Secession and elections

Let’s stay together

Disappointingly for a few Texans, America is not about to dissolve

See article

Readers' comments



Secession in NOT ILLEGAL. Where in the world did you come up with that jewel? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independance or the U.S. Constitution?


One wonders whether the idea of secession has gained more popularity under President Obama. One wonders whether those wishing to secede are those who have trouble accepting a Negro as their President. There can be no doubt that some will forever find it difficult to accept the meteoric rise that the Negro has made. Even after four years of Negro rule, many still can't believe that they are ruled by a Negro. But the Negro is here to stay. He is here to stay for four more years.

A Negro President. A Negro first lady. And, if he continues his macho stand by his Negro sister currently under fire from all quarters, a Negro secretary of state may be in our future.

Nothing against the Negro. Really. Nothing at all. Except that he is in totally over his head. Too young. And too inexperienced. Even after four years, we don't feel that we're in good hands. We don't feel that he is a capable leader. He doesn't command respect. Every time we see him, we feel that a Negro salesman is trying to sell us something. A Negro who is an excellent talker. An excellent talker and not much more.

And this is precisely the problem with Obama: he fails to unite us as a nation. And he fails to unite us precisely because we don't respect him. A leader can only unite us if we respect him. Without respect, he can never be a uniter.

Dubya was a decider. At least that's what he wanted us to believe. But nobody believed it. We all knew who the real decider was. It was Dick Cheney. We all had respect for Cheney. He was a true statesman. A true leader. A man who knew every facet of politics and spoke with authority. He was an authority on everything. He really was. The elder Bush, who came to the presidency with a rich and varied experience, knew very well that his son was not up to the task of President. But he knew the true gifts that Cheney possessed, having worked with him for many years and seen his brilliance in action. The elder Bush was the happiest man in the world when Cheney agreed to be by his son's side. And it was Cheney who united the nation in the eight years of Republican rule that preceded Obama.

And so Obama has failed to unite the nation. We have never been more divided. How so very different it would have been if Hillary had won and been our President the last four years. The last four and the next four. She would certainly have united us. United us in a big way. There would have been no talk of secession under a Hillary presidency. We would all have been proud of her. We would have all united around her. We would have all respected her.

She would have been as much a decider as Dick Cheney. She is a real Cheney that woman. A superior political mind. When you compare Hillary to Cheney, you come out feeling equally comfortable with both. Secure in the decisions they would make. Decisions they make as deciders, based on years of accumulated experience. Not just great talkers, but leaders. Leaders with a vision. Leaders who command respect.

But there is a difference. Hillary would, of course, have provided the glamour. A truly glamorous President she would have been. As secretary of state, she is an immensely unhappy woman. Subordinating herself to her former rival has aged her considerably. As our first female President, she would have looked younger and younger as the White House years went by. She would have been riding Einstein's train inside the White House: slowing time and getting younger.

And she would have united us as we have never been united before. She would have united us as only a woman can. She would have played the role that Queen Elizabeth II plays in the United Kingdom: A unifying force. But Hillary would have been more: A unifying force with power. It is what Hillary always wanted to be: A unifying female with nuclear power.


Anything to stop Texas from sending Presidents to the White House. We've had about all of the LBJs and GWBs we can stomach.

Leon Haller

The future will see conservative ingathering (it is happening already, in places like Utah and Idaho), and then when a critical mass has been reached, and after more leftist economic destruction, you will see major secessionist movements. We conservatives only pay for the Left; we don't benefit from continued association with it.

Let's peacefully divide up the USA - before our mutual hatreds provoke a (REAL) civil war, not merely a war between sovereign states.

Paul Marks

As economic conditions dramatically decline over the next few years the number of people who wish to break away from a bloated and uncontrolable United States government (the Constitutional limits upon it having been destroyed by the Harvard Law School crowd, long ago) will grow.

The, relatively, small numbers that you gloat over not will grow into very large numbers of people - and your sneering tone (yes I know smug condensation is your "house style") will not seem so clever.

Especially as it is the policies that you support - unlimited government spending ("vital government services" and "fascal stimulus") and endless bailouts and money-created-from-nothing ("monetary stimulus") that are going to create the economic collapse.

If Texas had the right to leave Mexico because the government there violated the Constitution of the "United States of Mexico" (the Constitution of 1824 - ever seen the Alamo flag? I do people with an Oxford education not know of the Alamo?), then Texas can leave the preset Union because the regime has violated (indeed used as toilet paper) the limits on its power in the Constitution of the United States of America.

As for Supreme Court judgements.

I am sure the government appointed courts in Mexico city were as pro Santa Anna as the government appointed Supreme Court in Washington D.C. is anti secession.

In both cases (Mexico in 1836 or the United States in, say, 2014 or 2015) the opinions of a few government appointed people in funny robes are not relevant - what is relevant is the freedom of people.

"Freedom - you neoConfederate, you just want to whip your slaves....."

Firstly I am as British as you are.

Just, like you, expressing an opinion - but taking the other side. Like Edmund Burke after 1776 - rather than Lord North and George III (for that judges declared that secession "against the law" also).


Sorry but the "race card" (the holy crusade to end slavery) may have been a trump card in the conflict of 1861 to 1865 - but it will not work now.

Especially as many leading Texas Conservatives are not white.

And what are you going to do when Alaska wants to leave the Union, and South Dakota and .......

Pretend they are all Confederates?

This is no "fit" - this is the calm and steady understanding that the United States government has grown beyond all Consitutional limits and is continuing to grow.

What is your ALTERNATIVE to secession?

The courts?

Government appointed judges - who upheld Obamacare.


Where most of the voters for the winning candidate do not pay the main Federal tax - and whose deepest political principle is "WE WANT FREE STUFF". Although that is as true of the wealthy bankers (with their endless "cheap money" handouts from the Federal Reserve) as it is of the Obama worshipping street gangs of Chicago and so on (providing him his 100% majorities in so many districts of the big cities - not a single Romney vote, not even someone making a mistake, how believeable.....).

Being part of a Union like that is like being chained to a rotting corpse.

ahmed limam

Where does TE find the info that secession is illegal? What was illegal in 1861 was what Lincoln did. The US Constitution clearly spells out the federal government’s rights and says that everything else is reserved to the states. There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented states from seceding, so the Southern states who had entered of their own free will into the Union had therefore every right to leave it. Lincoln, one of a long list of criminal American presidents (the last one being Bush II) violated the Constitution by declaring war on his own people (nowadays he would be tried at the Hague) and suspending Habeas Corpus freedoms.

As of today, if a majority of residents of a state want to secede I don’t see how " legality" can be used against them. A law becomes so only when voted by the people’s representatives. Of course, in the sham democracy that the US (and other Western countries) are, representatives only represent themselves and not the people, so small surprise that they pass laws against the will and wish of the people, and prefer a bigger country to mismanage.

atashi in reply to ahmed limam

Things were more complicated back then, to split the United States power into two would have been begging for getting annexed by the British or the French or whichever other colonial power who happen to smell blood first.


What a fun article -- but filled with air. My first question is 'Who are these people anyway?'

Will answer for all -- these are the same crackpots who vote for all kinds of nut-cake ideas and listen to nutcakes like Rush or Ron Paul. In a country of 300 m, there are plenty of such people, and, well there are plenty of nut-cakes of all kinds (not just those claiming to be Republican, for that matter, I do know a lot of serious Reps, and they would have nothing to do with nutters like these).

The conclusion is that while it may be fun to fill a newspaper or website with observations like this article, there are no serious considerations involved. This is ust some people acting out cause their guy didn't win the last election. Are they 'dissatisfied'? Well, maybe -- but they are usually dissatisfied with just about everything -- that is, they are professional whiners. Should we care about them? Well, no more than if they get hurt and should be taken care of. But their opinions are generally best ignored. And they should not be allowed to own or possess weapons.

Kevin Gambir

Surely the point we really ought to be looking into is why it is that so many people feel so strongly about getting their states to secede from the United States...?

Has the federal government gone over it's constitutionally stated limits?

Do people feel that the government is no longer serving them and that they would be better served in a self-governing state?

If given a choice to be a self governing state (with free trade / movement of labour and services etc... with the rest of the remaining United States but having control over it's laws and tax policies) would people chose that option?

If the choice is given and the federal government comes up with workable solutions (free trade etc...) for states after secession, if they so wish, I believe we will almost definitely see a few states chose to secede!


Ironic the gay marriage is a slippery slope and a threat but not Balkanization that will reduce the economic power of the whole. America is powerful because the sum of its parts is greater than the whole.


One thing that is necessary to note is that anybody could sign these petitions. Thus I noticed people from as far away as Ohio were signing the petition for Louisiana secession. I hope the rest of the nation understands that the vast majority of each one of these states has no vested interest in secession and no intent on supporting these policies. Texas may be a unique case, but we'll see. As a New Orleanian, I would rather join France before some deeply conservative reincarnation of the Confederacy; but America works well too.

perguntador in reply to Nola64

Joining France is a great idea.

Then you guys can build a shiny TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse - high-speed railroad) from New Orleans to Québec, provided you offered the right carrots to allow for the crossing of the remaining US.

As for Florida, I suggest it joins Brazil as an Associated Free State, Puerto-Rico style.

It is already being (peacefully) invaded by hordes of Brazilians, after all. And Brazil is now Florida's nº 1 foreign trade partner, if I'm not mistaken.

We wouldn't mind having a Spanish/English-speaking Estado Livre Associado. And, who knows? Future relations with a transitional post-Castro Cuba could be made a lot easier.


If Louisiana secede, do they have to pay back 3 cents per acre to the rest of United States? They were bought in after all.


All Americans are free to leave. They just can't take their states with them when they do. A pity, really. It would be a much better country if we could expel a few states in the Deep South.


Certainly the Economist knows what comes next in the Causes of Succession:


You could have at least provided a link, so that people know it wasn't such a high minded document to which you are referring.

bampbs in reply to The_Prof

Glad you brought up the real cause. It's important that Southerners know that the South seceded to insure the perpetuation of slavery, and that that brought about the Civil War.

Is it at all plausible that only slave states would have noticed a generally overreaching Federal government?

Clevelander in reply to bampbs

And now, ironically, the South would be seceding in order to end slavery to our new master, the federal government.

Just kidding. But seriously, aside from North Carolina, none of the states with over 25,000 sigs would be missed.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



