American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup

by F.H. Buckley, John Pruden (Narrator)

Americans have never been more divided, and we’re ripe for a breakup. The bitter partisan animosities, the legislative gridlock, the growing acceptance of violence in the name of political virtue - it all invites us to think that we’d be happier were we two different countries. In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of law, we are already two nations. 
There’s another reason why secession beckons, says F.H. Buckley: we’re too big. In population and area, the United States is one of the biggest countries in the world, and 'AMERICAN SECESSION' provides data showing that smaller countries are happier and less corrupt. They’re less inclined to throw their weight around militarily, and they’re freer too. There are advantages to bigness, certainly, but the costs exceed the benefits. On many counts, bigness is badness.


Across the world, large countries are staring down secession movements. Many have already split apart. Do we imagine that we, almost alone in the world, are immune? We had a civil war to prevent a secession, and we’re tempted to see that terrible precedent as proof against another effort. This book explodes that comforting belief and shows just how easy it would be for a state to exit the Union if that’s what its voters wanted.


But if that isn’t what we really want, Buckley proposes another option, a kind of Secession Lite, that could heal our divisions while allowing us to keep our identity as Americans.



RUNNING TIME ⇒ 4hrs. and 55mins.

©2020 F.H. Buckley (P)2020 Tantor

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American, Audiobook, Government

5 pages, Audible Audio

First published January 14, 2020

About the author

Francis H. Buckley: Son of F.J. & H.B. Buckley; M. Esther Goldberg; child Sarah.
BA, McGill University 1969
LLB, McGill University 1974
LLM, Harvard University 1975
Exec Dir/Assoc Dean of Geo Mason Law & Economics Center & Foundation Law Prof who's taught there since '89 & was Visiting Olin Fellow at the U of Chicago Law School in '88/9. Shimer College trustee. Twice visiting professor at the Sorbonne/ Paris II, in fall '07 he was visiting professor at the Institut d'études politiques de Paris. He writes on law & economics & has published in journals, including the Journal of Legal Studies, the International Review of Law, Crisis & Economics & Public Choice. He's defended free markets before the American Enterprise Inst. His books include Fair Governance (Oxford '09), The Morality of Laughter (Michigan '03) & Just Exchange: A Theory of Contract (Routledge '05).
Geo Mason's Law & Economics Center, focusing on issues like tort reform, declines releasing fundraising & donor information. Documents released by the Community Rights Counsel, including some released as part of the nat'l tobacco settlement, show that its officials asked R.J. Reynolds Tobacco for $20,000 for its federal judges program, according to a Reynolds internal email. The center received $40,000 from Philip Morris from '96-99 & was listed among "key allies". It also received $40,000 from Exxon Mobil Foundation in '04. Buckley said their policy of silence as re donors is best for all. He declined to say where the seminars take place, citing security reasons: "We've been advised that there are more ethical problems if you disclose than if you don't."

Reviews

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

In our highly polarized political environment, author F H Buckley makes a credible case for the breakup of the United States in this rather dense presentation of the WHY question. I understand that if for example, Californians voted to secede, Washington would not send in the 82nd Airborne Division with anticipated high casualties. The Civil War suffered 750,000 deaths which quite understandably would not be tolerated today. Rather, argues Buckley, succession could actually be possible with a Constitutional Convention that might satisfy the Right and Left with no blood loss on either side. Buckley asks if the United States is too big to be manageable in current Washington gridlock. And are we immune from a world wide trend for independence; Ireland and India seceded from Britain, Pakistan seceded from India, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia broke up into 9 smaller countries, The Soviet Union broke up into a number of smaller nations, Catalans are working toward secession from Spain and Scotland, the UK. What all these breakaway nations/movements have in common is their desire for independence, like our desire for independence from England in 1776.

I must admit I was more interested in the HOW questions for example, if California were to be allowed to exit the US, how would their relationship with the US evolve. Would it be amicable or antagonistic. Buckley believes the former, that trade would be reciprocal and relations generally normalized. And if Calexit became a reality, would other state/geographic groups like New England or the Northwest quickly follow suit. Would a rush for the exit doors adversely impact the US is a key question left unasked.

[Matthew Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

This...this sure is a book by a libertarian moron. If you'd like to read a book by a libertarian moron, I cannot recommend this highly enough. He does get a second star for his lone good point: the smart people in this country should definitely leave the morons in the south behind. Other than that, don't waste your time.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were a lot of good points that Buckley made, but it seems that his focus was primarily on the political and legal arguments of a potential American secession, not much was said on the cultural and demographic issues that could spawn secessionist movements across the nation. Buckley to an extent seems to recognize that the current sociopolitical polarization in America is not going to dissipate from the minds of the masses anytime soon, which is why I think he promoted the "secession lite" arguments in the latter half of the book. Buckley, I think, believes that some form of political compromise can be achieved through a greater push towards state's rights, that such a plan could drive the polarization down. I have seen similar arguments from Libertarian writers, but given how everything is today, I really doubt the "secession lite" plans could appease anyone.

I will commend Buckley for tackling this topic. The ideas and issues surrounding potential secession scenarios need to be brought to the forefront of the national stage. Expect more works like this one to be published by authors of various ideologies in the near future.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good argument for why secession or other form of breakup is both desirable in many ways and also less negative than at times in the past (Civil War). Does a good job of presenting the pro-breakup arguments (better economic and political freedom, existing cultural splits, and the option for more policy innovation by places like California). Some of these might be strawmen (I assume the author is on the right and doesn't want the kind of innovation California will conduct), but still presented reasonably. The other argument is that some form of breakup won't be violently opposed like the Civil War both because it won't be about something morally odious, and because individual rights, trade, etc. can be protected far better now even in a devolved post-US situation than in the past.

Two things aren't addressed in this argument (and are mentioned in the final chapter of the book, at least the first point). One, the geopolitical risk -- rivalry with China requires the US be at least present size, if not larger, but also of course rivalry with China wouldn't happen if the US were devolved (or if China were devolved somehow...). Two, mass immigration -- it's possible to change the overall demographics of a country through continued immigration, especially with one or two generations of growth after. As a result, any breakup beyond autonomy or increased federalism is probably at odds with the political agendas of both the right and the left, at least of the elites, despite potentially being in the best interest of individuals.

[Scipio Africanus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great analysis of what secession would look like in this day and age and the case for and against it. Highly recommended read in these uncertain times.

[Jason Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite provocative but intriguingly backed up by data. This is not a polemic but rather a well thought out attempt to find a way forward.

[Chris McDonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fine. But lacks the depth that would make it better

[CR]

Few people have written non-fiction books advocating for a future split of the USA. Dr. Michael Hart wrote a really good book called Restoring America, but unfortunately the first half of the book is nothing but a discussion of race issues. Daniel Miller’s book TEXIT is by far the best, but it only addresses Texas secession. The content in Douglas MacKinnon’s book The Secessionist States of America would fit on two pages.

Now, it’s true that there are two books on future American secession that are collections of essays, but they are academic rather than an argument for taking a course of action. One is edited by David Gordon called Secession, State and Liberty. The other, edited by Donald Livingston, is called Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century. I guess I’m more attracted to free internet essays, because I haven’t read these.

F.H. Buckley, a pro-Trump law professor at George Mason University and editor of the American Spectator (a conservative magazine) is an American, but formerly a Canadian who lived in Quebec throughout the Quebec secessionist years. His book American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup is not detailed or long, but it is easy to read, engaging, and quick. The book is a philosophical overview of the potential for American secession that draws from the extensive debate on Quebec secession he witnessed over the decades. Buckley writes of gridlock in DC here:

…we are now facing another constitutional crisis, as we did in the 1850s, when Congress was unable to compromise on slavery or avert the impending civil war. Today again, changes that must be made seemingly can’t be made because of our divisions and failure to compromise. The Constitution was designed for another country , one in which people agreed on fundamental principles, and that’s not today’s America. We are divided on things that used to unite us.

Buckley is strongest when, as a law professor, he masterfully recounts in several pages why secession is constitutional:

The delegates thought of the government under the Articles of Confederation , and then under the Constitution they were drafting , as a compact among thirteen states, and they believed that when one state thought its rights had been traduced by the federal government it could withdraw from the compact, even as one party can rescind a contract when the other party has breached it . That’s what Madison argued , first in the Constitutional Convention, then in Federalist 43 and then in the Virginia Ratifying Convention. It was an argument he would repeat in drafting the 1798 Virginia Resolutions. In its ratifying convention , Virginia reserved the right to secede when the powers granted to the federal government had been perverted, to the injury or oppression of the state. That, said Madison, would safeguard Virginia should it object to the federal government. So Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution was expressly conditioned on a right of secession. How then could it be deemed unconditional?

Buckley breaks new ground with an analysis that finds significant inverse correlations between the population of a country and the happiness, income, and corruption of its people. Buckley argues that secession has advantages because empirically, a review of polling and economic data shows that nations that are smaller are happier and richer than nations that are larger.

The United States is very wealthy, but we’re not as rich as we’d be with less public corruption. That’s the message from Figure 6.1 , which plots a country’s wealth (the 2017 per capita gross domestic product) against its 2016 CPI ranking. Among the 141 countries examined, corrupt and poor Venezuela is in the lower left corner, while honest and rich Luxembourg and Singapore are in the top right corner. The diagonal line represents a statistical regression that captures the relation between wealth and honesty, or between public corruption and poverty. The model tells us that if America, with a CPI ranking of 75, could move up to Canada’s 82, the resulting increase in national wealth would amount to a $6,000 pay raise for every American. It would be a $ 12,000 increase if we moved to New Zealand’s 89.

He proposes that American states stop short of full secession, and settle for “home rule,” where only a few things such as foreign policy are handled by the central government. This leaves less to the central government than the US Constitution ever has. I believe that this would only work in a federation of red states, not in a 50-state Union, because blue states have proven with Roe v Wade that they can’t respect the wishes of red states.

Because “home rule” could be defined in many ways, Buckley does not give details on this. If home rule includes the right of freedom of movement among all the states, then immigration is necessarily left in the hands of the central government, which is a non-starter for real conservatives.

If a decentralization movement gained enough momentum to change the US to a “home rule” system, how would they maintain that system without their own armies to enforce their sovereignty? It’s the proven military firepower to enforce a decision to secede that forces other states to respect the rights of a state. If a decentralization movement gained enough momentum to change the US to a “home rule” system, they would be sorely tempted to persevere until they had acquired the right of a state to its own military. What would tempt them to stop short of full secession? They could look forward to, after secession, joining a federation of like-minded states on their own terms, and be free of imperialistic blue states.

Setting aside my skepticism of maintaining any kind of federation with traitorous, blasphemous, and soon-to-be bankrupt blue states, FH Buckley’s book American Secession is otherwise well-reasoned and has a realistic and accurate point of view. It’s certainly worth the cost of the book. I’d say only Daniel Miller’s book TEXIT is more worthy of your time. TEXIT is applicable to any state with access to international waters. You’ll hardly find any overlap between American Secession and TEXIT, so they’re a good pair.
For more, visit https://secession.substack.com

[Steve Dunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very timely book. Great discussion of why this could happen, how it could be done and why people would want to.

Put me down as a yes

[Nancy Head · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for every American who cares about what comes next.

[Susannah Castledine · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting take on a controversial topic, and Buckley argues convincingly in favour of secession over divisions in America, its size, lack of faith in the gov and most importantly shows how secession could be constitutionally viable. However I feel at times his argument is a little simplistic and, I won’t lie, he threw me at the end by declaring himself a unionist having argued for secession for literally a whole book

[Mark Niles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and sweet. I like this book. Buckley makes a convincing argument for both sides (secession vs union). I will not reveal which side he is on but it is hard to tell until the end. Spent some time on historical perspective but not too much. Recently read another Secession related book that was too 'history heavy' for my purposes.

[Brandon Minster · Rating 4 out of 5]

A difficult subject expertly handled. Lays out the downside of fighting the Civil War while being clearly antislavery and pro-civil liberties. Two or three weird asides (Buckley doesn't like bike lanes or anti-hate yard signs) that should have been left out. Good use of relevant Canadian history without overdoing it. Goes quickly, interesting throughout.

[Tara L. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is hit or miss. Wanted to read something from someone from a different political ideology than my own and whereas there are some interesting facts and historical anecdotes I don’t think Buckley succeeded in his quest for proving the validity of succession. As well some chapters / paragraphs would have non-sequitor or inserts and would divert you from that chapters message.

[Patrick Trepanier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent introduction to the current Divided States of America.
Prof. Buckley introduces many different ways to address our country's brokennes, including the Article V Convention of States as well as other movements to address America's current challenges (and hopefully avoid another violent Civil War).

[Wes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This isn't the most well written book. Like other reviews have mentioned, it is quite repetitive. However, I did really enjoy the historical references to the Constitutional Convention and the different viewpoints that the founding fathers had on the role of the federal government.

[Dan Wieberdink · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the most well written book, but worthwhile and thought provoking. I was surprised by the number of secession movements already underway. His presentation of some middle ground alternatives was entirely new to me and helpful.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provocative.

[Herr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting book

[Jeff Petersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provocative.

[Melanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting ideas. I would like to hear more about the possibility of home rule - less federal power, more local power.