Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Why do they bother with books in the first place?

Posted by: kehrsam | June 23, 2009 9:40 AM

At the very least, other state-boards have to take matters into their own hands and pick their own textbooks. Texas is big, yes, but if other states don't follow their lead on textbooks, suddenly it will be Texas that has to pay more for their less popular books. Of course, other states probably aren't much better, and have people in charge of the process who are happy to be "forced" into using the abominable Texas-mandated texts.

The only way around his problem is for people to pay attention to local elections and run in them if none of the local candidates are good enough. Active participation is how they wingnuts got there in the first place, and it's how to get rid of them too.

Posted by: aweb | June 23, 2009 9:51 AM

Such a goal requires high numbers of sexually active teenagers, indoctrinated and encourages by anything-goes sex education programs in our public schools

Umm, teens do not need any indoctrination to have sex. Most of them do a good job of discovering it on their own. However, I would love it if they were all indoctrinated to use a condom every single time when they don't want to get pregnant. And of course, abstinence-only "education" provides more business for planned parenthood, and also more business for hospitals and obstetricians when girls are forced to have a baby.

Sotomayor was briefly married thirty years ago, had no children, and has never remarried. She's certainly not going to be a friend of the traditional family, to put it mildly.

Well, she's divorced so that should score points among the traditional family crowd. We know how much they love their divorces. I guess they don't like her because she didn't treat her vagina like a clown car while she was married.

Posted by: catgirl | June 23, 2009 10:09 AM

At the very least, other state-boards have to take matters into their own hands and pick their own textbooks. Texas is big, yes, but if other states don't follow their lead on textbooks, suddenly it will be Texas that has to pay more for their less popular books.

And for the, what, eleven billionth time?

Yes, it does matter. Texas and California are the two biggest purchasers of text books. Therefore, what Texas and California purchase determines what everybody else purchases. It doesn't matter what Rhode Island* wants if they're only able to purchase text books determined by the demands of Texas.

Textbooks are expensive to produce. And there isn't exactly a print on demand business model for them.

The problem is probably exacerbated at the moment, too. Does it look like California has the money to buy new text books?

*Weird. The Firefox spell checker apparently doesn't think "Rhode" is a word.

Posted by: Geds | June 23, 2009 10:27 AM

So they think Souter is a closeted homosexual?

Posted by: Adrienne | June 23, 2009 10:42 AM

it's time to get serious about finding a way for our beloved Texas to exit

There's an excellent book by Albert Hirschman called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. He argues that exit and voice are two responses to perceived decline in organization. The more loyalty there is, the more members will use voice, rather than exit. The more Texans talk about exit, the more they demonstrate that they're no longer loyal to the U.S. We shouldn't just let them go, we should encourage them to go, and have an open immigration policy, perhaps even an assisted resettlement policy, for the refugees who don't want to live in what a Texas without the U.S. would be.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 10:44 AM

The more Texans talk about exit, the more they demonstrate that they're no longer loyal to the U.S. We shouldn't just let them go, we should encourage them to go, and have an open immigration policy, perhaps even an assisted resettlement policy, for the refugees who don't want to live in what a Texas without the U.S. would be.

So because a few Texans are talking secession, the entire state should be booted from the union and the vast majority of its population who don't want to secede made to relocate?

Ummm.....no. Sorry.

Posted by: Gretchen | June 23, 2009 11:17 AM

Now, now, I never used the word "boot," or said we should "force" Texas to leave. I said, "encourage," which is substantively different. And this is in response to the increasing number of secessionist comments by Texas politicos, not just because I don't like the way they vote.

I do believe states have the right to secede. The Constitution is silent on the matter, but keep in mind that the original 13 states came prior to the Constitution--they joined the unioon voluntarily, and there aren't many, if any, voluntary institutions from which one cannot exit. Granted, the case gets a bit fuzzy in the case of states that were created later by the then-already-existing federal government, but I think the logic of secession should stand, simply because it's more democratic. Forcing the people of a state that wants to secede to stay in the union is hardly a democratic act. In fact it's really no better than forcing an unwilling state to leave. And Texas, of course, did join voluntarily (the only independent country to be added after the ratification of the Constitution).

If you're going to force me to be totally serious, what I would support is a referendum in Texas on the matter of secession. People like me could lend their voices in support of it, while others could argue against it. If the referendum passes, we let Texas go and deal with them as a foreign nation. If the referendum fails (as I'm sure it would), the wingnuts shut the fuck up. They probably wouldn't, but being on the losing side of a secession referendum would probably be tough on one's political career.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 11:39 AM

"The other side's agenda is not about helping children. Rather, it is about growing the business volumes and revenues of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

It's about growing business volumes all right, but not Planned Parenthood's.

A plain 1st-tri abortion only costs a few hundred bucks, and that's mostly lab costs, and salaries for receptionists (1) et al.

On the other hand, do you have any idea of how much money changes hands in an adoption? Especially when a healthy white newborn is involved? And up until these damn meddling kids came up with their Roe v Wade scheme, they didn't have to pay a dime of it to the slutty (healthy, white) mother; she was considered lucky to slink away after nine months with only her shame.

These @holes don't care that someone could be making a profit off of pregnancy--their only concern is that that gravy train doesn't come to their station anymore.

(1) Rolling-in-it, stinking-rich, wealthy-beyond-their-wildest-dreams-of-avarice receptionists, if we are to believe the anti-choice crowd. Solid gold desks, diamond-encrusted appointment books, handsome British butlers regularly trotting out little snacks prepared by the trained chefs in the professional kitchens found in the basement of each and every Planned Parenthood facility--a wholly owned subsidiary of Richie Rich, Inc.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | June 23, 2009 11:58 AM

it's time to get serious about finding a way for our beloved Texas to exit...

Well, at least he's not talking about moving to another country! That would be unpatriotic!

James Hanley #15: "They probably wouldn't [shut up]..." Fixed.

Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 12:13 PM

James F,

Thanks. I can't imagine how that equivocation slipped in there!

Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 12:24 PM

James Hanley said:

If you're going to force me to be totally serious, what I would support is a referendum in Texas on the matter of secession. People like me could lend their voices in support of it, while others could argue against it. If the referendum passes, we let Texas go and deal with them as a foreign nation.

Do you live in Texas? If not, then I'd say that while you're allowed your opinion, it should have no effect whatsoever on whether the state actually secedes or not. As a Texas resident mine should, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the matter were put up to a state-wide popular vote it would be shot down immediately.

If the referendum fails (as I'm sure it would), the wingnuts shut the fuck up. They probably wouldn't, but being on the losing side of a secession referendum would probably be tough on one's political career.

Nah, they'd just paint themselves as the oppressed underdogs and continue to blather, as wingnuts always do.

Posted by: Gretchen | June 23, 2009 12:27 PM

At a minimum, the United States should be devolving into much more of a confederation-type system. Why should I, in California, have to be governed by nutty decisions made by Alabamans in Washington DC? Or, even, nuts from Orange County?

Actually, it's been the central government that's been instrumental in protecting us from the tyrannical and bigoted actions of local feudal-lords and theocrats. That's why they hate Washington so much.

Lincoln was, arguably, wrong. Lincoln's centralizing decisions helped create the system of centralized corporate power and led directly to many of our problems today.

Bullshit -- centralized corporate power was becoming a reality with or without Lincoln's help. One of the main reasons our government is so much more centralized than before, is to more effectively counter that power.

(And no, letting states secede won't help there either: it would only give us smaller governments and more divided people, who would be less able to form a unified front against their policies. Do you think Africa's relative disunity has helped them to resist corporate exploitation?)

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 12:32 PM

Letting Texas, or any other state dominated by the forces of backwardness, secede, would not help anyone, any more than letting the Taliban rule Afghanistan helped anyone. Progressive elements in the US need to unite, speak up and stand up for what's right, and lead the whole country in the right direction. Today's right-wing secessionist crybabies would, if not kept in check, only become tomorrow's failed state, basket-case, and possible hotbed of intolerance and terrorism.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 12:39 PM

James Hanley - technically, Vermont, California, and Hawaii were also countries before they were states...

Otherwise, right on. Your referendum idea is great, and we should encourage it.

Posted by: Paul from NH | June 23, 2009 1:04 PM

A Canadian here.

They probably wouldn't,

Probably?

The PQ has lost two, and they still haven't.

but being on the losing side of a secession referendum would probably be tough on one's political career.

Tell that to René Lévesque, and what killed Jacques Parizeau's career was his own big mouth, (blaming the loss on "money and the ethnic vote").

Posted by: Rick Pikul | June 23, 2009 1:10 PM

Gretchen,

I agree the referendum would lose, but why shouldn't I participate in trying to sway opinion if such a referendum were held? If Texans refused to listen to me because I'm a Yankee, all well and good. I think this is the first time I've heard you take a distinctly anti-libertarian position! I'm not trying to attack you--if there were more people in Texas like you, and fewer like the right-wing nutjobs, I wouldn't mind Texas any more than I mind Ohio (that is, I could hold my nose and tolerate it).

Paul,

Yes on Hawaii, but it was foribly incorporated as a territory before being made a state. It wasn't an independent country that joined voluntarily, which is why I didn't count it. But you're correct that it was in fact independent at a time prior to becoming a state.

But Vermont and California? You've lost me there. California was part of Mexico, and we invaded Mexico and forcibly took Cali (along with New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and southern Texas), which we then made a territory. I'm not aware that California was ever functionally independent, but perhaps you know something I don't?

Vermont claimed independence (something I just learned while researching a response to your claim--thanks for the tip), but was still claimed by New York as its territory (having been territory disputed between NY and New Hampshire. From what I read, it looks like they were trying to secede from New York to join the union as their own state, rather than every functionally being independen. So now I'm not sure how to classify it for purposes of my argument. Did anyone outside Vermont officially recognize it as an independent country?

Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 1:41 PM

Regardless of this or that state's history, granting a right to secede makes absolutely ZERO practical sense. Every major policy debate will have winners and losers; and if the losers can just up and say "Fuck all y'all, we're outta here" whenever the going gets tough (or when their guy loses the next election), then the country will fall apart in short order and nothing serious will get done.

Democracy requires compromise, and secession is normally done to avoid compromise.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 1:58 PM

catgirl, as a Texan who absolutely does not want to secede, and who almost certainly represents the majority of Texans on that matter, I'd suggest you refrain from characterizing the population of the entire state as "whiny kids." Thanks.

D'oh! I apologize for my ambiguous wording, because that's not what I meant at all. I mean that the wingut Texans who threaten to secede are the ones who are acting like whiny kids. After re-reading my comment, I realize that it's my fault for making it sound the wrong way.

Posted by: catgirl | June 23, 2009 2:06 PM

Peter Morrison:

If they approve her (and to be honest, with only 40 squishy Republicans in the US Senate, it's unlikely),

Posted by: llewelly | June 23, 2009 2:38 PM

sooo...is the Radical gay agenda different to the normal gay agenda?

Posted by: Richard Eis | June 23, 2009 3:52 PM

James Hanley #40:

...and try "escaping" from, for example, a contract for the sale and purchase of land.

Posted by: Robin Levett | June 23, 2009 5:58 PM

Robin,

Show me the law saying you can't secede. Specifically, show me where in the Constitution. The cryptic, "laws, not contracts" is a dodge, providing no serious argument.

As to escaping from a contract for a land sale, I'd say people do it all the time. There's a penalty, obviously, but that doesn't mean those contracts are never abrogate. I'd have no problem with requiring a seceding state to pay some compensation. I don't know that I'd personally support that requirement, but it obviously would be a legitimate demand.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 23, 2009 8:26 PM

As to whether I think states could resist corporate influence, please note that I never claimed they could. However I dispute the notion that the federal government has been particularly successful in doing so, either.

The Feds have given us environmental regs, worker safety regs, banking regs that prevented all sorts of financial scams in the past (and could have prevented this one if they hadn't been erased and neutered); and a unified effort that crushed the Nazis, built stable republics in their place, put a man on the Moon, and put the US -- for a time at least -- at the forefront of scientific and technical advancement. Not a perfect record by any stretch, but a record unmatched by any other force. And before the US, there were the British, French and Roman empires making progressive change in their times. Imperialism was a major component of the Enlightenment.

But what if a large majority in that state (or some other) absolutely does refuse to compromise? What if they put us in the position where our only choice is to use force of arms against them or let them go? Is using force of arms to keep unwilling bastards in the union the obviously better course of action?

If the alternative is letting a bunch of theocratic scum subjugate millions of Americans to a backward tyranny that crushes lives and liberties with no benefit to anyone, then yes, armed force is a proper preventive measure. The Union, the South, and the rest of the world are better off because Lincoln used force to crush the slave-state secession.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 23, 2009 11:27 PM

@James Hanley #45:

Contracts for the sale and purchase of land - certainly in English law - are as a rule"specifically enforceable"; which means that each party is entitled to force the other to perform the contract according to its terms. The selling party cannot simply say "here's some money, go away"; and if necessary, the Court will execute any document necessary to complete the transaction. Trust me - I'm an English property lawyer.

I don't need to show you where your Constitution says "you can't get out of this"; you need to show me where the Constitution makes the opposite provision, and the mechanism provided by the Constitution for secession. If the framers had intended secession to be "legal" within the Constitution, they would have provided such a mechanism. They didn't.

The point about "law, not contract" is that laws are normative; they are intended to affect behaviour in a way contracts are not.

By the way, to rely upon an "escape clause" in a contract the contract has to have one - expressly. Even if your analogy with a contract were correct, you need to show that escape clause.

As for the Articles; they were not some kind of draft or first sketch of a constitution; they were the original Constitution of the United States, effective from 1 March 1781. They established a perpetual union. Nothing done subsequently dissolved that perpetual union, it merely changed how (political) business was to be done within that perpetual union.

Posted by: Robin Levett | June 24, 2009 2:54 AM

On the subject of secession... you're right, there is no legal means to achieve that in place. I can only imagine three circumstances in which it could be achieved, and none of them are going to happen in the imediate future.

Firstly, by force. Yes, there is no legal way - but screw the law, lets see the feds manage a state when the FBI agents are chased out by the militia and federal laws completly ignored. This is the means by which the US itsself gained independance - there was no legal means to achieve that either. The declaration of independance was just a document that England could have ignored, it was by war that independance was won. Any one state would not be a match militarily for the rest, but faced with the prospect of firing on fellow Americans (Well, so to speak), surrender would not be hard to achieve. It wouldn't be the first civil war.

Secondly, if a state could pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming independance. It wouldn't, legally, achieve anything. It would be just a symbolic act. But, depending on the circumstances at the federal level at the time, it might force the president's hand - to ignore an ammendment passed by legislative vote and by public ballot would be seen as anti-democratic. Faced with that, and with the possibility that ignoring the amendment would result in open revolt, it's plausable that a future president would have no choice but to admit defeat, and initiate option three.

Thirdly, something that could happen as a result of the above, or be initiated independantly: A state could be kicked out, by the authority of a constitutional amendment. Very hard to achieve, by design. This could be done either in order to recognise a state's declaration of independance, or to remove a state from the union should it become an unacceptable threat (I'm thinking something like 'charismatic state leader rallies tens of millions into an army, orders attack on neighbouring state' circumstances).

None of these are going to happen for a long time though, so this is all hypothetical. There just isn't anywhere near the level of popularity it would take to pass a secession amendment or start a rebellion in even one state. Nothing more than a few nutjobs waving confederate flags. Perhaps circumstances will change, and in a century or two it will become a real possilbility, but not now.

Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 24, 2009 6:42 AM

"Abstinence-only sex education" : is it the same thing as "fasting-only dietetics education" ?

Posted by: Christophe Thill | June 24, 2009 8:09 AM

Robin,

Respectfully, I find you arguments uncompelling. You fail to mention that several of the states had their own navies, that each was coining its own money, and that several states ratified the Treaty of Paris separately. The prohibition against treaties between states was to prevent alliances forming against other states--they just weren't that unifieda at the time; for example, George Washington was denounced in the Continental Congress for trying to get the troops from the various states to pledge their allegiance to the United States, and some of the states' soldiers refused to do so, because they saw their country as, e.g., New Hampshire, not the U.S.

Our history has been whitewashed to obscure just how poorly the states were united at the time, and we now falsely pretend that we were one nation between 1776 and 1789. That's just not true. I don't blame any individuals for not knowing this (I didn't know it until I was in graduate school). It's just a symptom of our bad educational systems and our desire to glorify the past. Note that the Articles explicitly define the union as a "league of friendship," not as a state.

Also, note that the U.S. Constitution explicitly allowed for existing states to opt out at the beginning. Only 9 states' ratification was required, and the Constitution would then apply only to those states so ratifying it. So the idea that there was no way out at any time is historically and textually false.

And I should have noted yesterday that the argument about a land contract is inapropos, as that has to do with an exchange of property rights, rather than the joining of a partnership. However I slipped into the contract language as well, making that hard to distinguish.

Given that we're talking about partnerships, rather than contracts for exchange of value, you're dead wrong that I need to show an escape clause. Partners to a partnership can leave, period. The only issues at stake are divvying up of assets, but if, say, a business partner just wants to quit and walk away without negotiating their share of assets, they can do so.

Look, I'm not saying the case for secession being legal is cut and dried. I'm saying that it's arguable, due to the absence of any clause in the Constitution dealing with the question. I'm arguing that those who think that the absence of a right to secession is cut and dried are absolutely wrong.

Now, that's my argument on the issue of a right to seccesion. The other, and separate, issue is whether seccession can be right. That is, even if there was clearly no constitutional right to secession, would it make sense to allow it?

Raging Bee,
Who said anything about subjecting millions to a theocratic state? I expressly said we should accept, even assist in resettling, refugees from such hypothetical Texas secession.

What I find odd in all this is the apparent terror with which people view secession. There seems to be a sense, as explicitly argued by one person earlier, that suddenly lots of states would start doing it. That's a bad slippery slope argument. Just because the folks in one state might be incredible assholes doesn't mean every other state would follow their lead.

And if lots of states did start seceding, perhaps that would be a strong signal that there's something really wrong with our union that needs to be fixed.

Nobody has dealt with my argument that the right to secession is more democratic. Raging Bee is the only one who's really addressed it at all, arguing that democracy demands compromise. But democracy also demands self-determination, and what I hear from the people here is, "Fuck Texans' desire to separate from the U.S. Even if they unanimously wanted to do so, we'd still be right to force them to stay."

That's not democratic. Sometimes the compromise you have to make is to let the other person go their own way.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 24, 2009 10:34 AM

Also, note that the U.S. Constitution explicitly allowed for existing states to opt out at the beginning. Only 9 states' ratification was required, and the Constitution would then apply only to those states so ratifying it. So the idea that there was no way out at any time is historically and textually false.

Yes, but that time has passed, and there is now no legal right to secede.

Given that we're talking about partnerships, rather than contracts for exchange of value, you're dead wrong that I need to show an escape clause.

An assertion without backup. First, the Constitution does not have an escape clause. Second, given the compromises and sacrifices that are required in national policy-making, it is not only unrealistic, but practically insane, to simply assert that an escape clause is implied, when common sense shows that allowing such an escape is pure folly.

Partners to a partnership can leave, period.

National governments are a totally different animal from voluntarily individual or business partnerships; comparing the two is nonsense. A more sensible comparison would be to treaties, which cannot legally be broken unless there's an escape clause explicitly written into them, as in the ABM treaty. (Also, Leavitt's reference to land deals is relevant, to the extent that land and land manangement are integral parts of nation-building.)

As I've said before, allowing secession is simply nonsensical, regardless of what this or that law says. For starters, the interest-groups that saw fit to create a nation in the first place will, for the same reasons, resist any attempt to break up said nation. And second, a nation simply cannot do its duties to its people, or adhere to consistent policies, unless it is able to count on all of its people to stay loyal 24/7, not just when convenient.

What I find odd in all this is the apparent terror with which people view secession. There seems to be a sense, as explicitly argued by one person earlier, that suddenly lots of states would start doing it.

The drive to secede is too often a form of escapism, something people resort to when the going gets tough and they want to imagine that they can simply walk away from the world and make everything perfect in their own little isolated enclave. This is why the "terror" you speak of is a perfectly valid cause for concern. Explicitly allowing secession would result in shortsighted politicians and other con-artists pushing for an easy way out, and would allow such irrational mob-spirit to subvert reason and responsible policymaking.

Who said anything about subjecting millions to a theocratic state? I expressly said we should accept, even assist in resettling, refugees from such hypothetical Texas secession.

If there are refugees, that would strongly imply maladministration by the secessionist regime, or denial of their basic rights. It is not in anyone's interest to allow such an irresponsible regime to be created.

Nobody has dealt with my argument that the right to secession is more democratic.

Yes, we have dealt with it, by pointing out that secessionist movements, past and present, have been orchestrated by anti-democratic interest groups, in explicit opposition to national policies intended to increase, not decrease, the freedoms of Americans nationwide. Given this history, we cannot simply act on a default assumption that secession is good or "more democratic."

I've seen a lot of secessionist movements, both here and elsewhere, orchestrated by people in poor regions, for reasons having more to do with pride than policy; who would probably only isolate themselves further from their wealthier neighbors by creating their own state. I have also seen such movements orchestrated by people in wealthy regions, because they don't want to pay any taxes to do anything for the poorer regions of what they had previously seen as "their country."

Capital accumulation -- i.e., taking wealth away from some people and concentrating it in the hands of others -- is a fundamental necessity for economic growth or technological advancement. Therefore it is fair for a society that does this to ensure that those who get soaked also get some sort of reward for their sacrifice. This means that the rich cannot secede to dump the poor after they've taken advantage of them; and that the poor should not be isolated, or isolate themselves, based on emotion or misplaced tribalism or pride.

And, as you acknowledge, I have also pointed out that huge chunks of the freedoms we now take for granted were secured by united action on a national scale, or greater.

But democracy also demands self-determination...

First, self-determination is not the same as secession. Second, democracy doesn't always demand it; sometimes -- many times -- it demands unity and committment. It also demands that the people accept and support decisions lawfully made by their democratic government.

...and what I hear from the people here is, "Fuck Texans' desire to separate from the U.S. Even if they unanimously wanted to do so, we'd still be right to force them to stay."

That's because the people orchestrating this "movement" are infantile, infantilizing assholes, whose only desire is to run away from the costs and consequences of the policies they supported. The people of Texas are nowhere near unanimous on this; and this sort of babyishness should be kicked to the curb, not dressed up with bogus ideology and Founding-Fathers-y rhetoric.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 11:52 AM

And one more note I just thought of: if the Founders wanted States to have a right to secede from the Union, they would have set out a specific procedure for secession; as in "A State may secede only by a three-fourths vote of its Legislature, which must then be ratified by a two-thirds vote in a popular referendum." If there's no specific procedure for secession (As there is for amending the constitution itself), then no such right, or intent to set forth such a right, can be inferred to exist.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 12:54 PM

Okay, that's wierd: I tried to post the "one more note" comment above, and it vanished. So I typed the "another thing" comment in place of it. Then I tried to post it, but the first comment appeared. And now, several minutes later, the second pops up. Sorry. Ed may delete either one of my last two posts if he has the time, they're both pretty much the same.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 1:47 PM

Imperialism was a major component of the Enlightenment.

Could you clarify this argument? As stated I have to disagree with it.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 2:24 PM

Also, note that the U.S. Constitution explicitly allowed for existing states to opt out at the beginning. Only 9 states' ratification was required, and the Constitution would then apply only to those states so ratifying it. So the idea that there was no way out at any time is historically and textually false.

Actually it doesn't say anything more than 9 states are necessary to ratify the constitution. It doesn't make clear what the status of the remaining 4 states might have been and it certainly doesn't say they were or would be free to go their separate way. If it stated, in some explicit way, that states refusing to participate would then be eligible for a treaty of friendship, etc. (much in the way the AoC deals with Canada and future states), but it doesn't do or say that.

Nobody has dealt with my argument that the right to secession is more democratic.

That's because it isn't. Secession is more akin to a veto power where a minority can expressly deny the will of the majority (without courts, etc.) simply by leaving. You could have 99% of Americans support something, but for some reason the people of Rhode Island (to stick with that example) decide, "no" and vote to secede. Such an act implicitly destroys democracy and the democratic process because, any time the majority of people in a state disagree with a policy or principle they simply secede. Not wanting the country to fragment one state at a time, the majority then become bound by the will of a minority. You can actually see this with slavery in the 1850s. Slave-holders were a distinct minority but, through manipulation of flaws in the original constitution (3/5, etc.) and compromised designed to keep them happy (Missouri Compromise, 1850, etc.), they were able to manipulate our entire political system for decades. Near the end they actually trampled upon the rights of the majority through the Dred Scott ruling, fugitive slave act, gag rule, postal rules, etc.

Secession is distinctly anti-democratic.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 2:39 PM

That argument was hastily worded when I had other things to do. Let me take it back and reword it thusly: "Nationalism, expanded trade zones, and the breaking-down of Feudal-era barriers (both social and geographical), were important components of the Enlightenment." Is that better?

Not really. ;o)

I don't see nationalism, at least in the modern sense, being a component of the enlightenment. In fact enlightenment writers were more into universal rights which, you could argue, are anti-nationalist. France was still very feudalistic yet was the focal point of enlightenment (or at least one of them). Voltaire spoke out against the existing, very feudal institutions in France, big reason why he didn't live there for much of his life.

I could perhaps see the trade issue, but mercantilism established specific zones of trade, colonies could only trade with mother country, etc. I could see if you argued the dependent colonies helped enlightenment ideas and ideals ferment into actual political practices?

Sorry, still a little lost with what you're trying to say, not trying to be an ass. ;o)

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 2:45 PM

It's very clear that historically, the question of state sovereignty and commitment to the union was not settled until the Civil War.

No, again, the statements made by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., support our argument that secession was not a right. Bee very aptly added the fact that it does not include a manner for seceding. Congress doesn't include this either. Yet the constitution and laws of the nation at the time include provisions for amendments, provisions for adding new territories, provisions for adding new states. You put it all together with the "perpetual union" stated in 1777, 1781, and confirmed by the aforementioned founding fathers and your argument falls flat on its face.

The southern states weren't the first to threaten to secede--the first threat was made by New England states during the War of 1812. I haven't heard (although I'm not too knowledgeable about that war) that the normal response to them was, "you don't have the right to do that."

Actually it destroyed the Federalist party. The closest they came to secession was the Hartford Convention, which was held in secrecy, suggesting that they themselves felt what they were doing was counter to the law. Also two of the states fractured into factions where, in their own statements, they argued whether what they were attempting to do was even legal. When the convention met, no notes were kept, the president of the convention, Cabot, didn't even keep notes, didn't keep track of votes, amendments, etc. Finally, in the end they attempted to amend the constitution to protect the rights they believed were being infringed upon, they didn't vote to secede. Even in this instance, the secession movement decided they didn't have the right.

And southern secession was an on-going threat prior to the Civil War. So there was clearly a substantial component of the pre-civil war US that saw secession as a right retained by states.

Actually they saw it quite clearly as a threat, that does not mean they saw it as a right.

Note, when considering the Constitution, that the absence of any statement about secession means the states did not consciously sign away their rights to secession when they joined.

Again, when you see the statements of perpetual union, and unanimous statements in the Declaration, 1777 congressional statements, and the numerous statements in the AoC, followed by the Constitution's avowed purpose to create a "more perfect" union, IE improve the existing union, you have an implicit understanding that secession is not a right. When you have multiple documents establishing a union in perpetuity then, it is the onus of those wishing to claim the right to secede to prove that the Constitution grants that right.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 3:05 PM

DogmeatIB, I don't think you've shown the mechanism by which larger governments are better able to resist corporate influence.

I didn't make an attempt to do so because 'Bee already pointed to the numerous examples of Federal laws that reduced corporate power.

I don't think size is clearly an automatic cause of capacity to resist corporate influence. I think it's more about what authorities the government has. If it has authority to benefit corporate interests, then they will seek influence. If it's scope of authority is limited so that it cannot benefit particular businesses, they will see no gain in seeking such influence.

One need simply look at history, specifically late 19th-early 20th century history. Also look at state government history. Even a superficial examination of either will show countless examples of weaker, decentralized governments becoming pawns of corporate interest. Outside of the United States you see the perfect example of a "banana republic," a country firmly owned by one or more corporate interest. Our current problems with corporate influence do not support the argument that reducing the power of the federal government will somehow magically eliminate or even reduce corporate influence. History shows, quite clearly, that weaker government entities are extremely vulnerable to corporate influence. Reforming our current system is significantly more like to produce positive results than reducing federal powers or instituting an individual state by state emphasized system.

The issues also goes well beyond the rights of an individual state. For example, California could have very strict laws on pollution, but Arizona to the east, would (given what I know about the state) have very lax laws about pollution. Air and water pollution quickly and easily pass over state borders polluting California (especially with the Colorado River). Also, being able to easily influence or even cripple the smaller state governments, corporations then would be able to influence the stronger state governments into actions more favorable to them.

Smaller, weaker government simply will not work in a modern corporate world.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 3:15 PM

James,

I happened upon an introduction to The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution while looking for further evidence ... *sigh* the lack of access to some of my databases in the summer is frustrating. ;o)

Interestingly enough attempts were made by anti-federalists in both New York and Virginia to establish clauses within their ratification of the constitution that would allow for the states to secede. Both attempts failed and correspondence between the delegates to the constitutional convention stated that such conditional ratifications would not be considered valid.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 24, 2009 3:29 PM

Raging Bee,

So if you've encountered some Texans who make the mistake of generalizing other parts of America, that justifies your generalizations about all Texans? And apparently no citizens of any other state have been known to make generalizations about other parts of America? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Circumstances of residence might be a little bit more within one's control than circumstances of birth, but it doesn't make one responsible for the beliefs and behaviors of all one's neighbors. There is no "problem with Texas." There is a problem you have with some Texans, just as you might have a problem with citizens of any other state. No undesirable quality that belongs to any Texan is exclusive to (or even predominate in) people who live in Texas, and any idiot-- sorry, any person who isn't bound up in geographical bigotry-- knows that.

Posted by: Gretchen | June 24, 2009 4:43 PM

I don't see nationalism, at least in the modern sense, being a component of the enlightenment.

Back then, nationalism was a result of people moving from reactionary feudalism to more progressive capitalism, and supporting unified nation-states that allowed expanded trade and accumulated resources for inquiry and invention. It also resulted, in part, from rebellion against reactionary Catholic Church authority.

In fact enlightenment writers were more into universal rights which, you could argue, are anti-nationalist.

Yes and no: one reason people supported nationalism over feudalism is that national governments, at that time, upheld those rights more than feudal lords.

France was still very feudalistic yet was the focal point of enlightenment (or at least one of them).

Actually, France was a lot more centralized in its government than England or (especially) Germany at that time.

Voltaire spoke out against the existing, very feudal institutions in France, big reason why he didn't live there for much of his life.

Okay, the job wasn't done, but France was still advancing under the leadership of a national regime (which would then be overthrown and replaced by a more advanced regime).

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 5:13 PM

Okay, I'll concede our disagreement arises from different word usage.

When I think nationalism, I consider it the dangerous 19th century development that ultimately formed the 5/6 part cause of WWI and led to Fascism, Hitler, etc.

I wouldn't blame nationalism for WWI; that was mostly the result of certain policies of certain nations -- and a lot of that, especially all those entangling alliances between entangled royal families, was a holdover from feudal and monarchical practices. I suspect both nationalism and some sort of continent-wide war, were both inevitable, as all sorts of irresistable forces ran headlong into each other.

And as for Fascism and Hitler, those resulted from the botched and incomplete handling of WWI.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 5:51 PM

@James #55:

dogmeatib and Raging Bee have covered much of this ground, but just adding my twopenn'orth:

You fail to mention that several of the states had their own navies, that each was coining its own money, and that several states ratified the Treaty of Paris separately.

That's probably why the Articles specifically brought all three under the control of Congress.

Also, note that the U.S. Constitution explicitly allowed for existing states to opt out at the beginning. Only 9 states' ratification was required, and the Constitution would then apply only to those states so ratifying it. So the idea that there was no way out at any time is historically and textually false.

Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius. The Articles gave the states the possibility of not going ahead - by non-ratification - at the beginning; that implies that there will be no right to secede after ratification. That implication is indeed made express by the "perpetual union" language.

Given that we're talking about partnerships, rather than contracts for exchange of value, you're dead wrong that I need to show an escape clause. Partners to a partnership can leave, period. The only issues at stake are divvying up of assets, but if, say, a business partner just wants to quit and walk away without negotiating their share of assets, they can do so.

I could say we're talking about marriages - in which case the only escape is by statutory provision. There is no common law right of divorce... It's irrelevant anyway - as I said, constitutions are laws, not contracts.

Look, I'm not saying the case for secession being legal is cut and dried. I'm saying that it's arguable, due to the absence of any clause in the Constitution dealing with the question. I'm arguing that those who think that the absence of a right to secession is cut and dried are absolutely wrong.

And your argument cannot possibly be right. The states entered into a perpetual union; thereafter they changed the way business was done within that union. There is plenty of language in the Constitution as to accession to the union - none as to secession. That lack of any language as to secession makes it quite clear that the original perpetual union was in force.

As to the claim that secession is the business only of those seceding, and that allowing secession is democratic - poppycock. The union has ordered its affairs for two centuries on the basis of a perpetual union (modulo the little local difficulty in the 1860s). Many individual states have altered their position irrevocably on the basis of a continuation of the union. The dislocation involved in secession of a single state would affect the entire union; it is anti-democratic to suggest that the other states have no say in whether that disruption should be visited upon them.

Posted by: Robin Levett | June 24, 2009 6:28 PM

Its a long term goal to ensure that Texas Secedes from the Union. That is the goal of the Reich Wingers is to break up the Union and divide this country into regional Nation States.

Until the rest of America gets the sacred clue phone and realize that these nutter groups communicate and coordinate with each other, we will have to deal with this fuctard agendas over and over, sometimes at a disadvantage. Just remember the Stealth campaigns of the 1980s. Their goal was to take over the country from the ground up, from school boards and city councils, and the like.

Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 25, 2009 1:44 PM

Robin Levett wrote As to the claim that secession is the business only of those seceding, and that allowing secession is democratic - poppycock. Robin, you make strong arguments on the other points, but not on this point. Without meaning to attack your personally, I've long thought there were serious deficiencies in legal education that makes lawyers weak commentators on politics, and this argument of yours is an indicator of that educational weakness.

Democracy is far more than casting a vote every few years. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "voting with one's feet," and that's a very real part of democracy. That's one of the ways in which a federalist country like the U.S. is more democratic than a unitary state like France (although France's national voting system is arguably more democratic than our single-member district system). Notably, as Europe has begun to unite, it's allowed for more federalism within member states, such as England allowing the Scots to have their own parliament again, and growing autonomy for for Catalonia in Spain.

Obviously those cases aren't about actual secession, but they are about a larger degree of self-determination. The point being that allowing locals to determine their political futures for themselves is more democratic than determining that future from afar, above and against their will.

On the legal arguments, you're on very solid ground. But on the democracy argument you're very much off target.

Posted by: James Hanley | June 25, 2009 8:32 PM

Democracy is far more than casting a vote every few years. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "voting with one's feet," and that's a very real part of democracy.

No, as many of us have demonstrated already, it isn't. In fact, the whole point of democracy is to allow people to work together to make constructive changes so we WON'T have to "vote with our feet." In fact, "vote with your feet" has lately been the standard refrain of reactionaries who don't want to make any changes or allow anyone else to influence policy: "If you don't like things exactly as they are, you can vote with your feet, 'cause I don't wanna hear, or acknowledge, your complaints." Or, more simply: "America, love it or leave it!"

To which the progressive response should be: "We love it, we're not leaving, we're drawing the line and fighting for what's right RIGHT HERE." Because the fact is, many of our problems can be solved, and many of our freedoms secured, ONLY by united action, and not by secession and division, which is nothing more than a form of retreat and giving up.

Notably, as Europe has begun to unite, it's allowed for more federalism within member states...

Yes, that's federalism, not secession. They're not the same thing. And in fact, federalism works because it's a more sensible alternative to secession.

And the fact that you're going on about secession, while Americans all over are engaged in renewed and vigorous debate over all sorts of possible solutions to all sorts of national problems, kinda proves my point: secession isn't really all that democratic, it's pretty unimaginitive, and it isn't all that mature either.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 26, 2009 8:33 AM

Also, dogmeat, in the case of these Texas wingnuts, secession is a means of running away from the costs and consequences of national policies that they had prevously supported, but for which the nation as a whole is now starting to pay the bill. They were perfectly happy to be part of the Union when it was cutting taxes, deregulating banking, and going to war; but now that we've maxed out the credit-card and the bill's due, all of a sudden unity and committment aren't so virtuous anymore.

Posted by: Raging Bee | June 30, 2009 2:31 PM