture eventually isolates it from the rest of its micro-nation? There would be little in the way of violence, but definitely a nation full of debate about the future of their way of life. Perhaps such differences in lifestyles would lead to an extreme libertarian government? Rather more likely is that the San Francisco political think would attempt to ensure absolute control via taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. Thus, Central California would most likely become a socialist style “Utopia”… with a revolution laying in wait! Again, Central California would have defensible borders, economic strength due to the abundant resources and agriculture, and would be able to be self sufficient.

Southern California, our last region to explore, would be where violence and turmoil ran rampant. The region would run from the hills of northern L.A. east to the mountains (not beyond because a country in turmoil lacks ability to defend desert interests), and extend south through the International border with Mexico into northern Baja. The rapid secession of Southern California would equate to instant lawlessness, mass casualty from gang style violence, and mass genocide of one race over the other – namely Latinos supporting the “La Raza” mentality would feel the need to cleanse the land of blacks, whites, Asians, etc. It is a region where the Federal Government has much interest and large military installations, and may fight any succession movement with military force and martial law. Southern California would be a Kosovo style war zone, tearing itself apart from the inside, unable to sustain, defend, or produce. There would be no stabilization except that of a radical ideologue style government, bent on racial cleansing of Aztlan.

However likely or unlikely the above scenarios may be, one has to wonder and ask what the state of personal security would look like under a “devolved” United States. Would the regions of racial tensions explode into violent, war torn lands of genocide? Or is it possible for a nation to peacefully dissolve into a multitude of free lands under a loose security pact, mirroring the original make-up of this nation under the Articles of Confederation?

Personal security is an individual responsibility. Regional stability is also a personal responsibility. However real the future secession of the people from the Union may be, it is imperative that thought be put into liberty… and anyone living in a land of true devolution, where mass genocide is the certain outcome, is better off leaving, preparing for war, or dissuading secession altogether.

3 comments:

  1. All the more reason to seek two things, Steven:

    1) An acknowledgement from the heretofore unconvinced that the American Union is actually an American Empire, the thought of which horrified the Founding Fathers, which is slowly but surely killing the nation, and that it must devolve power back to the states ASAP.

    2) Perhaps outright secession won't be necessary, but an arrangement whereby the federal government, in keeping with its nature as a *creation of the sovereign states* would peaceably assist in that devolution of power. Any outbreaks of hostilities between regions could be quelled by existing military forces and law enforcement. At the same time, a new Congress of states would, over time, engineer a new form of union, say, more along the lines of a large scale Switzerland, where localism and confederalism are the rules of the day, and where the "federal" government would, THIS TIME, exercise limited and few powers, such as the defense of the Confederacy. And this time, much stricter controls would be constitutionally enshrined to ensure that a Leviathan central government never again makes an appearance.

    Both of these are tall orders, I know, and my musings are admittedly inchoate. But if we're right, and the breakup of the United States IS inevitable, we'd better start being proactive, and actually *plan* for the eventuality. Organizations such as the League of the South, the Middlebury Institute and those related to the Vermont secessionists are doing pretty good work in planning for it, though admittedly their work is still in the seminal stage.

    Point is, the coming breakup of the United States does not have to be chaotic, as long as we're forward-looking and we play our cards right. The key here, of course, is making the "we" a muich larger collective than it currently is. Our movement is still considered to be nothing more than a gaggle of crackposts by most people. However, these articles by WSJ and Slate, surely only the first of many, should inform our critics that we may very well be on to something. And that they should accordingly start paying more attention, as I've argued at my blog.

    (By the way, your links to my material aren't working.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Snaggle-Tooth JonesAugust 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM

    By the way, when I mention a new, downscaled federal government providing for the common defense, I envision the preservation of a nuclear deterrent second to none. I want to return to localism, and that means I don't want our forces being projected all around the world the way they are now, but I also want to be *protected* from those nations who might try to exploit us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jonesie - Fixed the links, and agree about the nuclear deterrent. There is specific justification for such defense, as a union of free states would allow for mutual defense... as was the dream. It wasn't, as you pointed out above, the dream that the US becomes an Empire.

    Thanks for reading!

    ReplyDelete