Considering Secession

Posted on 2009-04-27 by David

An intriguing discussion erupted after a recent post by Connor. I was soon asking what history would have looked like if the South had been allowed to secede rather than fight the Civil War. Later another commenter asked an even better question:

By allowing the South to secede, wouldn’t that be setting up a dangerous precedent? If any state decided to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like, what would have happened to the nation?

Under such an interpretation, what security did the nation have beyond what the Articles of Confederation provided? The Articles weren’t working. That’s why they created a Constitution that gave more expanded powers to a central government.

Considering recent comments regarding Texas choosing to secede and polls that a surprising number of Texans seem open to the concept I’d like to take a crack at answering what might have happened in those circumstances and I would be very interested to know what others think of the question or of my answer. For the sake of this supposition let’s assume that we are talking about an alternate history where the people of the United States accepted the premise that secession was a legal option and not a cause for war. We are also not talking specifically about secession by the southern states – just about a nation in which any state could decide to leave just because Congress passed a law they didn’t like and that the remaining states would not resort to violence to keep them in the union. In other words there might be arguments against secession in general or in specific cases, but no military action. With that background, here is what I believe would happen.

Any state that chose to secede would immediately relegate themselves to a position with all the disadvantages they had faced under the Articles of Confederation as well as the disadvantage of not having between 12 and 49 (depending on when in history this happened) other states upon which to lean for support. They would be required to provide for their own protections (economic and military) without assistance from their neighbor states. In all likelyhood they would very quickly be looking to form alliances with other states and other nations. In some cases they would likely begin very soon to consider the possibility of rejoining the United States. In such cases they would find themselves facing the requirements for joining the union. Having antagonized the other states in the union they would have to convince the congress to allow them back into membership within the United States. That and their experience under the Articles of Confederation would act as a deterrent to states that wanted to secede for light or transient reasons.

Assuming that there are no major holes in my reasoning above I think it is safe to say that there would be few if any cases of individual states seceding. That leaves us to consider the potential of blocks of states seceding such as the southern states in 1860. In this case we can easily see that a block of states seceding together would be inclined to form a union not unlike the one they were leaving. If two similarly structured nations composed of soverign states were to exist in close proximity to each other and to unsettled land waiting for expansion I think it is safe to assume that the two nations would be driven to compete with each other to become more politically and economically powerful and attractive to the settlers of new lands so that new political entities would chose them over their counterpart when they decided to become a member of a larger political entity. I don’t suppose that the nations would exist entirely without animosity, but they could peacefully coexist as the United States and Canada have done for nearly two centuries.

If legal secession were a political reality any number of possibilities might exist. A single state residing outside any other union would be highly unlikely, but North America could be divided into any number of unions made of sovereign states. In fact a policy allowing for legal secession could leave the door open for Canadian provinces or Mexican states joining a union as sovereign states. I believe that eventually legally accepted secession would have resulted in one or two strong unions of states in which the  central government was limited more closely to what our Constitution outlined – focusing on foreign relations, military defense, and interstate issues and leaving states to independently tackle other issues and learn from each other. In the case of two stable unions existing I would give better that 50% odds that their relations with each other would be fundamentally peaceful.

The short answer is that I do not believe allowing the secession of the south would have been setting a dangerous precedent (at least from the angle of how viable the central government would remain). That leaves the question – have I missed something?

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Federalist Nos. 74 – 75

Posted on 2009-04-24 by David

Federalist No. 74 discusses the power of the president to command the military and grant pardons. Federalist No. 75 discusses the power of the president related to the making of treaties. Neither of the papers is particularly remarkable unless you have concerns related to those issues (I don’t) but it was interesting to read Hamilton’s remarks discussing the way that the making of treaties did not comfortably fit entirely within the powers of the legislative branch, nor completely within the powers of the executive branch – thus necessitating the mixture of presidential and senatorial influence on the process.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Federalist No. 73

Posted on 2009-04-23 by David

Federalist No. 73 demonstrates two instances where the framers of the Constitution designed not for a virtuous system, but for a system riddled with human fallibility. The static nature of executive compensation helps mitigate the human fallibility of the executive.

There are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils; and in the main it will be found that a power over a man’s support is a power over his will.

On the other hand, the qualified veto helps to mitigate the human fallibility that would be present in the legislative branch:

The propriety of the thing does not turn upon the supposition of superior wisdom or virtue in the Executive, but upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible; that the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflection, would condemn.

This paper also includes what could be used as a yardstick to measure how well our government is working:

It is far less probable, that culpable views of any kind should infect all the parts of the government at the same moment and in relation to the same object, than that they should by turns govern and mislead every one of them.

The measure is that the more we see the different branches of government succumbing to the same undesirable forces the worse off our government is doing. Hamilton obviously recognized this as he expressed this hope:

It is to be hoped that it will not often happen that improper views will govern so large a proportion as two thirds of both branches of the legislature at the same time; and this, too, in spite of the counterposing weight of the Executive.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

How Very Ironic

Posted on 2009-04-22 by David

When I attended the breakfast meeting with Senator Bennett, he mentioned Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter – the three Republicans to support the Obama bailout bill – as "the three predictable crossover voters." I found it very ironic to read the results of a poll of Democratic Senators:

In fact, Hatch ranks No. 3 among Republicans whom Democrats say are the least partisan and most enjoyable to work with — behind only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine (liberal Republicans who were among the few GOP members who supported Obama’s stimulus package), that newspaper reported.

Apparently Senator Bennett didn’t want to remind attendees that our conservative state is represented by some not-so-conservative senators. He got Collins and Snowe right, but Specter is not on the list. While Bennett was not among the easiest Republicans to work with according to the overall poll results, he was listed as being among the easiest to work with by four of his Democratic colleagues – I’m sure another term or two can finish softening him up.

The results also confirmed what I had concluded – that Hatch was once conservative:

That is a big change from Hatch’s early career, when he was seen as one of the most conservative and pugnacious Senate Republicans. Now, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told The Hill, for example, that Hatch is among those who "want to get something done, and they’re not necessarily driven by ideology."

I have come to appreciate the fact that Hatch was conservative in the early part of his career and I am not opposed to having a politician who knows when to compromise. I do have serious issues with elected officials who just "want to get something done." They do the nation and their constituents no end of disservice when they take action for no reason other than to appear active. I also have serious issues with any politician who does not seem to know when to hold their ground and stand on principle – a skill that Hatch has lost if he ever really understood the proper line.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

An Unbiased Perspective

Posted on 2009-04-21 by David

Admittedly I am a person who does not believe that anyone is unbiased – and I’m fine with that. The closest a person comes to unbiased is when they can state a position which contradicts their biases or while acknowledging how that position does not support their biases. When President Obama said that $100 Million here and there eventually adds up to real money in Washington I could not help but notice when Paul Krugman – not exactly the strongest proponent of smaller government – disagreed. He calculated that $100 million per day for an entire four year term would only be 2% of one year’s budget. His conclusion was perfect:

OK, politics is theater. But you could argue that the president shouldn’t feed the bogus claim that we can close fiscal gaps by eliminating a bit of waste.

Posted in National | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Convention Surprise

Posted on 2009-04-20 by David

I attended the Davis County Republican Party organizing convention on Saturday. There was one very surprising outcome for me from attending. Senator Bob Bennett spoke at the conventions and by the end of his speech I realized that I could potentially vote for him in 2010 if he survives the Republican nominating convention and primary (if necessary) next year. I’m still absolutely sure that there must be at least half a dozen Republican politicians in this state that would be far better for the state than Senator Bennett can be he is still better than the majority of likely Democrat and third party candidates. Even if he were running unopposed I could not vote for our sitting senator at the Republican nominating convention but I may find that he is the best available option in the general election if he is the Republican nominee.

How’s that for a ringing endorsement.

Posted in Local, State | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Tea Party and Town Hall

Posted on 2009-04-17 by David

The real effectiveness of the tea parties is not likely to be known for some time. Two days later various factions are still trying to sort out what actually happened and what it all means. I am encouraged by the prospects that it will turn out to be more than a short-lived release of frustration for political newcomers.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting with my congressional representative, Rob Bishop. I had heard about these meetings from various sources, but this is the first one to take place since I moved into the district. It was an interesting mix of support for Rep. Bishop and confrontation (speaking about the questions and comments from the audience).

One gentleman, who may well have been a tea party attendee, got up and expressed his frustrations at not having a political home after the supposedly conservative Republican party had forsaken the opportunity to promote conservative government. He asked how he could ever trust the party again. Rep. Bishop gave a very unsatisfactory answer (in my mind) that he would just have to sit back and wait. I later talked to that gentleman and invited him to visit my site – I hope he does so. My answer to the question is that those of us who really believe in conservative principles need to get active in the party and make it answerable to those principles rather than blindly following whoever is incumbent. (P.S. Rob Bishop is far from being the worst Republican Incumbent around these parts.) Sitting back and waiting is a great way to allow the status quo to become ever more entrenched in the party and in society.

I found various statements by Bishop which I agreed with and others that I did not agree with. The subject of earmarks came up multiple times and I found some of his answers insightful. For example, Rep. Bishop recognizes that earmarks are easily used as a distraction that diverts attention while the pile of money being spent continues to grow while the size of the pile is a larger problem than the earmarking process. He explained that earmarks are Congress setting priorities for appropriated money rather than the administration setting those priorities. That left me with two questions that I will demand answers on from my congressman.

  1. If we get rid of earmarks won’t that allow us to focus on the size of the pile of money?
  2. While I might prefer that Congress set the priorities for government appropriations rather than the administration, why should the priorities be set at the federal level at all? (except on truly federal priorities like defense spending) Wouldn’t it be better to just appropriate money to "transportation" and direct that 2% of the money goes to Utah, 5% to California, etc. then let the states and municipalities decide which projects (I-15 expansion, Mountain View Corridor, repaving existing streets, expansion of light rail, to name a few local options) deserve the transportation funding?
Posted in Local, National, State | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Federalist Nos. 71 – 72

Posted on 2009-04-16 by David

In three sentences Federalist No. 71 conveys the primary reason to prefer a republic over a democracy:

It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. (emphasis original)

By separating the people from direct decision-making a republic insulates the nation from mob rule.

I found great irony in the following truth:

The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.

Sometimes today it seems that the representatives of the people in our "popular" assembly have fancied that they are the people themselves and they often appear impatient or disgusted at opposition from the voters when they are busy trying to promote the will of the President.

In talking about the duration in office of the president (Federalist No. 72), Hamilton comes out in staunch opposition to term limits:

Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advocates, I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it.

As in various other decisions in the original Constitution we have changed our stance on that since that time. Unlike other such examples I believe that this change has been positive or at least neutral for the nation. In fact I have been one to favor the possibility of adding term limitations to other elected positions. There is one way in which I could see someone arguing that term limits may have contributed to our imperial presidency:

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory;

I’d love to hear other perspectives on whether our two term limit on the presidency has been a good or bad thing for the country now that we have had half a century to see the results.

Posted in General, National | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Political Action vs Reaction

Posted on 2009-04-15 by David

It’s tax day and I doubt anybody who reads this has not heard in advance about the many "Tea Party" events that have been planned around the country for today. Ive been hearing about them from various sources for months and I have been conflicted in my feelings related to such activities. From a constitutional perspective we have a first amendment right to free speech and peaceable assembly so barring any violence there is no question as to the legality of these events. My conflict is in the way the events are being promoted.

Many of the public figures who are promoting these events paint them as a kind of legitimate political action. Among those who really care about the issues of constitutionally limited government and perpetual government deficit spending there are many, such as myself, who recognize that these tea parties have no possibility of bringing about real political results – they are a grand publicity stunt played off of the frustrations of one segment of the population. As such they are merely a  political reaction and political reactions are easy to spin. Promoters are spinning this as an argument against larger government and deficit spending. Detractors are spinning it as a bunch of ridiculous anti-Obama rallies.

Real political action, in contrast to political reactions, is very difficult to spin. It takes much more time and effort than simply gathering some press coverage and getting people to show up one day carrying signs and shouting in megaphones. Real political action, for those who are interested, would include regularly seeking information on issues of interest to you. It would include attending county party organizing conventions. As Rob Miller so aptly said, "If you believe that you have something to contribute to the American experience, you should come to a county convention." In Davis County that would be this Saturday (4/18) for both Democrats and Republicans. If you really want to make a difference you should be looking to be a delegate to county and state party conventions (or even national conventions if you are so inclined). It means participating in those caucus meetings and conventions where parties are organized and candidates are chosen. It means not letting your party get away with ignoring its principles in the name of political expedience. (That does not preclude the possibility of compromise, but it does reject the argument that all of politics is compromise.)

Thankfully today I have come to my own resolution regarding that internal conflict. Real political action is what this country desperately needs from many more people of all political persuasions. We need people who are willing to put in the work and engage in civil debate even when the debate gets spirited. While political reactions do not qualify as real, effective political action they can serve as a first step for those who have not participated in real political action before. I hope that whatever else happens with the tea party events we will see many among the attendees who will start to take part in lasting political action.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , | 15 Comments

Federalist Nos. 69 – 70

Posted on 2009-04-14 by David

In Federalist No. 69 Hamilton argues that the president is not as powerful a position as some have made it out to be while in Federalist No. 70 he argues that having any less power vested in the president would be a recipie for bad government.

I have found it to be very interesting, not only in these Federalist Papers, to see the proposed government compared to the state governments that existed as well as to foreign governments. For example, Hamilton shows how the office of president as proposed holds powers inferior not only to the king of Great Britain (to which it had been compared by detractors) but also in virtually every instance to many of the governors of individual states. The other thing that I find interesting in this study is how closely subsequent state governments model the federal Constitution when they were being established.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments