Secessionists' Paradise: Can "Red States" secede?
It's the start of a new year, and I decided it was time to get back to the project that led to this blog. A major reason for this is that in the intervening time, there has been a major increase in talk about secession, particularly from the reactionary faction that lost the 2020 election. For the present post, I intend to look at a simple question: could the so-called "red" states form their own country?
As a preliminary, I will make a few personal and quasi-legal disclaimers. First, my primary interest in secession is as a political theorist. In practice, I study historic and recent secessionist movements and the reasons or likelihood of their failure or success, which should obviously be a quite separate question from whether any given group is in the "right". Second, I am not greatly concerned with the military side of secession. For the most part, any "realistic" secessionist scenario would leave that unknown, usually because a good part of the population would already be dead. What concerns me is what would make a viable nation-state if you really started from scratch. To that end, I color-coded the map above based on the 2020 election, based on the following criteria:
Light purple/ dark purple: Both candidates under 50% of popular vote, plurality for Trump/ Biden.
Pink/ light blue: Winning candidate with 50-55% of popular vote.
Red/ medium blue: Winning candidate with 55-60% of popular vote.
Deep red/ dark blue: Winning candidate with over 60% of the popular vote.
With this in evidence, here are my conclusions
1. The South will not rise again.
The obvious starting point for a discussion of red-state secession is the former CSA. This map will show quite dramatically that this is not going to work. This is where my first and most elementary calculation comes in: To sustain a secessionist regime, the rock bottom minimum is 60% popular support, ideally closer to 75%. The fate of the Confederacy clearly shows why; even the totally disarmed and repressed slave population managed to defect at a rate sufficient to materially benefit the Union army. In the current "Deep South", which I will define as the coastal states east of the Mississippi river, only Alabama reaches this minimum, with a still-modest 62% of the popular vote. Matters actually get worse when one factors in Florida, where a good part of the Republican demographic are those who are elderly, part-time residents or both. The nail in the coffin is that, if some apocalyptic event did take out the current power and population centers, there's no way the South simply gets off unscathed. If an asteroid or a backpack nuke or a disgruntled Lovecraftian god-demon wiped out the DC metro area with pinpoint precision, there would still be pollution, seismic shocks, refugees, and depreciated stocks over the whole Atlantic coast. Plus, the congressmen for the great states of Floriduh and Floridumber are as dead as everyone else. Bottom line, if you're going to outlive the United States, you're going to have to be a lot further away.
2. Go Texas?
The next most popular scenario, still closely related to the actual Civil War, is Texas seceding from the Union, either on their own or as the vanguard of a breakaway nation-state. With all things considered, there are many reasons and ways Texas might go off on their own sooner or later. and if it came to that, they could probably take several neighboring states with them. That they would do it on behalf of those who refuse to admit the results of elections they lose, however, is a lot less likely. Under Trump, the Republican party suffered such apocalyptic losses that the margin of victory went from over 15% in 2012 to barely 5.5% in 2020. The much bigger problem is another elementary calculation: Almost all successful seceding nation-states have been adjacent to a more or less friendly established nation. The only choice for Texas is Mexico, the country they originally seceded from. Needless to say, the chances of successful relations would depend greatly on the nature of the post-US government. A libertarian-leaning, multiethnic government, which is not unusual for secessionist groups that are anywhere near serious, could manage a live-and-let-live relationship. A far-right isolationist regime, however, would be lucky if the damage stopped at strangling their own lifeblood. The culminating irony is that problems with extralegal immigration and smuggling could get vastly worse, to the point that the real bad guys might manage an effective takeover. It turns out it's easier to protect your borders when you're part of something bigger than your own border.
3. The paradox of the inland empire.
This brings us to the central and still largely unacknowledged "problem" of the Republican party: While the South remains central to their power, it hasn't been where they are strongest for quite a while. When the current political map is compared to the landscape of the Civil War, the states that stand out were the weird ones even then. Tennessee and Arkansas were "border" Confederate states, and in the case of Tennessee saw a significant level of anti-slavery and/or pro-Union activity. Kentucky was claimed by the CSA but never formally seceded. Oklahoma was an unorganized Indian territory. West Virginia counter-seceded back to the Union. The painfully obvious problem here is that there is literally nowhere to go. A breakaway state centered on the WVa-Kentucky-Arkansas belt could venture into places the Confederacy never dreamed, but the current populations of all 3 states put together would be under 10 million, where Illinois, Michigan and Ohio all have more. The real monkey wrench is that Michigan, the most vulnerable "light blue" state, directly adjoins the Canadian province of Ontario, and even if DC was gone, there's no way the Canadian government would tolerate a war of aggression within driving distance of their own capitol. Of course, one can always hypothesize a cataclysm that wiped out Ottawa along with DC, but by that point, anywhere east of the Mississippi is probably toast. Once again, a big enough apocalypse just means more that's unknown at best.
4. The far, far north
Finally, looking as far as you can possibly go, you have the most geographically extensive deep-red states left, a solid block from Idaho to the Dakotas with Montana as a slightly less red swath in the middle. Here, among other things, you would have a "friendly neighbor" bonus as long as nobody did something really stupid. The obvious problem is that these are the least populous states of the union. The population of North and South Dakota put together would be about 1.8 million, slightly less than that of West Virginia. Add Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, and you would still have maybe 5.5 million, less than the ca. 6 million population of Minnesota. Then the big problem here is lots and lots of federal land, including national parks, military installations and tribal land. As a result, a good part of what population there is would be relocated if the kaka hit the fan for DC, and there's just enough targets to draw attention in an old-fashioned nuclear exchange scenario. The real fun is that the tribal land includes the biggest unresolved dispute between the tribes and the feds, involving about half of what is now South Dakota (the immediate cause of the Custer dustup), in which the tribes not only never formally ceded the land but specifically refuse to accept court-ordered payments for it. A separatist government could actually do some arguable good if they reached their own agreement with the natives. Otherwise, they would face a non-trivial threat from within, if being on the same side with the federal government didn't wipe out the tribes from mass head explosions. All in all, it would be a suitable nucleus for a new nation if everything else was gone, but not a sustainable state in itself.
5. What about California???
Now comes the really tricky part. It will be clear from what we have seen that the "red" states in the west might consolidate into one or more manageable nation-states. But that still leaves California, the most populous blue state in the nation, and the states that might align with it. The backstory here is that it's California that has dominated secessionist chatter until very, very recently, with much of that predictably from libertarian or liberal-leaning sources. For those of us in the southwest, this has stayed fairly idle chatter. California boasts a huge economy including a large agricultural sector, but it's all supported by a federally funded irrigation system. If they did try to leave, the counterattack would take little more than Arizona and Nevada turning off their water. What's changed is that they are now part of a much larger block. Washington and Oregon have long since gone solidly dem, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are well into light blue territory, and in the biggest upset, Arizona swung in 2020 on a "purple" margin. The upshot is that a loyalist or counter-secessionist California government would almost certainly end up in control of the Pacific coast and much of the southwest, possibly all the way to the Rockies. The only chance the separatist red states would have against this threat would be mutual non-aggression, and perhaps a trade for enough land to reach the Pacific. Needless to say, this has even more variables and unknowns than where DC is an all this. It could happen, but it won't be what the Trump-flavored crypto-Confederates are hoping for.
Where do we go from here???
Having outlined what would and wouldn't work for a secessionist state, here's my sketch of what a post-US map might "really" look like. I redid this to avoid subdividing individual states, or dealing with just what kind of damage might be left behind from the events leading up to this.
Purple: The North Atlantic remnant-Union block, possibly still based in DC. Democratic-aligned regional to national government, possibly maintaining claims to national control without active/ offensive military action.
Light purple: South Atlantic block, corresponding to eastern CSA, potential capitol/ power center in Virginia or Florida. Possible constitutionalist Republican to libertarian-leaning regional to national government. Likely or potentially Union-aligned in commerce and military defense, with corresponding provisions for independence or autonomy.
Deep red: Central-northwest block, possible capitol in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Corresponds at many points to the Louisiana Purchase. Likely Republican nationalist-aligned separatist national government, isolationist or expansionist in military policy.
Blue: West coast/ southwest block. Largely corresponding to historic Alta California territory with possible addition of Pacific Northwest and exclusion of Utah (see below). Democratic to libertarian-aligned national separatist/ counter-secessionist government, with liberal trade and immigration policies.
Orange: Gulf Coast/ southwest block, mainly corresponding to the claimed territory of the Republic of Texas. Nationalist to libertarian-aligned regional government, supported by possible multiethnic coalition and moderate to liberal trade policies with Mexico or successor nation-states.
Light red: Gulf coast/ Appalachia block, corresponding to central and "border" CSA. Nationalist-aligned local or regional governments, friendly to or directly supported by the separatist central government. Borders subject to local alliances, treaties and ceasefires with local leaders and forces.
Medium blue: Great Lakes block, corresponding to pre-Revolutionary French territories. Likely Democratic-aligned, loyalist or counter-secessionist local and regional government. Possibly backed or directly annexed by Canadian/ successor national government.
Yellow: Upper southwest/ Rockies/ Pacific Northwest block. Likely non-aligned or neutral territories, with possible libertarian-leaning local and regional government(s). Possible coalition regional government based on legalization of polygamy, same-gender marriage, recreational drug use, etc.
What will be readily apparent from this experiment is that red-state secession only makes sense to the extent that voting patterns are reasonably consistent with defensible regional boundaries. But to actually keep the peace, there are more places where a "red" republic would have to give ground than take it, especially on the Great Lakes. Worse, "their" territory would almost certainly fragment into even more pieces than the "blue" states they detest, especially if the hyperlibertarian philosophy that anyone can secede from anywhere caught on. The crowning irony is that most tenable block by far would be almost if not entirely landlocked. Their foreseeable lot would be that of Tsarist Russia, controlling vast armies and territories yet still having to make enormous expenditures and take profound risks just to carve out enough coastline to do anything with them.
Meanwhile, the fundamental problem is that the reactionary, nativist crowd just taking to the secessionist scene seem to start from the premise that they can secede from reality. Never mind the dubious proposition of middle-aged men with downgraded M16 clones fighting soldiers with tanks and aircraft. They think people who have lived on the border for generations are indistinguishable from and interchangeable with campesinos who aren't even from Mexico. They think you can build a wall through dangerous areas where there are no roads. They think hypothetical Islamists slinking through the Sonoran Desert are a threat, but don't seem to notice half a million Muslims living openly in Toronto. If they had run the Confederacy, they would have burned the ports of the South before the Union did just in case any immigrants were trying to sneak in. The infuriating bottom line for the remotely serious liberal/ libertarian secessionist is that they are clearly more invested in the current "system" than anyone else.. The status quo was what let their Clever Hans mouthpiece of choice lose the popular vote by millions but still take office, and we are supposed to believe they are the ones angry enough to leave?
Yet, even this is still getting around the biggest problem. It's all in good fun to imagine the United States post-DC. To the cautious pessimist, however, anything that could happen to the present capitol could happen anywhere. A tsunami could destroy San Francisco. The New Madrid fault could destroy Chicago. An offshore asteroid splashdown could get Texas, Florida and parts in between. The Yellowstone caldera could wipe out 16 congressional seats and 12 electoral college votes in the time it took for anyone to notice. Anything that could end the world we know would by definition be unforeseeable. The one thing worth doing to prepare is to be kind to your neighbor, because they could be all you've got. And with that, I'm done for a while.
Comments
Post a Comment