If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other,... the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.-- John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams was not alone in voicing such secessionist sentiments, either. Alexis deTocqueville also thought it a good idea along with Sec'y of State Timothy Pickering (F-MA) and President James Buchanan (F-PA).
Some will protest that the issue of 'secession' was settled long ago. That's not true. What was settled in 1865 was the question of whether an agricultural economy without an industrial economy in partnership can hold its own against such a partnership. The answer was that it could not. The Confederacy decided to 'go it alone' and the Union objected to being left without a ready source of cotton, rice, and okra. The Union got its way, thanks to their industrialized economy. Might makes right.
Big government supporters then and now were and are very much against the idea of government growing smaller as by the departure of states, but lately the worm appears to be turning. Upset over the election of a President they wouldn't have chosen (and, in fact, didn't), California has been making secessionist noises recently. It's a fact that California's economy absolutely dwarfs the economy of the Confederacy, so they certainly could survive (at least in the short run) without being a part of the current union, and it is very unlikely that this President would react as negatively to their departure as did Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it's probably true that a large portion of the electorate left behind would actually cheer the new nation onward.
Should we object to a CalExit? I think it is becoming more apparent with each passing day that, as Mike Vanderboegh once observed, the United States is now one country occupied by two distinct people. That wouldn't be a problem if both of those two distinct peoples were tolerant of each other, but that's not the case. In fact, it's blindingly obvious that one faction considers the other to be sub-human and unworthy of any consideration. This group, the intolerant, accost members of the other group at restaurants and disturb their peaceful enjoyment of a meal they haven't prepared themselves. They do not simply boycott the 'others', they actively thwart the others' enjoyment of rights they themselves insist upon. Rights for me but not for thee. When those 'others' are invited by their supporters to speak on college campuses, for instance, they often find themselves blockaded and unable to even enter the venue. When they do actually gain entrance and try to speak, they are often hooted and heckled by the 'intolerants' in the audience who — it must be said — are not present to hear the speaker but rather to prevent the speaker from being heard — by anyone. Surprisingly, the intolerants are not receiving the same treatment from those 'others' who, by and large, tolerate the intolerants.
In case it isn't obvious, the intolerants are without notable exception so-called 'progressive leftists', and their targets are, also without notable exception, so-called conservatives. The left isn't prepared to extend even the basics of common courtesy to a group they see as 'the enemy'. In other words, we are at war. We just haven't started shooting each other yet. If and when the shooting starts, progressive leftists are going to be unpleasantly surprised to discover that conservatives are better armed and are all too willing to shoot back.
One would have to be an absolute moron to think that a peaceful secession would not be better than that. Maybe it's time for us to seriously consider secession as a solution to the unrest we see every night on the 6:00 o'clock news.
Posts
