CONFEDERATION OF CANADA AND USA OR SECESSION FROM USA?

by Adam Gopnik


After a week in which it looked like the Great American Way was closer to a suicide pact than a governing arrangement—with so many undemocratic choke points that the polity strangles—a whole new way of thinking about our domestic arrangements may be in order. A woman who has been held at gunpoint by her husband for a week, to suggest a situation with certain parallels, might want to get out of the relationship. Tea Party types, like abusive family members, may tend to ask whether we really think the neighbors have it any better. And so it seemed apropos when a friend passed on, the other day, a new book proposing that the answer to all of America’s problems is not to blame Canada but to join it.

The book, called “Merger of the Century,” is by Diane Francis, whose author bio tells us that she divides her time between Toronto, where she’s a professor at Ryerson University’s School of Management, and New York. Her argument isn’t, as the title suggests, for a high-minded union in the name of democracy, it’s for a practical, hardheaded business arrangement: “Like Google and Motorola, the US and Canada could combine to better meet competition and cope with shrinking markets … [they both] should understand that they are at the beginning of a long slow slide downward unless they change their attitudes and behavior.” The U.S., she argues, though burdened by a too-big military and a too-bad health system, has remaining competitive advantages in its entrepreneurial culture and optimistic outlook—its excitability, in plain English. Canada has complementary competitive advantages in the stability of its banking system and the wealth of its resources—its unexcitability, in other words. Match American gee-whiz with Canadian let’s-see, and it will produce a super country—rather like a marriage between a dull, stable person who owns a nice chunk of land and is looking for a little fun and a slightly crazed but still attractive one who needs some stability after a wild stretch.

Francis also makes the shrewd point that the two outlier regions in both countries—Quebec in Canada, and the American South—have been allowed to unduly distort the politics of both countries, with Quebec’s suspicions tugging Canada hard to the left and the South’s paranoias pulling the United States far to the right. The outliers, in this scheme, would be bypassed, or perhaps seduced: Quebec’s tropism for America is famous, and the Quebecois might “overwhelmingly opt for the merger, as they did in 1988 with free trade, if only to get out from under English-Canadians.” The South would see that the merger makes economic sense: “A major migration of Canadians would leave for America’s warmer climates and lower living costs, and Canada’s two million or so snowbirds would stay permanently in Florida, Arizona, California and other Sunbelt destinations if affordable health care was available.” (Point hers, italics mine, and more to come on both.)

This is not the first time such a merger, or union, has been proposed. (A mordant-minded friend of mine has often suggested, with apparent sincerity, that the great tragedy of modernity is that Lincoln, stubborn to the point of paranoia, forced the South back into the Union, with all the death that caused, instead of letting it go, thus forcing American’s imperial affections northward. How that might have worked out for the remaining slaves is another, large, question.) I have, of course, a natural interest in the idea, since my own bi-national family would, in this arrangement, suddenly seem less eccentric and more vital, necessary middlemen to explain each culture to each. We have all kinds of bi-nationals in our family, from my parents, long Canadian citizens, to my wife, thirty years resident in the U.S. but still proudly maple-leaf bearing, and my son, an American citizen who roots strenuously for Team Canada in the Olympics.

One never quite knows how seriously to take books of this larksomely utopian kind. That once famous book making an argument for the abolition of television was really meant to point out that we could do well with less—but the seemingly equally unreal “Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?” turned out to be prescient. And Francis’s book, though cheerily deadpan, has some serious points to make. The really significant thing may be that the one crucial holdup to the merger is American medicine. In a section called “America’s Health Care Blind Spot,” she writes, “The US system of health care is indefensible from an economic as well as a business standpoint.” And, she adds, “If Americans had the same system as Canada or Germany the savings would total 1.079 trillion per year.” She also has some harsh things to say—again, strictly from a balance-sheet point of view—about our military. In other words, the takeaway of this free-market, business professor’s view is not that America would engulf Canada but that Canada would need to be sure America was up to grade before it could consider the merger. With all the difficulties Obamacare has had getting set up, that fundamental point is not about to go away.

What the new country would need, of course, is a leader. Who would become the first Prime Minister of Canmerica, Inc? (For, if we’re getting up to grade, then the advantages of a parliamentary system are such that we would surely jointly choose that.) The odd truth is that the current American President, for all that we tilt right, might be too liberal for Canadians, while the current Canadian Premier, Stephen Harper, might be much too conservative for Americans. The compromise candidate would have to be someone in the northern tier, a person broadly liberal in outlook and yet sufficiently conservative to speak to a resource- and rural-minded people—and someone who could somehow combine the Canadian taste for deadpan satiric comedy with the American one for hyper-passionate political engagement. Step up, Premier Al Franken! Your moment to lead us all may have arrived at last.

Government is the #1 enemy of the people and the source of all major problems of humanity.  Anarchy is the best political system.  Basil Venitis, venitis@gmail.com, http://themostsearched.blogspot.com, @Venitis

Secession is a good principle, restraining the federal government not to overburden the states with too much federalism, too many federal rules, regulations, and VAT.

American secession was all wiped out with the Civil War, and the federal government has grown by leaps and bounds.  Americans have suffered the consequences, and they need to reconsider this. It's not treason to think about the possibility of secession. This is something that's voluntary. Americans came together voluntarily. A free society means you can dissolve it voluntarily. That was the whole issue was about.

Just remember one of the reasons that Wilson drove Americans unnecessarily into World War I. He talked about what we have to give, have every country in the world the benefit of self-determination, a good principle. He did not really believe that, but self-determination is a good principle. It's a very American principle, and it's a shame that Americans can't discuss this.

No matter what they do and how many promises they have and how many bailouts they have, they can't do it if the money doesn't work. So then, the independence of the states will come back and it doesn't mean that you'll be un-American to even contemplate what might have to be done once the dollar crashes.



Secession, in a nutshell, is a State withdrawing from the Union. In the spirit of the Founding Fathers, it is the ultimate "check and balance" for the Federal Government. Without the option to secede, individual states would not be able to keep the power of the Federal Government in check. But, before we can properly examine a modern act of secession, we need to know a little about how the Union became the Union in the first place.

Thirteen Colony-states revolted against England and declared their freedom, in other words, they seceded from the British Empire. At the end of the revolutionary war, these 13 Colony-states were, for all intents and purposes, independent countries, loosely united in a Confederacy. While the 13 colonies had much in common, they were not subordinated under one central government. The colonies existed as independent country-states for about 10 years until the Constitutional Congress, made up of representatives of all 13 colonies, delivered the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution was eventually ratified by all 13 colonies and the United States was born.

Nobody forced any of the 13 colonies to join the Union. Some of the colonies resisted joining the Union and, only after many guarantees and lots of explanation from the likes of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, did they finally agree to the formation of the Union. The state of New York offered so much resistance that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay published no fewer than 85 essays in the New York newspaper to explain the meaning of the Constitution and why joining the Union was a good thing to do. These essays became known as The Federalist Papers.

During the years preceding the Civil War, the Southern states became increasingly troubled by the heavy hand of the Federal Government, and threatened secession. After much debate about limits to the power of the Federal Government, the Southern states (beginning in 1861), including Texas, seceded from the Union. This was done simply by declaration. The Southern states formed a Confederacy, and became known as the Confederate States. The Union, led by President Lincoln, objected to this action and the president deployed the US military into war against the Confederacy. Eventually, about 10 years later, the Southern states were re-admitted into the Union.  The Southern states did not secede over the issue of slavery, they seceded over the issue of States Rights.

Current law does not address secession. The Constitution is silent on the issue. Each of the several states has its own Constitution as well as its own governing body, usually comprised of a governor, a congress, and a Supreme Court. The governments of the several states often mirror the government of the United States. To secede from the Union, a state congress would simply need to vote in favor of secession and sign a declaration indicating such. From that moment, the state would be an independent country.

Is all the recent talk of secession mere sour grapes over election, or perhaps something deeper?   Currently there are active petitions in support of secession for all 50 states, with Texas taking the lead in number of signatures.  Texas has well over the number of signatures needed to generate a response from the administration. These petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of American union.

Is it treasonous to want to secede from the United States?  Many think the question of secession was settled by the American Civil War.  On the contrary, the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of American founding.  Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort. Writing to William Giles in 1825, he concluded that states should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.

Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical. Do we have a government without limitation of powers yet?  The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right? Secession is a deeply American principle.  USA was born through secession.  Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those traitors became USA's greatest patriots.

Ron Paul notes there is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.  That is what our Revolutionary War was all about and today the American government is vastly overstepping its constitutional bounds with no signs of reform.  In fact, the recent election only further entrenched the status quo.  If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.

Consider the ballot measures that passed in Colorado and Washington state regarding marijuana laws.  The people in those states have clearly indicated that they are ready to try something different where drug policy is concerned, yet they will still face a tremendous threat from the federal government.  In California, the Feds have been arresting peaceful medical marijuana users and raiding dispensaries that state and local governments have sanctioned. This shouldn’t happen in a free country.

It remains to be seen what will happen in states that are refusing to comply with the deeply unpopular mandates of Obamacare by not setting up healthcare exchanges.  It appears the Federal government will not respect those decisions either.

Ron Paul points out that in a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over.  If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore?  At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government?  And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free? Ron Paul declares that if a people cannot secede from an oppressive government, they cannot truly be considered free.