This newsletter is a Ukraine-focused McRib, with a super-sized order of military technology fries, and a side of McGeopolitics. So, indulge me in this geopolitical McDeviation today…
Texas v White was decided in the US Supreme Court to confirm that no state has the right to secede from the US. There is no process; any attempt is rebellion.
Some interesting things about the case:
- The secessionist Texas government issued bonds.
- White attempted to redeem those bonds after the war, but was rebuffed.
- The Supreme Court decided that, since secession was illegal, the “government” that issued those bonds *never existed in the first place*, and so the bonds were null and void.
There’s a bit of a wrinkle in all this; if secession was illegal, and the secessionist governments never existed, then the original US Congressional act admitting Texas to the union should still be in force.
This means that act, which gave Texas the unique right to split into split into up to five states, means that Texas arguably is the only state that can do so without congressional approval, since that approval *was granted when Texas was admitted to the union.”
So, if Republicans were really determined to get a stranglehold on the Senate, and Texas played ball, they could get several new states and hence Senate seats added without congressional approval.
This would inevitably lead to Democrats arguing that this law was no longer in effect due to the secession and subsequent readmission to the union, and that the original admission terms were no longer in force. Of course, this would force them to make the argument that the secession WAS legal, and make the Republicans argue that the secession was NOT legal.
Before Trump came along, I figured that this scenario was the string hanging from the sweater that is our country, and that no one ought to start tugging at it, lest the sweater come apart… but it certainly would have been a much more amusing way than what we’ve gotten with Trump. Democrats back to arguing secession is legal and Republicans arguing it isn’t… 1860 all over again!
Well Done Wes! Or, as my less-couth brother would say, F..EH! Great summary of the rules and Canadian approach to internal discontent. I woke up this morning and saw the referendum results, so happy I can visit him without a passport (even if a yes vote would take about 20-500 years in Canadian courts and require nearly all the lawyers in Canada to figure it out and move on).
Great stuff, Wes. And your comment about history studies perhaps shows the changes that have occurred in public education from my time to yours. I attended public schools in the late '50's and 60's and we studied California history in the 4th grade, US history in the 5th grade and world history in the 6th. Somewhere in there we included Canada and learned all the details, such as they have provinces instead of states and the Bay of Fundy tide moves really fast. That's all I remember, anyway. Today, the patience and fundamental goodness of Canada rises to the occasion in the face of a southern neighbor gone crazy and a world teetering on the brink of war. We should all have such values as they do.
As a Canadian old enough to remember the Quebec separation referendum, your assessment gave me a good chuckle.
I’m grateful that a good majority of citizens in Alberta showed up to say HELL NO! I do wonder if the tragedy at CFB Wainwright just before the vote with the outpouring of support from around the country might have added to the feeling that we are stronger together.
It would be interesting to dig into the motivation of Alberta's voters. Did they associate separation with the MAGA world? Was Trump on their minds? Or was it simply Canadian reasonable thinking coming to the fore? Whichever it was, I'll happily take the outcome - from a fan in California.
I enjoy your posts. I must admit, that yours is certainly the best informed American take I've seen on Alberta separatism. It's better than most Canadian takes as well. - posted from Calgary,AB
Fun! Now do the US! What if New England wants to separate?
Texas v White was decided in the US Supreme Court to confirm that no state has the right to secede from the US. There is no process; any attempt is rebellion.
Some interesting things about the case:
- The secessionist Texas government issued bonds.
- White attempted to redeem those bonds after the war, but was rebuffed.
- The Supreme Court decided that, since secession was illegal, the “government” that issued those bonds *never existed in the first place*, and so the bonds were null and void.
There’s a bit of a wrinkle in all this; if secession was illegal, and the secessionist governments never existed, then the original US Congressional act admitting Texas to the union should still be in force.
This means that act, which gave Texas the unique right to split into split into up to five states, means that Texas arguably is the only state that can do so without congressional approval, since that approval *was granted when Texas was admitted to the union.”
So, if Republicans were really determined to get a stranglehold on the Senate, and Texas played ball, they could get several new states and hence Senate seats added without congressional approval.
This would inevitably lead to Democrats arguing that this law was no longer in effect due to the secession and subsequent readmission to the union, and that the original admission terms were no longer in force. Of course, this would force them to make the argument that the secession WAS legal, and make the Republicans argue that the secession was NOT legal.
Before Trump came along, I figured that this scenario was the string hanging from the sweater that is our country, and that no one ought to start tugging at it, lest the sweater come apart… but it certainly would have been a much more amusing way than what we’ve gotten with Trump. Democrats back to arguing secession is legal and Republicans arguing it isn’t… 1860 all over again!
A remarkably similar process, including dealing with our own local First Nations units of government
I love your {semi} tongue in cheek sense of humor, mixed in with a bunch of interesting facts.
Well Done Wes! Or, as my less-couth brother would say, F..EH! Great summary of the rules and Canadian approach to internal discontent. I woke up this morning and saw the referendum results, so happy I can visit him without a passport (even if a yes vote would take about 20-500 years in Canadian courts and require nearly all the lawyers in Canada to figure it out and move on).
Always a pleasure to read your Substack.
Thanks Ian! I named my son Ian so we already have an informal kinship lol
What a great analysis! Thank you for this.
Thank you for this summary. All countries with regional/state level should have such rules for secession.
Great stuff, Wes. And your comment about history studies perhaps shows the changes that have occurred in public education from my time to yours. I attended public schools in the late '50's and 60's and we studied California history in the 4th grade, US history in the 5th grade and world history in the 6th. Somewhere in there we included Canada and learned all the details, such as they have provinces instead of states and the Bay of Fundy tide moves really fast. That's all I remember, anyway. Today, the patience and fundamental goodness of Canada rises to the occasion in the face of a southern neighbor gone crazy and a world teetering on the brink of war. We should all have such values as they do.
Thanks Craig. Canadian history was entirely absent from Texas public education in the 1990s. Too far away and exotic apparently.
As a Canadian old enough to remember the Quebec separation referendum, your assessment gave me a good chuckle.
I’m grateful that a good majority of citizens in Alberta showed up to say HELL NO! I do wonder if the tragedy at CFB Wainwright just before the vote with the outpouring of support from around the country might have added to the feeling that we are stronger together.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/cfb-wainwright-fire-9.7388647
People were also concerned that a lot of the leaders of the Separatist movement had been getting a lot of money and support from the MAGA leadership.
Yes, Canadians tend to plan to do things in a civil, legal and extremely drawn out bureaucratic process. 😁🇨🇦
It would be interesting to dig into the motivation of Alberta's voters. Did they associate separation with the MAGA world? Was Trump on their minds? Or was it simply Canadian reasonable thinking coming to the fore? Whichever it was, I'll happily take the outcome - from a fan in California.
I enjoy your posts. I must admit, that yours is certainly the best informed American take I've seen on Alberta separatism. It's better than most Canadian takes as well. - posted from Calgary,AB