The years-long showdown between Texas and the Federal Government over the Texas-Mexico border took a dramatic—and potentially dangerous—turn this week. The Supreme Court (with Amy Coney Barrett as the deciding vote) ruled that Texas could not prevent the Federal Government from taking down the barbed wire fence that Texas installed along part of the border. In turn, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the Texas National Guard to defend the barbed wire fence (and thus the border), saying that it was a matter of the state’s self-defense that supersedes the Supreme Court ruling.

The stakes were raised even higher when 25 Republican governors signed a letter in support of Governor Abbott. Some governors also pledged to send their own national guards to support the Texas resistance to the Federal Government. Not surprisingly, many now speak of a potential civil war brewing. One Nation Under Black... Webb, Whitney Best Price: $12.79 Buy New $14.00 (as of 08:07 UTC - Details)

While a civil war would be horrific, I believe all right-thinking Americans should support Texas in this fight, and in fact should support more states standing up to the Federal Government, even to the point of considering secession.

I’ve made clear over the years my own support for secession. I think our country is simply too big to succeed. Our political system has gotten progressively more and more oppressive over the years, and our current Federal Government makes many past empires seem like subsidiary dreamlands in comparison. We need to break up into multiple nations, and hopefully this Texas resistance is a step in that direction.

When I first argued for secession back in 2015-2016, I knew it was a fantasy, and most people regarded the idea as quixotic at best, treasonous at worst. But then 2020 happened. The different responses taken by states to the Covid pandemic reminded Americans that states do matter; they are not just cogs in the Federal Machine. Millions moved as a result, and a certain patriotism toward one’s state rather than the country as a whole was strengthened. Now people started to wonder if their state would be better off outside of the Federal Government’s control.

National Divorce is part of the national conversation, and it’s being taken more seriously by more people. Good. But there’s still so many false assumptions made about a potential National Divorce, most of them stemming from public school indoctrination about our nation’s history.

A Southern View of the... Ashe, Samuel A'Court Best Price: $4.99 Buy New $8.99 (as of 06:32 UTC - Details) First, a breakup does not automatically mean a civil war. Many nations around the world have broken up over the years without a shot being fired. The most obvious example is the Soviet Union, but there are others as well. The current situation in Texas, for example, does not have to escalate into violent bloodshed: the Federal Government could just back down and recognize Texas’s right to defend itself. Bloodshed will only happen if the Federal Government wants it to happen.

Another false assumption is that a National Divorce would result in two and only two new nations. It must be North/South or something simplistic like that. But a National Divorce could lead to three, four, or even more new nations. There’s no natural law that requires a certain minimum size of a nation (see: Europe). While the Corporate Media likes to separate us into Blue States and Red States, the reality of our differences is far more complex. While Montana and Alabama might both be Red States, how they want to govern and live can vary widely. Why force them together?

It’s also believed by many that a national divorce must follow current state lines. The reality is that we are mostly divided between city and rural areas—Chicago is as unlike parts of southern Illinois as many European countries are from each other. A National Divorce could include many state divorces.

Read the Whole Article