Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America's Imperfect Union

by Richard Kreitner

From journalist and historian Richard Kreitner, a "powerful revisionist account"of the most persistent idea in American these supposedly United States should be broken up (Eric Foner). The novel and fiery thesis of Break It Up is The United States has never lived up to its name—and never will. The disunionist impulse may have found its greatest expression in the Civil War, but as Break It Up shows, the seduction of secession wasn’t limited to the South or the nineteenth century. It was there at our founding and has never gone away.   With a scholar’s command and a journalist’s curiosity, Richard Kreitner takes readers on a revolutionary journey through American history, revealing the power and persistence of disunion movements in every era and region. Each New England town after Plymouth was a secession from another; the thirteen colonies viewed their Union as a means to the end of securing independence, not an end in itself; George Washington feared separatism west of the Alleghenies; Aaron Burr schemed to set up a new empire; John Quincy Adams brought a Massachusetts town’s petition for dissolving the United States to the floor of Congress; and abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison denounced the Constitution as a pro-slavery pact with the devil.   From the “cold civil war” that pits partisans against one another to the modern secession movements in California and Texas, the divisions that threaten to tear America apart today have centuries-old roots in the earliest days of our Republic. Richly researched and persuasively argued, Break It Up will help readers make fresh sense of our fractured age.  

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Civil War, Audiobook, The United States Of America

497 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 18, 2020

Reviews

[John Munro · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author goes to great lengths to show that the idea of secession from the Union is not a concept unique to the Civil War. It has been suggested as a solution to American political dilemmas since the Revolutionary era. He cites the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions during the Adams administration in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts and many other examples though the Civil War up to the current day. At various times throughout the history of the country, individual and group of states have threatened to secede from the Union, many citing the words from the Declaration of Independence as justification: '...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Most of the instances of secessionist proposals he describes have arisen, directly or indirectly from the economic conflict between the agrarian, slave-holding South and the more industrial North,. But the proposals to separate states from the Union did not always originate from the South. One of the more interesting secessionist promoters was the abolitionist William LLoyd Garrison, who saw the idea as a way to eliminate slavery by declaring it unlawful in the North , and severing the South from the Union. Slaves would then escape their plantation bondage by moving to the North.

While the number of secessionist initiatives covered in the book is remarkable, there are many off-hand comments by individuals, named and anonymous, that don't lend validity to the idea, as they were delivered in the heat of debate, and were not followed up.

Kreitner is concerned about the current political polarization, and the tendency of some politicians and leaders to propose separation from the Union as a means to thwart a federal government that has wielded too much power over the states.

What isn't covered in the book is the impracticality of secession by a state or region of the country. I think the book would be more complete has he addressed this conundrum. What would be the disposition of the military , its bases, personnel and movable assets, if, say , California , Washington and Oregon decided to form a separate country? What would happen to the economies of the region if it was cut off from federal funds? Would tariffs be imposed om trade with the U.S.? Would the U.S. be obligated to defend the region if North Korea launched a ICBM at Los Angles? What would be the policy for immigration, not only for Mexico and Canada , but from their former country?

The advancements in trade, technology, agriculture and communications have more tightly integrated the regions of the country as to make the likelihood of secession near zero. We should wok on reducing the political conflicts affecting the country, without having to worry about states leaving the Union.

[Rama Rao · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some reflections on the creation of United States of America (Two stars)

America is in a state of crisis, says the author. After reflecting on precolonial days that lead to the American Revolution, and challenging times in building the nation, he observes that it is more polarized towards division rather than a union! He sees flaws in the founders’ wish to forge a democracy: The new world did not create American exceptionalism but produced radicalism and failed hopes. According to him, the puritans, native Americans, enslaved Africans, women with little rights, and new immigrants from Europe offers a picture of the messy years of American birth. The years of the American Revolution were times of changing loyalties, fierce battles and internecine feuds that provides a stage for his reinterpretation of the history. This is a very narrow approach to narrate the American history especially when he finds that the 2016 victory of Donald Trump has furthered the division of the union. This ignores the decades of mishandling of American affairs. It is a matter of choice to bring a new idea into the White House that did not include professional politicians who are corrupt and toxic to the bone!

Formative years are always challenging to any nation, and I wished the author had a broader view in his analysis. When English colonists left Asia and Africa, these colonies faced the same challenges that United States faced in creating a union with serious domestic issues. Similar challenges were faced by East European countries and former territories of Soviet Union which collapsed in 1991. The author ignores key features that made United States as one of the strongest and powerful nations in the world. For example, the battles with Native Americans on the western and Southern frontier, and the bloody civil war that lost more than a million Americans. North prevailed in the Civil War ending slavery and giving the country a new birth of freedom. But many confederates found new opportunities in the West. Settlers from the East were pushing into the West, where the seizure of Mexican lands at the end of the Mexican American War and the occupation of Native American lands created new racial hierarchies. The mining, cattle, and oil industries created wealth and neo-fiscal conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.

There is no crisis over our national identity. This is manufactured over decades by politicians. Divisions at local and regional areas are not new. They were always there, and politicians have manipulated the system to their advantage to divide people along economic, social, and racial barriers. This is heard every four years!

[David Dayen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A terrific corrective on the history of our exceptional union, which from the beginning has been on the verge of cracking apart. The final 160 years are compressed into 80 pages, and I'm not convinced that disunion in that era is more than a rhetorical device. But the early history from the Revolution to the Civil War is fascinating.

[La Crosse County Library · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read this book after the violence that erupted in the Capitol on January 6th, I will admit to having chills running down my spine at the eerie historical parallels raised in this book. National discontent and strife are “American as apple pie” as the clichéd saying goes, predating the American Revolution itself.



History is truly more complicated than our national myths of an indestructible Union would have us believe. I love books that challenge our preconceived notions of history, narratives put forth not just by us, but by countries around the world. For me, the approaching of history from many perspectives to see its nuances is important for critical thinking about the politics and events of the current day. Break It Up (2020) is one of those books that seeks to shed light on America’s complicated past.

One of the bigger revelations for me was that the South’s secession from the Union that sparked the bloody Civil War was by no means a uniquely "Southern" way of dealing with intractable political issues. The North dallied on and off with the prospect of forming their own republic as well, in response to popular frustrations with the kicking-the-can-down-the-road compromises made by Northern politicians to appease the South and preserve the Union over making attempts to address serious problems like the abhorrent institution of slavery.

This papering over of critical issues—many of them systemic in nature—in favor of presenting a united front has left us still dealing with many of the same issues today that first emerged after the Founding: systemic racism and sexism, income inequality, and corruption (to name a few). Looming over all these unresolved issues are the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, which have starkly revealed the societal divides that are an ever-present undercurrent when left to fester. The interconnectivity of today’s technology has inevitably been abused by other governments to drive further wedges among different populations in America.

Now, this book came out in August of last year, prior to the 2020 presidential vote and the January 6th violence at the Capitol. The chorus of “It can’t happen here!” seems to ring hollow now in this tense national moment. As someone who loves their country, it is scary to think about more events like January 6th happening in the future.

A silver lining is perhaps the events of January 6th will prove a potent national wake-up call to take more seriously the project of making “a more perfect Union” for the many, rather than the few.



-Cora

Find this book and other titles within our catalog.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title says it all, and, as an American historian, I think he's absolutely correct. This country is pretty jerry-rigged and it has been since the Hartford Convention nearly led to the secession of New England at the end of the War of 1812. The problems are still the same, and the South and southern sympathizers are keeping that flame alive even as I write this. Well-written, perceptive and compelling. Worth seeking it out to read.

[Bruce Katz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm having trouble typing, so this will be short -- which is a shame because I have so many passages I'd like to share.

Powerful, timely, simultaneously reassuring and dismaying. Illuminating, flawed in some measure, and provocative. The author demonstrates that divisiveness and anger are hardwired into American culture. Violence between competing groups flared up before, during, and after the Revolution. Threats of secession have been commonplace from the beginning. At least one signer of the Constitution believed the union wouldn't last because it would tear itself apart. At various times in our history, Vermont threatened to secede, New England threatened to secede (they might well have beaten the South to it had certain decisions been made in the lead-up to the Civil War), New York City's city council voted to secede in 1861, there were southerners who didn't want to secede in 1861 and northerners who did, and on and on. Not to mention the frequent efforts at nullification on both sides of any issue. It's going on still.

As the subtitle notes, the union is imperfect. It's also terribly fragile. Kreitner doesn't seem terribly optimistic about the country's longevity. We’ve made it through more or less intact so far but as they say in the investment business, past performance is no guarantee of future earnings.

I may come back and add to this review when I'm able. It certainly deserves more than I can say now. For now, I'll simply say that it's a fascinating and engaging book. There was much I hadn't known before, and countless echoes between the past and our current situation. I very highly recommend it.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up. The sections focusing on the colonial era and pre-civil war were excellent. I wish Kreitner had spent more time on 20th century and modern secession movements, as one chapter for 1900 to 2000 did not feel like enough space to delve into Black secession movements or the Western Redoubt movement (and AK and HI barely got a mention). Also, Ruby Ridge is in Idaho, not Montana.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Break It Up poses some big questions about the state of the Union while demonstrating that today’s fracturing along regional, sectional, political, and racial lines is not an aberration. We already know this, of course, but Kreitner’s survey of secession movements encompasses more than the Civil War, revealing the persistence of disunionist sentiment in American history from the very founding of the republic to calls for California to secede in the wake of the 2016 election.

Kreitner pays close attention to the challenges inherent in attempting to unify 13 separate colonies - each with its own relationship to Britain and its own self-interest to guard - into a confederation able to secure its independence. I found these chapters particularly informative and well fleshed out.

I would have liked more information about recent secession movements. Kreitner gallops through post-World War II history at breakneck speed. While these movements had little or no viability, I would be interested to learn more about their adherents’ motivations.

Overall, though, Break It Up offers some fresh perspectives on US history and ends on a more optimistic note than I expected.

[Carl Hendrickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyable account of many of the little known conflicts throughout our history. Who knew so many groups had so often wanted to strike out on their own?

I recommend this for history fans looking for something more than what they learned in school.

A little discouraging towards the end. Perhaps its the recency of the events? However, ultimately the author dangles the hope that we can adapt to make the union work.

[Mason · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential and engaging history of "disunion" in American politics. The question of whether our nation should continue has been present since the moment it was created, and the answer deserves regular re-examination, especially given the complexity of our current climate.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, the author has read some stuff people in the past wrote. That’s nice for him, but there’s not enough data here to make comparisons of then and now really possible. Reading it made me long for a really good analysis of a recent dissolution. Maybe I’ll go see if anyone’s been able to get at good info on the end of the USSR.

[Fonz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Would have been 5 stars, absolutely gripping and 100% factual until the unfortunately preachy last chapter.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a well-written, easy-to-read, and very informative revisionist book about the tendency for the USA to fall apart -- not just during the Civil War - throughout its history. I thought it was a great read mostly - it handled the information with a light touch that made you wonder about Americans, if they always had an anarchic streak, but I thought the final section was a bit tendentious. It was as if the author was showing his cards in the final section and drawing his own conclusions from his book, which were fairly negative. It doesn´t matter overall it's still a fun read - despite the subject, which is the tendency of the country through history to come apart at the seams.

The author more or less condemns much about American politics and the basis upon which the country was founded. And he says so explicitly. And so he is looking at the country from a left-wing perspective, which isn't bad in and of itself, but can be a simplifying focus in some cases. If there isn't a single redeeming thing to say about American history, then what would he say about the history of most other countries - since all countries have their own skeletons in their closet. Unfortunately, the origin of countries itself may be the problem, but even before that, human nature, especially, greed. In effect, he is saying that whatever the purported nobility of the founding documents, the Revolutionary War, etc., it was really a cover for the American rich to impose their will on the rest of the country. I agree with that analysis but I don't think this critique does justice to the entire sweep of American history. It is an oversimplification, and he doesn´t mention that many of the original settlers were not rich, and never became rich, they were fleeing religious persecution etc. If the Revolutionary War was a battle of one rich faction (the Founders) vs the British monarchy (another set of rich, powerful people) why did the ordinary, working class people rally to the Revolutionary cause? There must have been something in it for them, in order for them to fight and die for an independent USA. The tendentiousness stems from seeing the entire American experiment through the lens of left-wing politics - although that may be true, it isn´t the entire story. Anyway, that is my opinion - I think the revisionist view is only partly correct because it doesn´t acknowledge that for millions of people the US has been a Godsend, in that it did offer a haven from the never-ending wars and religious persecutions of Europe, and of course, throughout the world. Anyway the well-researched book does convey a great deal of information about American history - that the reader may not be familiar with, or have forgotten about since studying it in grade school, so from that angle, it is an informative, and even entertaining, to some extent, book.

[David Baer · Rating 4 out of 5]

One forgets that American independence was itself fundamentally a secession from the British Empire. In this endeavor, it was no small thing for the fomenters of revolution to have secured cooperation among the 13 British colonies. For well over a century, the colonies had acted as if they were independent nations. Indeed, the very ringing words “we the people of the United States”, which sound like a declaration of immutable unity, were actually indicative of dissension and disunity among the 13 colonies. The original draft listed each of the colonies by name, but since it was not known if all the states would ratify, and as the document went into effect with only nine of thirteen states on board, the ringing (yet nonspecific) phrasing was introduced.

When we think of American disunion, most of us think about the secession of the Southern slave states in the wake of the first election of Abraham Lincoln. With this book, the author delineates all manner of other political schisms that had at least some potential to break up the USA. Notably, this includes the Northern states prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Kreitner makes much of a little known episode called the Haverhill petition, introduced in the House in 1842, by which 46 citizens of Haverhill Massachusetts called for disunion because a vast proportion of their resources supported institutions that benefitted southern slaveholders, and there were other Northern movements aimed at breaking away from the South. One such movement envisioned annexing Canada as part of a greater New England confederation.

Far from being a topic of remote historical interest, Kreitner says that the work of Reconstruction was never really completed, and that now Americans must choose between joining together to build a truly inclusive, unified country – a multi-racial democracy, politically and economically - or going our separate ways. “We can’t put it off much longer.”

I have to say that I found the audio narrator to be quite annoying. His intonation, down-turning in tone at the end of every sentence, seemed like he was almost being sarcastic and subtly mocking of the material. And then, just as maddeningly or more so, there is the issue of subordinate sentence clauses intoned as though they were their own sentences. For instance, despite that the following quotes are contextually obviously linked in one sentence each, one hears

“Fire and frost are not more opposite in their natures than those characters are. One editor observed of Jefferson and Adams.”

“Republicans were appalled ‘by measures more worthy of the eighth or ninth century’. Jefferson wrote, than of an age of enlightenment like their own.”

“…Ron Chernow, in his Hamilton biography has his hero utter [a certain quote] several days later as he lay prostrate on his deathbed. Burr’s bullet lodged near his spine.”

One gets the impression the narrator is reading the words one at a time with no real comprehension of the thematic content.

[Alex Gruenenfelder · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has researched secession movements for years, this book is a must-read if one wants to fully understand the issue. Kreitner opens by analyzing how virtually every kind of political group has considered their version of secession, and this book is a history tome of those movements. Even the Founding Fathers weren't above secession, being a country as we were built on the concept. In this book of the history our teachers didn't teach us, we are able to understand our fears of a civil war and the reality behind that past and future.

No book on a controversial issue is perfect, and this is no exception. Some of what Kreitner writes about were mass movements, while others were fringe. He tries to draw a distinction there, but sometimes it all feels like it blurs together. Kreitner studied racial separation proposals for this book, but it feels odd to place small groups like the Nation of Islam in the same category as the Confederate States. Overall though, I think Kreitner does a good job at addressing these topics, especially racism. Whether on the side of racial justice or racial supremacy, there is no history of secessionism without considering the history of racism and race relations.

This is largely a book about history, but there is some telling of recent events. Yes California is one example of the Calexit fronts, which became very popular after Trump's election. A number of prominent figures, and a sizable percentage of Californians, became intrigued by the idea. When I was first getting into politics, I was fascinated by this and met many of the involved activists, finding their views resonating with many rational Californians. It was also, however, backed strongly by Russian propagandists, who have been key to advancing modern secession movements. Through the weaponization of our division, California politicians are just one example of those who have been more and more using state sovereignty to defy the federal government.

If Kreitner shows anything with this book, it is that the fear of a divided nation and a civil war on the horizon has been constant for the entire history of the United States. We have always been a divided country. This book was written recently, but it did not account for events like January 6th that change our nation's meaning further. Only through an honest study of our history, and an authentic path forward, can we save it. If we can't, Kreitner poses a pressing question throughout: would the United States be worth saving?

[Dan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the beginning of the work dragged out for me, Kreitner hit his stride in the discussion of secessionist ideas in the 19th century and into the present. He impressively outlines how threats of secession were commonplace, and the fact that South Carolina threatened to secede was less surprising then the fact that it actually did that time.

This passage was really eye opening for me: "Today, those who defend the right of secession often downplay the evils of slavery and the extent to which the Confederacy was formed defend it, while those rightly horrified by chattel bondage and clear-eyed about how it caused the Civil War too hastily dismiss one of America's founding principles - the right to alter or abolish a destructive form of government - as irreparably sullied by association with slave holders. We need not limit our political imaginations to outworn platitudes and simplistic assumptions that have made and would keep us prisoners of an inherited, unalterable past." The fact that slaver scum secceeded has tarnished the idea of secession that was, in-fact, common. And that the question "can we leave a failed union?" has only been tested that one time, and failed through conquest.

"In the years to come, the idea of pulling the plug on the whole experiment may appeal to some who never imagined themselves as secessionists, especially those who have long defended the exercise of federal power. Progressives may awaken from the century long dream that a system designed by and for the rich can be wielded for noble ends. Maybe only shrinking the sphere whose extension James Madison defended as necessary for neutralizing movements for "an abolition of debts [and] an equal division of property" can reverse our steady march toward plutocracy. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged as much in 1804, days before his death, when he warned that disunion would make democracy "more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent." Now that so many of us have become devout Hamiltonians, maybe he ought to be taken at his word.

This book blends well with "How the South Won the Civil War" which I just recently read, both of which discuss the survival of the ideals of the Confederacy following the Civil War; HTSWTCW focusing on the spread of oligarchical ideals westward, and this book on the continued ideals of secession. One looks on how an anti-democratic idea survived it's trial by fire, and how one that may be more democratic than we think died.

[Paul Bastian · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolute must read for the U.S. History aficionado and the anarchist alike. Kreitner’s exhaustive research has provided an intelligent and multifaceted review of the true secessionist ethos that, while muted by politicos and revisionist historians alike, thoroughly pervades the lifespan of the nation. From even before the time of the Revolutionary War, it’s revealed how it was never merely the southern colonies who held designs for their own sovereignty from an overbearing federal government. Continuing onward from the days of the usual suspects of founding father fame through the Jackson, Polk, and Harrison eras, it becomes clear that there were always bubbling tensions from this corner or that to leave the Union. With less concentration on, but not overlooking, the 20th century’s popular separatist movements, the reader can extrapolate how a long history of division, rooted in foundational documents of the nation, has led to the terse, tense, and fractious schism we currently inhabit.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Kreitner's book presents a unique perspective that this country was never united. There has always been threats of secession and refusal to support the government. The most famous moment of secession is obviously the Civil War when South Carolina wrote its Ordinances of Secession after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860. However, there were talks of secession and division long before the Confederacy. New England, for example, was adamant about not being part of the Union in the early 1800s. California had separatists that did want to be part of the United States at all. Even Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams discussed seceding from the country.

I was taught as a boy in Social Studies classes that we were always a united country, but that is not entirely true. After 9/11, I remember there being unity, but that has long passed since that horrible day. Kreitner's book was interesting to read, and he writes well. I am passionate about history, but I read books that were essentially like reading a textbook where there was no excitement in the pages. This book is not like that at all. I was engaged in the entire book.

[Lonnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly informative and readable. Particularly relevant in these present times.

[Zach Church · Rating 3 out of 5]

The central premise is that the nation was born in compromise and only continued compromise (usually northern acquiescence to Southern demands) has held it together.

That's not an original notion, but what the book does have going for it is quite a bit of interesting reading about the variety of lesser-known regional secessions and threats of disunity. I enjoyed reading about some of the more militant abolitionist folks, though there too its not new ground, just very competent new packaging.

[B Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very timely. Division has a long history in the US. I guess we have often been on the brink of disintegration. I particularly like the colonial and pre civil war section. We were never taught that in school.

[Megan Doney · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really timely and enlightening book that illustrates how division within the States isa feature, not a bug--and it asks us to really consider why we insist on this union.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

A novel way of telling US history from the colonial period through the Trump presidency. Southern Confederates during the Civil War weren't the first Americans to try to secede from the Union. They were just the most successful.

Before Fort Sumter, New England Puritans, Aaron Burr, and Californians were just some of those who seriously planned and even tried to establish their own nations.

After Appomattox, southern secession continued through a cold Civil War, but more surprisingly, groups across the country also plotted to secede, from western farmers in the 1890s to Black Power radicals in the 1960s to #calexit after the election of Trump in 2016 to white supremacist terrorist groups today.

The conclusion is that the Union has never been perfect and is unlikely to ever become so. Keeping it together in the future is not an end in itself, and under the right circumstances, breaking it up might be justified.

It's all about the purpose of the Union. Is it to provide oligarchs of one kind or another a way to divide and rule the people? Or is it a way for the ideals of the Declaration of Independence to be finally realized? Only if the latter is the unity of our large and unwieldy nation worth saving, according to Kreitner.

[DW Rowlands · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting book, and honestly better than I usually expect of a non-academic history. I certainly hadn't realized justhow common calls for secession were from the Revolution to the Civil War, and I certainly hadn't understood the Burr Conspiracy at all. The portion of the book that covers secessionist movements after the Civil War is also interesting, even if Richard Kreitner has trouble finding much in the way of really serious secessionist movements after the Reconstruction. I was certainly horrified to realize that I'd never heard about the early-20th-Century ethnic cleansing of Tejanos in South Texas, and it's something I need to look into in more depth.

[Robert Stevens · Rating 4 out of 5]

The idea of dissolution of the union is as American as apple pie and barbecues on the Fourth of July. This book explores our country’s history with a different lens than what is often discussed: how on the verge of dissolution we have been over the years and how what divides us remains similar, but has still evolved over the years. This book is particularly strong, as has been mentioned elsewhere, when discussing the time surrounding the Revolution and the Civil War. Like another review of this book, I, too, wish more than a gloss over was done of the 21st Century.

[Mark Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly enjoyed this book. It certainly wasn't the best history I've read, but it did shake up my previously unchallenged ways of thinking about our country, which is the most anyone can hope for.

The premise of the book is that the states of the United States have never been truly united. Even before our nation's founding and well beyond, the states squabbled with one another as loyalties and identities never extended past territorial borders. Even to this day, we still think of ourselves in terms of our states and can see our values and our very ways of living impacted by whether we conceive of ourselves as a New England Yankee, or a proud Texan, a quaint Midwestern, etc. I must confess, during the Trump presidency, I was loathe to call myself an American and was happier still thinking of myself as a New England liberal (no matter that I wasn't even living there anymore!)

And indeed,, throughout history, it seems Americans have frequently thought of themselves as something other than Americans (barring some great calamity in which the fiction of "the nation" magically coalesces or that your political group is in power making decisions that shape the whole nation). Indeed, the divisions crop up constantly in our history....whether it was New England vs. The rest, or the South vs. The rest, or Vermont vs. New England, or the West vs. The rest, or West Virginia vs the Confederacy, or Texas vs. The rest..and on and on. Interestingly, Kreitner makes the case that contrary to the belief that the South (looking at you especially, South Carolina) started all the heated talk about secession, it was actually New England that first wanted to split from the rest of the country!

One thing I will say, though,, I'd that as I was reading it was hard to tell how genuine the often repeated calls for secession actually were (except those before the Civil War obviously). In truth, most calls for disunity felt a bit like hollow rhetoric from some losing political faction or else the cockamamie idea of countless political dreamers. Kreitner plays the historical agnostic and takes all such calls for secession at their word, something I can't begrudge him for.

At the end of the book, Kreitner weighs in on the great divorce debate. He seems to gesture that break up should happen or else it is just a matter of time. It was interesting to hear his take. Indeed, after reading this book
I must confess feeling that perhaps things would be better for all citizens with just small squabbling republics instead of a large disfunctional union.

I felt this way especially because the book makes clear that putting union ahead of anything else meant putting up with slavery and other evils. Nowadays, remaining "e plurbus unim" seems to mean allowing an increasing fascist political party to gain power, shape national policy, and tear down the fragile vestiges of democratic governance. Maybe it's just not worth it...

The book also helped me think about US history as an elaborate tapestry adorned with the great union myth...that we are destined to be one nation and that thoughts of disunity are morally repugnant (unless, of course, your side is the one calling for it). The book also made me appreciate how the US Constitution was a document ultimately crafted to stave off calls for democracy. The founders hoped that having one united country under the Constitution would protect the monied and landed interests (and it still works that way 200+ years later!) rather than distribute power more equitably to the common people.

Overall, a great read.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Break it up” is a book that chronicles the divisions that have occurred within the United States from the time the original 13 colonies broke away from England in 1776, to the present day when Texas and California have both talked about leaving the Union.

The book covers the secessional forces that have always been at play which have been part of America’s “Imperfect Union” and continues especially during the recent election that returned Donald Trump to power.

The thing I liked most about Break it Up, was that it presented a long series of facts that show that at most moments in its nearly 250 years of history, the United States were disunited and that a most times we on the verge of breaking apart. This contrarian point of view differs from what one normally thinks of the United States as a powerful unified entity that will stand the test of time.

Richard Kreitner, the author, describes this elegantly as the liberal versus conservative point of view on page 351 when he states: “while Liberals called for closer attention to oppression and division, conservatives demanded an uncomplicated, triumphalist story in which America had always been united and right.”

In my view, most of the world sees the United States the way the conservatives do – united yes, and perhaps not necessary always right.

While I like the contrarian point of view and learn from it, it isn’t realistic for there are both forces pulling the United States apart and those holding it together. It’s a kind of dynamic tension that is based on defining rights and responsibilities – of the individuals, companies, institutions, and various levels of government within America. These ebb and flow with the result that America seems to ebb and flow between disunion and union – seeming to come apart during bad times and then be pulled together to face common issues and importantly common enemies.

(I for one concur with the author, that the end of the Cold War in 1989, left America groping for a shared purpose. I’d add to this that America almost seems to need a common enemy, for it was born fighting. When it doesn’t have a common enemy, it turns on itself until another enemy is found – such as with 9-11. Now that radical Islam has been somewhat subdued America is again fighting itself – as we saw in this year’s election.)

I felt that the book could have done two things differently. First it could have weighed the forces pulling the country apart and match them with those pulling it together – giving a Net score – and where the country stood over the course of its entire history.

I also felt the book should have presented how America compares historically with other “Empires” such as Rome, China’s various dynasties, the United Kingdom, and the USSR. How do the forces that broke apart these empires differ with America – if they differ at all.

That said, I like different point of view and well-reasoned argument. As a result, I’m giving the book high marks for doing this.

[Scott Kennedy · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author has a disillusioned unoptimistic idea of what the union really was. He doesn't really go into any detail with the founding Father's idea of what the union really was. Those like jefferson in madison Had a different view of what states rights were in the union . according to jefferson states could leave the union because it was a compactual agreement. The states were actually separate confederate states before 1865. So the solution was there before the start. Through lincolns war and the federal courta states rights have mostly been abolished. Krietner completely brushes over this unintentionally or intentionally.
Kreitner mostly focuses on the south and pointing out that southerners are racists and only wanted slavery. There was much more to the so called civil war... it was not all a out slavery. Lincoln Essentially invaded the south. And there is this false narrative that Kreitner creates like the north was this great place of freedom were abolitionists ran rampid wanting to free slaves. Aboltiinsts were in the minority. He does the Massachusetts and whiskey rebellions correct. Kreitners interpretation of secession , is more in accordance with lincolns ideas. Lincolns interpretation of session was wrong. Kreitner does not investigate the legality of session. He should investigate what secession was through the eyes of jefferson and madison. Kreitner really seems paint southerns painted as white racists. While racism certainly exists on all sides in the union. Kreitners interpretation of reconstruction is also false. Republicans were carpetbaggers but most of tgus was do to johnson and grants presidency. Phillip Leighs Reconstruction is a much better book ablut reconstruction.
I do agree with the author about this country has never been united. the land is too vast and the thoughts and cultures are races too different.
"secession" and the American civil war is brushed over too losely and the Kreitner should investigate secession from legal constitutional argument.
I agree that breaking it up may be the best solution. Breaking it up never needs to go to civil war or other bloodshed. It can all done be safely and legally. This whole idea doesn't make a lot of sense. I wish he would make more sense of this idea because i feel its a logical solution. I feel Kreitner needs more research and less narrative.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very timely and lucid overview of the persistent thread of disunionist and separatist political movements in US history. I ordered this book the same day I first heard about it, and it definitely helps add nuance and heft to the conviction that some kind of secession or break up of the United States is the best answer to the insoluble and urgent challenges that our hopelessly broken federal system prevents us from addressing.

There are times when I wish Kreitner's analysis would slow down and go a little deeper into the implications of his argument, and sometimes a random anecdote is asked to bear more weight than it should (so a candidate for office tweeted a wild idea ... are we sure that reflects something deeper than the mental equivalent of a belch?). He's a journalist, not a historian or political theorist, so this may not be the right place to look for meticulous and rigorous answers to "if that's so, then what?"

But he asks many of the most important questions here, and in an engaging and brisk tour shows that you will have lots of historical company if you're asking the same questions. He also surfaces some connections and continuities that hadn't been so clear to me before (the deep continuity of white Southern resistance to federal power continuing right through the present day, and its success holding the rest of us hostage since 1776).

If you've ever found yourself wondering "how United?" or even "why United?" you'll appreciate _Break it Up_.

[Christopher Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of several books that I would never have picked up absent a recommendation from a trusted friend. Within a few chapters, I despaired of having potentially missed it.

Must like Barry' Lynn's Liberty From All Masters, it offers a history and context that is important but has been mostly ignored (or suppressed). The discussion about the role of the Constitution in preserving slavery and the large push by northerners for the north to secede blew my brain. I'm guessing it has been mostly ignored in schools and popular approaches to the Civil War because it makes everything much messier to draw simple lessons from.

The deep history of challenges to forming the United States - that the colonies tended to not trust or like each other added greatly to my understanding of the dynamics during the Revolutionary War. Many of the points were obvious in retrospect but I had simply never considered them, in part because the many things I have read about this time never bothered discussing them.

And how that distrust then led to the dynamics and frustrations throughout the late 1700's and early 1800's again makes much more sense to me now.

Other issues - like the early efforts to cut the west coast free of the rest of the U.S. were news to me, though I expect folks out there have a better sense of it. Maybe.

At any rate, this book held lots of surprises and lessons that I hope others find valuable as well.