The following is not an endorsement of any action or a prediction of the future. I have already posted an article explaining why I think an American Divorce is a really bad idea, and greater federalism offers us a way out of our current partisan divide.
If a state legislature somehow convinced itself to suddenly vote for secession, I think there would just be shock and it would be viewed as illegitimate even within that state. The President would declare the vote illegal, federalize the state National Guard, and order the arrest of the governor and key instigators. His orders would be followed (though some politicians in question might flee the country successfully), and there would be no violent resistance. If tested by SCOTUS, it would approve of the President's actions in a 9-0 vote, as the illegality of unilateral secession is considered settled law.
Think of something like Catalonia's attempt to declare independence from Spain in 2017, which wasn't even all that sudden, there had been a years-long buildup and multiple referenda, but it was suppressed without resistance.
If secession or national divorce were to actually happen in the US, it almost certainly wouldn't be sudden. It would be thoroughly discussed as a serious idea for years or decades. Presidential candidates and potential SCOTUS justices would be asked their opinion on the matter, etc.
You may be correct that this would be the reaction, but consider the following:
1) I think that you are seriously underestimating the anger of Republicans and many Independent voters, particularly in Red states.
2) Texas has a long history of nostalgia for the old Texas Republic and dreams of bringing it back. I do not think most Texans would be stunned at all.
I know because I once lived there. I was literally taught that Sam Houston was the 1st President and that George Washington was not (a real eye-opener for me).
3) The President does not have the constitutional power to nullify a vote by state legislature. If he tries, this gives Texas more legitimacy.
4) I must admit that I am not clear on exactly clear on how federalization of National Guards works. The law that the power comes from clearly mentions that orders need to go through the governor. It is not clear whether the governor needs to approve it, nor do I know If Supreme Court has ruled on it. My guess is the the wording makes both sides feel legitimate.
5) You are assuming that the Texas National Guard, which I am confident is very conservative, will be loyal to Biden whom they despise. That is a very big assumption. My guess is that they will be loyal to Texas.
My guess is that US Army based in or near Texas will be the same.
6) The Supreme Court review is trickier. You are likely correct on the ruling, but this in and of itself does nothing. Texas may just say FU to federal courts just like they are doing now on the border. It gives greater legitimacy to President, but that is about it.
7) If succession is to come (which I am not predicting), it will happen in 2024 or early 2025 (if Biden wins). I think it will be a sudden emotional decision. And given Texas history, it’s size and it’s geography, it is most likely to start in Texas.
8) I believe if Texas does succeed, I think the president will need to use the full force of the US Army and USMC to stop it. AND the military has to obey. Every officer and soldier regardless of rank will need to make a choice, and their ideological views will playa big role.
I believe they will take “let’s wait and see attitude” because they will be asked to fight against people they agree with and obey a Commander in Chief whom they must have serious reservations about.
Generals do not want their units to be split down the middle, so likely they will urge the President to use caution.
9) Texans have own far more guns than Catalonians do, and Texas will have the sympathies of the police, National Guard and most of the US military. Catalonia has none of that.
Any way thanks for the comment. It is fun to speculate.
Thanks for your response. I still don't see it, but you gave some points to consider.
I realize I don't know many details about the federalization of Alabama's National Guard to force the integration of the University of Alabama. How did the guardsmen react to it? Was there any attempt to disobey orders, or any talk of doing so? The image is always of the guardsmen stolidly following orders.
My sense is the US military has always been thoroughly depoliticized and has a national culture. It reliably follows the chain of command every time, even when its actions are unpopular. You could look at something like driving off the Bonus Army during the Depression. The actual Civil War might not have happened if the US didn't have such a small standing army.
Though per your point #3 - I also realize I'm not sure what legal approvals were given to wage the actual Civil War. I'm sure Congress passed legislation, if nothing else, to fund the army that had to be raised. So while we now have a powerful standing military, we could imagine that if Congress failed to approve of the suppression of a secession movement, it would certainly delegitimize actions by the executive to suppress that movement.
How do you divide the $34+ trillion of national debt?
Does the 'Free" US do away with the Federal Reserve or re-constitute their own version?
How are the federalized "entitlements" such as Social Security and Medicare handled for "free" citizens? I don't think those funds can be split between old and new, as all of that money's been spent on other things.
Who is President of the "Free" US? The Texas governor? And how about as each state joins the "free" republic? The joining states have had no say in leadership. A future election day will have to be promised for the future once the re-organization settles down.
Some tough questions, but a great thought experiment. I've always tried to "think the unthinkable" when solving problems. I like what you've done.
The national debt is a doozy. I should have thought of that when writing the article. Obviously, neither side will want it. Maybe both sides will just say "Not our problem" and effectively stop interest payments?
I think eventually that will happen anyway regardless of civil war. We are not going to pay it off for centuries and it will likely keep growing.
As for Social Security and Medicare, I do not see why that would be a problem. Both are overwhelmingly funded by existing revenues from OASDI taxes. Most likely the same system is kept intact and each nation modifies policies as desired. Most likely the Red states will get stuck with more elderly, but in return, they get to abolish the federal income tax (as mentioned in the article).
In my scenario, there is no need for a President of the "Free" states at first. Since every state will have to choose which side to join, a Presidential election could held using the same Electoral College as now but with fewer states.
In my scenario, once Texas has single-handedly amended the US Constitution, each state could just say "We want to join." Then Texas says "OK, then you must ratify all new constitutional amendments in your state legislature." When they do, Texas says "Welcome back to America." Something similar happened to former Confederate states during Reconstruction.
My guess is that at least 25 states would join quickly, and then about a dozen states will take their time deciding, but they will be forced to choose.
Yes, a future federal election day would need to be promised, and a few federal capital will need to be built.
The promise of assuming a portion of the national debt could be a carrot to convince the US to allow for a negotiated exit, and in that case, it would be one of many items to haggle out. Otherwise, I can't imagine that a breakaway state ever has or ever will voluntarily take on a part of the national debt.
During the second china shock nearly all advanced manufacturing and other major industries were taken over by China. BYD crushed Tesla. China won the AI race.
To try to keep Chinese goods out tariffs were erected, but by relocating much production/assembly to mexico China was able to use nafta to get around this.
The green new deal and chips act also turned out to be major flops, but Mexico was immune to this as American became less competitive.
Meanwhile, boomer retirement and reckless spending caused a fiscal crises and China dumping treasuries wrecked the currency.
Demographic changes and Chinese backed Mexican economic strength caused Texas to flip blue in the 2030s.
Electorally this was offset by the entire rust belt flipping solid red as well as some places in the mid Atlantic or northeast turning against this Mexico/China alliance.
The western forces are Chinese/mexican proxy agents and the end of the movie shows their victory in the proxy war. The United States will henceforth be a puppet state (or perhaps carved up). Perhaps promises of independence were what kept the Florida alliance on the sidelines (and clearly they allowed western forces through their territory).
Thanks for the comment. I just added an entirely new section on military units based in Texas which I just published, so you may have missed it.
The control of the US Army and USMC would be the most controversial decision as they have the most ability to affect politics via direct military action.
Yes, it is possible that the US Army would joint or be split. NATO is a good model although will be complicated if every decision is effectively 50/50. It is not like NATO where the USA can be the dominant influencer.
Blue states will be very reluctant to give Red states all the ground power because of what they might do with it. Because of recruitment problems, however, I don't see how Blue states could get the number of soldiers to keep their units fully staffed. In the long run, I think the Red states will have almost all the US Army and USMC anyway.
If there is a split, I doubt that it will be anywhere near 50/50. The vast majority of US Army units are already in Red States. The big exceptions are:
As far as recruiting, I think it's worth noting that every vaguely serious country in the world manages to recruit for a military.
"Blue America" patriotism would rise a lot if it became a more culturally homogenous nation by virtue of splitting with Red America. It also has plenty of money to bid up pay for soldiers until they enlist.
More relevant to how the soldiers would split would be the states they come from -- or perhaps just a voluntary process of chosing (as there are no doubt plenty of liberals from red states, and conservatives from blues states, in the military.)
I am sure that you are correct in many cases, but I think most voters in those states will rejoice. And the rest can freely move. I think the biggest exceptions will be the large metro areas in the Red states that I mentioned in the article.
The sad part about this scenario is that, despite the fact that I hate the idea of disunion, it may actually be a better alternative to where we are going now.
If Texas withdraws from the Union this time I won't be surprised. But the die hard Texas supporters of Ukraine and Israel may fing few on their side. They would have to fight the Union and Mexico. That would be a bloody mess for a lot of people. It does seem in the cards though 😕
Because Mecico (and Spain) have owned those lands before Texas was settled by English speaking settlers came to own it. Speaking of the current situation, Why not take advantage of anarchy as a tool for expansion? With our government and many so called experts not seeing Mexicos Cartels as an exploitable Para Military force,
the time for interference and a land grab couldn't be better.
As Mexico is already sueing American arms dealers with a big kiss for Joe Biden, I don't think the US Military will help the Texans. But Biden could turn his back on Texas if he had a prearranged agreement with Mexico to do so. I know it's speculation, but my major in collage was in Geopolitical Science with my main focus being Latin America.
Also,it would help Biden to have a multistage internal conflict.
Not because just he's doing badly at the polls, but he could declare a nationwide emergency, and get the election canceled altogether.
> Because Mecico (and Spain) have owned those lands before Texas was settled by English speaking settlers came to own it. Speaking of the current situation, Why not take advantage of anarchy as a tool for expansion?
Mexico can barely keep order within its own territory.
If a state legislature somehow convinced itself to suddenly vote for secession, I think there would just be shock and it would be viewed as illegitimate even within that state. The President would declare the vote illegal, federalize the state National Guard, and order the arrest of the governor and key instigators. His orders would be followed (though some politicians in question might flee the country successfully), and there would be no violent resistance. If tested by SCOTUS, it would approve of the President's actions in a 9-0 vote, as the illegality of unilateral secession is considered settled law.
Think of something like Catalonia's attempt to declare independence from Spain in 2017, which wasn't even all that sudden, there had been a years-long buildup and multiple referenda, but it was suppressed without resistance.
If secession or national divorce were to actually happen in the US, it almost certainly wouldn't be sudden. It would be thoroughly discussed as a serious idea for years or decades. Presidential candidates and potential SCOTUS justices would be asked their opinion on the matter, etc.
Thanks for your comment.
You may be correct that this would be the reaction, but consider the following:
1) I think that you are seriously underestimating the anger of Republicans and many Independent voters, particularly in Red states.
2) Texas has a long history of nostalgia for the old Texas Republic and dreams of bringing it back. I do not think most Texans would be stunned at all.
I know because I once lived there. I was literally taught that Sam Houston was the 1st President and that George Washington was not (a real eye-opener for me).
3) The President does not have the constitutional power to nullify a vote by state legislature. If he tries, this gives Texas more legitimacy.
4) I must admit that I am not clear on exactly clear on how federalization of National Guards works. The law that the power comes from clearly mentions that orders need to go through the governor. It is not clear whether the governor needs to approve it, nor do I know If Supreme Court has ruled on it. My guess is the the wording makes both sides feel legitimate.
5) You are assuming that the Texas National Guard, which I am confident is very conservative, will be loyal to Biden whom they despise. That is a very big assumption. My guess is that they will be loyal to Texas.
My guess is that US Army based in or near Texas will be the same.
6) The Supreme Court review is trickier. You are likely correct on the ruling, but this in and of itself does nothing. Texas may just say FU to federal courts just like they are doing now on the border. It gives greater legitimacy to President, but that is about it.
7) If succession is to come (which I am not predicting), it will happen in 2024 or early 2025 (if Biden wins). I think it will be a sudden emotional decision. And given Texas history, it’s size and it’s geography, it is most likely to start in Texas.
8) I believe if Texas does succeed, I think the president will need to use the full force of the US Army and USMC to stop it. AND the military has to obey. Every officer and soldier regardless of rank will need to make a choice, and their ideological views will playa big role.
I believe they will take “let’s wait and see attitude” because they will be asked to fight against people they agree with and obey a Commander in Chief whom they must have serious reservations about.
Generals do not want their units to be split down the middle, so likely they will urge the President to use caution.
9) Texans have own far more guns than Catalonians do, and Texas will have the sympathies of the police, National Guard and most of the US military. Catalonia has none of that.
Any way thanks for the comment. It is fun to speculate.
Thanks for your response. I still don't see it, but you gave some points to consider.
I realize I don't know many details about the federalization of Alabama's National Guard to force the integration of the University of Alabama. How did the guardsmen react to it? Was there any attempt to disobey orders, or any talk of doing so? The image is always of the guardsmen stolidly following orders.
My sense is the US military has always been thoroughly depoliticized and has a national culture. It reliably follows the chain of command every time, even when its actions are unpopular. You could look at something like driving off the Bonus Army during the Depression. The actual Civil War might not have happened if the US didn't have such a small standing army.
Though per your point #3 - I also realize I'm not sure what legal approvals were given to wage the actual Civil War. I'm sure Congress passed legislation, if nothing else, to fund the army that had to be raised. So while we now have a powerful standing military, we could imagine that if Congress failed to approve of the suppression of a secession movement, it would certainly delegitimize actions by the executive to suppress that movement.
Thanks. Based on your comment, I added an entirely new section on US military units based in Texas.
How do you divide the $34+ trillion of national debt?
Does the 'Free" US do away with the Federal Reserve or re-constitute their own version?
How are the federalized "entitlements" such as Social Security and Medicare handled for "free" citizens? I don't think those funds can be split between old and new, as all of that money's been spent on other things.
Who is President of the "Free" US? The Texas governor? And how about as each state joins the "free" republic? The joining states have had no say in leadership. A future election day will have to be promised for the future once the re-organization settles down.
Some tough questions, but a great thought experiment. I've always tried to "think the unthinkable" when solving problems. I like what you've done.
Thanks for the comment.
The national debt is a doozy. I should have thought of that when writing the article. Obviously, neither side will want it. Maybe both sides will just say "Not our problem" and effectively stop interest payments?
I think eventually that will happen anyway regardless of civil war. We are not going to pay it off for centuries and it will likely keep growing.
As for Social Security and Medicare, I do not see why that would be a problem. Both are overwhelmingly funded by existing revenues from OASDI taxes. Most likely the same system is kept intact and each nation modifies policies as desired. Most likely the Red states will get stuck with more elderly, but in return, they get to abolish the federal income tax (as mentioned in the article).
In my scenario, there is no need for a President of the "Free" states at first. Since every state will have to choose which side to join, a Presidential election could held using the same Electoral College as now but with fewer states.
In my scenario, once Texas has single-handedly amended the US Constitution, each state could just say "We want to join." Then Texas says "OK, then you must ratify all new constitutional amendments in your state legislature." When they do, Texas says "Welcome back to America." Something similar happened to former Confederate states during Reconstruction.
My guess is that at least 25 states would join quickly, and then about a dozen states will take their time deciding, but they will be forced to choose.
Yes, a future federal election day would need to be promised, and a few federal capital will need to be built.
The promise of assuming a portion of the national debt could be a carrot to convince the US to allow for a negotiated exit, and in that case, it would be one of many items to haggle out. Otherwise, I can't imagine that a breakaway state ever has or ever will voluntarily take on a part of the national debt.
Interesting point. I had not thought of that.
That plus peace is a strong inducement to a peaceful settlement.
The year is 2044.
During the second china shock nearly all advanced manufacturing and other major industries were taken over by China. BYD crushed Tesla. China won the AI race.
To try to keep Chinese goods out tariffs were erected, but by relocating much production/assembly to mexico China was able to use nafta to get around this.
The green new deal and chips act also turned out to be major flops, but Mexico was immune to this as American became less competitive.
Meanwhile, boomer retirement and reckless spending caused a fiscal crises and China dumping treasuries wrecked the currency.
Demographic changes and Chinese backed Mexican economic strength caused Texas to flip blue in the 2030s.
Electorally this was offset by the entire rust belt flipping solid red as well as some places in the mid Atlantic or northeast turning against this Mexico/China alliance.
The western forces are Chinese/mexican proxy agents and the end of the movie shows their victory in the proxy war. The United States will henceforth be a puppet state (or perhaps carved up). Perhaps promises of independence were what kept the Florida alliance on the sidelines (and clearly they allowed western forces through their territory).
Very interesting thought experiment.
Minor: The Army would never go to one side. They’d have to split the armies or keep it joint (like how NATO works.)
Thanks for the comment. I just added an entirely new section on military units based in Texas which I just published, so you may have missed it.
The control of the US Army and USMC would be the most controversial decision as they have the most ability to affect politics via direct military action.
Yes, it is possible that the US Army would joint or be split. NATO is a good model although will be complicated if every decision is effectively 50/50. It is not like NATO where the USA can be the dominant influencer.
Blue states will be very reluctant to give Red states all the ground power because of what they might do with it. Because of recruitment problems, however, I don't see how Blue states could get the number of soldiers to keep their units fully staffed. In the long run, I think the Red states will have almost all the US Army and USMC anyway.
If there is a split, I doubt that it will be anywhere near 50/50. The vast majority of US Army units are already in Red States. The big exceptions are:
Joint Base Lewis/McCord near Seattle
10th Mountain in New York
25th Inf division in Hawaii,
11th Armored Cav regiment in California
1st Marine division in California.
Maybe that becomes the Blue army and marines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_formations_of_the_United_States_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Marine_Corps_regiments#1st_Marine_Division
As far as recruiting, I think it's worth noting that every vaguely serious country in the world manages to recruit for a military.
"Blue America" patriotism would rise a lot if it became a more culturally homogenous nation by virtue of splitting with Red America. It also has plenty of money to bid up pay for soldiers until they enlist.
More relevant to how the soldiers would split would be the states they come from -- or perhaps just a voluntary process of chosing (as there are no doubt plenty of liberals from red states, and conservatives from blues states, in the military.)
> Voters rejoice.
There are blue cities in red states, and red suburbs and countryside in blue states. The residence of both would be outraged.
Thanks for the comment.
I am sure that you are correct in many cases, but I think most voters in those states will rejoice. And the rest can freely move. I think the biggest exceptions will be the large metro areas in the Red states that I mentioned in the article.
The sad part about this scenario is that, despite the fact that I hate the idea of disunion, it may actually be a better alternative to where we are going now.
If Texas withdraws from the Union this time I won't be surprised. But the die hard Texas supporters of Ukraine and Israel may fing few on their side. They would have to fight the Union and Mexico. That would be a bloody mess for a lot of people. It does seem in the cards though 😕
Why do you believe Mexico would get involved?
Because Mecico (and Spain) have owned those lands before Texas was settled by English speaking settlers came to own it. Speaking of the current situation, Why not take advantage of anarchy as a tool for expansion? With our government and many so called experts not seeing Mexicos Cartels as an exploitable Para Military force,
the time for interference and a land grab couldn't be better.
As Mexico is already sueing American arms dealers with a big kiss for Joe Biden, I don't think the US Military will help the Texans. But Biden could turn his back on Texas if he had a prearranged agreement with Mexico to do so. I know it's speculation, but my major in collage was in Geopolitical Science with my main focus being Latin America.
Also,it would help Biden to have a multistage internal conflict.
Not because just he's doing badly at the polls, but he could declare a nationwide emergency, and get the election canceled altogether.
Thanks for asking, Michael 😃
> Because Mecico (and Spain) have owned those lands before Texas was settled by English speaking settlers came to own it. Speaking of the current situation, Why not take advantage of anarchy as a tool for expansion?
Mexico can barely keep order within its own territory.
Because anarchy can be contagious
Yes, that is certainly true.
Civil wars do tend to spread across borders.
Mexico is already near anarchy.