Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
This podcast uses government documents to illuminate the workings of the American government, and offer context around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life.
Announcer: Welcome to civil discourse. This podcast will use government documents to illuminate the workings of the American government and offer context around the effects of government agencies in your everyday life. Now your host, Nia Rogers, Public Affairs Librarian and Dr. John Aughenbaugh Political Science Professor.
N. Rodgers: Hey, Aughie.
J. Aughenbaugh: Good morning, Nia. How are you?
N. Rodgers: I'm good. How are you? Actually, I'm good, but I'm kind of ready to just bail.
J. Aughenbaugh: I was about to say, I'm thinking about seceding. I'm not entirely sure from what I would secede. But nevertheless, I'm thinking about seceding this morning. What do you think about me seceding?
N. Rodgers: Well, I think that it would be interesting if you were successful. Successful succession. You say that three times fast, see if your tongue falls out. But you do have to have something to secede from, can't just be like I am seceding and then you just stand there. I guess we could secede from VCU, but technically, wouldn't that just be quitting?
J. Aughenbaugh: I'm not entirely sure that VCU would fight us leaving.
N. Rodgers: Or would notice. Now, it could be that if we decided to secede from VCU, we could be starting our own university. Is that basically what we could doing in order to. So we would start poaching people that we like from VCU and then they might fight because they might say wow. There can be only one and then they would cut our heads off in a parking lot and it would all be sad.
J. Aughenbaugh: Then if we start appropriating desks and computers and office supplies.
N. Rodgers: Now, that's just straight up theft. I guess it's not theft if you secede. I guess if Texas secedes and it takes away its land, it's not really theft.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because again, you're talking about resources, and if we were creating our university we would need computers, we would need office desks, we would take classroom chairs.
N. Rodgers: Conceptually, how is secession different from cornage.
J. Aughenbaugh: For listeners, if you haven't picked up on the subject of today's podcast episode and our frivolous hypothetical of Nia and I seceding from VCU. Our topic today is Secession. No succession as in we succeeded.
N. Rodgers: Or as in the next person in line.
J. Aughenbaugh: Line.
N. Rodgers: Like Prince Charles was in line for succession after Queen Elizabeth.
J. Aughenbaugh: Elizabeth. Yes.
N. Rodgers: That's is not that.
J. Aughenbaugh: We're talking about S-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N, Succession. Yes. What is it conceptually? Well, it is the formal withdraw of a group from a political entity. It usually begins when the group wanting to leave proclaims either an act of succession and this is usually done with a declaration of independence.
N. Rodgers: We don't like you, King George, and we're bailing. Which is by the way the Poorman's summary of the declaration of independence.
J. Aughenbaugh: Independence.
N. Rodgers: We don't like you and we're leaving.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Within that declaration is usually a list of grievances or in the case of the American Declaration of Independence, as I'm fond of saying, a really well written list of bitching and griping. But nevertheless.
N. Rodgers: Then you did this, and then you did this, and then you did this.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: We're living because of that.
J. Aughenbaugh: A Secession attempt could be violent or it could be peaceful.
N. Rodgers: If George had not wanted to keep us, he could have said vaya con Dios, my friends, go with God and that would have been the end of that.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
N. Rodgers: We're done. We don't need you.
J. Aughenbaugh: We don't need you.
N. Rodgers: How often is it like that, though?
J. Aughenbaugh: Peaceful, hardly ever.
N. Rodgers: Because hardly any country or entity wants to lose territory or people.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Raw material material, whatever it is. They're hardly ever like, sure, we can get along without that.
J. Aughenbaugh: Now, also understand Nia that a group declaring secession, declaring independence, may not necessarily want independence. They use it as leverage in negotiating improved conditions for the group or greater access to resources or greater compensation, etc, and we'll get into that as whether or not that's a legitimate, if you will, according to scholars. A legitimate justification for declaring secession. But nevertheless, it can be used as a tactic to improve the condition of the group that declares secession.
N. Rodgers: But is that not a dangerous game to play because what happens if they say, all right, go.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Then you're like, well, we didn't actually mean we really wanted to go. Then you start looking around at each other like, well, now what do we do? It's like dogs that chase a car?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: If they ever caught the car, what would they do with it?
J. Aughenbaugh: That falls into the category of be careful what you wish for. Because you might just get it. But the other downside is, if you're not really serious about secession and you declare it, there could be punishment because you had the audacity to say to those in power, we want to leave you. If you're going to do it, you better make sure you're willing to go ahead and suffer the consequences, including war or being punished if you weren't really serious.
N. Rodgers: Or if you're not successful.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, if you're not successful.
N. Rodgers: One could argue that the Civil War of the United States.
J. Aughenbaugh: We can get into that cause if you're not successful, there are so many costs and the punishments can be really severe.
N. Rodgers: The burning of the South. Anyway.
J. Aughenbaugh: You've already mentioned one of the most notable examples of modern, if you will, political times of secession.
N. Rodgers: I've mentioned technically two of them. Revolution and the civil.
J. Aughenbaugh: The American Revolution, though it's hardly ever taught this way. In my research, it's hardly ever taught as secession.
N. Rodgers: Really?
J. Aughenbaugh: It's described as a revolution. They revolted.
N. Rodgers: Well, they were revolting. I'm kidding, they were lovely.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, some of them were lovely and others could perhaps not have been all that lovely. But technically, it was a secession and the reason why it fits the definition of secession is that each of the American states were created legally by Charters of the British crown. The Charters made it very clear. You could not and terminate suspend the contract with the British crown.
N. Rodgers: They are very one-sided, only the crown could end that.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right.
N. Rodgers: No the territory.
J. Aughenbaugh: Not the colonies. When the colonies came together and wrote the Declaration of Independence, per international law, they were seceding. They were attempting a secession. But Nia, you also mentioned the US Civil War. That's when the Confederate States of America attempted to secede from the Union, and we will use that as our primary example in just a few moments. But there are other notable ones, as my international relations colleagues have often used as an example. The former Soviet Republics, left the Soviet Union in 1991, which led to the dissolution of the Union.
N. Rodgers: That's how you go from being Soviet Union to Russia.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Because all the stands left and all the things on the other edge left.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. The former Republics leaving Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
N. Rodgers: Hence there's no Yugoslavia country anymore. Now it's Croatia and Slovenia and Serbia.
J. Aughenbaugh: Another North American example. Texas leaving Mexico. Again, it's referred to in textbooks as the Texas Revolution. But again, technically, it is a secession because Texas was property of the nation state known as Mexico.
J. Aughenbaugh: Another couple of examples I was aware of before I did the research, the Republic of Ireland attempting to leave the UK, which I miss.
N. Rodgers: Results modernly in the troubles. What call it the Troubles with capital T?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. Then Finland leaving the Soviet Union in 1917, which set off the Finnish Civil War.
N. Rodgers: Now, you mentioned in your notes. Biafra leaving Nigeria.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: But then they lose the Nigerian Civil War and they go back. So you can unsecede.
J. Aughenbaugh: You can be forced. Let's face it. The Confederate States of America officially seceded. But after they lost the Civil War, they basically had no choice. They had to come back to where?
N. Rodgers: To the Union.
J. Aughenbaugh: There you go. Now, American listeners are probably aware of this. But in the last 20 years, at least three states, according to my research, have contemplated seceding from the United States. The states of Texas, Alaska, and California. Now, Texas and Alaska have contemplated secession when there were Democratic presidents. California's state legislature considered a secession proposal when Donald Trump was president. I have joked with my constitutional law, structure of government class, don't be surprised after this fall's presidential election that we have.
N. Rodgers: If he wins, it comes up again.
J. Aughenbaugh: It comes up again?
N. Rodgers: Or if she wins it comes up again in other places. This is going to come up somewhere probably.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Although I don't know how serious, here's the thing. Texas talks a big game. They talk about this all the time. We're just going to leave. Don't let the door smack your butt on the way out. Go on be careful. It's a dangerous world out there. I don't know if they are really serious about it or not. I know that we would fight to keep California because California has a huge economy, and it has a huge effect on the rest of the United States food supply. Letting it go as its own separate thing would be a little avechy.
J. Aughenbaugh: I would not be so dismiss of letting Texas go.
N. Rodgers: We wouldn't want to let Texas go. It's got a lot of benefit for the United States.
J. Aughenbaugh: You just mentioned California's economy. California, if it was a separate nation state, according to scholars, would have either the fifth or perhaps the seventh largest world economy. It would create huge problems for the United States overall economically. But Texas, has an economy that's in the top 25.
N. Rodgers: Same.
J. Aughenbaugh: It would have the same impact, not of the scale of California, but very similar.
N. Rodgers: But Alaska could just go on and join Canada.
J. Aughenbaugh: No. Because again, Alaska is one of the few places in the United States that has a whole bunch of natural resources that we rely upon. Again, all three of those states, I mean, here's the rub for those who want to secede. If you argue that you are being subjugated, oppressed, or you're not getting from the government what you were promised, that's understandable as a justification. I just mentioned, for instance three of the well known justifications for wanting to secede. But think about what California would have to come up with on its own, if it left the United States. It would have to come up with its own welfare system. It would have to go ahead and replace billions of federal education dollars. It would have to provide its own national defense. You could say this about California, Texas, Alaska, any other state.
N. Rodgers: Alaska would join Canada, probably.
J. Aughenbaugh: Okay.
N. Rodgers: I doubt that it would want to be independent. Although you notice all of these are on the edge, Kansas is never pushing for secession, because I guess it'd be like East Wattini. It would be a little doughnut in the middle.
J. Aughenbaugh: Otherwise, hostile, if you will, nation state.
N. Rodgers: But 'cause we would feel a little hostile if they left at actually one's independence.
J. Aughenbaugh: But here's the other thing. If Canada even took Alaska, think about the hit it would take of its diplomatic relations with the United States.
N. Rodgers: That's true.
J. Aughenbaugh: Likewise, okay?
N. Rodgers: If Texas took Mexico, they would never hear the end of that.
J. Aughenbaugh: Again, with California, many Californians don't recognize this and many other Americans don't recognize this. The state with the largest percentage of its gross domestic product generated by US military is California. California's economy would take a huge hit because you know almost immediately California seceded, the United States federal government would go ahead and close Yank all of the bases, all the military bases. It's not just those jobs, it's all of the other industries and businesses that rely upon it.
N. Rodgers: But the plus they would have is that is where everything from Asia lands in the United States just about, so they could bottleneck.
J. Aughenbaugh: Again, Asian nations would get so much pressure from the US government to redirect their goods to other American ports. Again, this is the thing about secession.
N. Rodgers: The hit that you take is huge.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, particularly in the modern economy. It was one thing if you're talking about, the 1700s. Or even the 19th century, the 1800s, where the Confederate states were just like, Great Britain, France, you want to go ahead and support us breaking away. But today, the interconnectedness of the global economy, if Texas or California wanted to go ahead and secede, the economic, if you will, sanctions that the US government would place on any other nation trying to help out a seceding state, would have huge ripple repercussions across the global economy.
N. Rodgers: They'd have go China or Russia. They would have to go to traditional enemies of the generalized United States. But it seems like it comes up more frequently now. Do you think that has to do with, I'm just ballparking and asking a question. But I don't know if we've ever really discussed this on the podcast or not, but census shows that folks tend to gather with other folks like them. They tend to be like minded in where they choose to live and that sort of thing. Do you think that that has an effect on why there's this threat of secession, I guess?
J. Aughenbaugh: You're talking about one of the possible explanations for the increase in secessions, particularly during the 20th century. You're talking about ethnonational mobilization. Ethnic minorities have increasingly been mobilized to pursue their own states. In many ways, you see this in the United States. For instance, it's not a big shock that California and Texas, and for that matter, even Alaska have considered proposals for secession, because increasingly Americans segregate themselves politically and in terms of other variables.
N. Rodgers: I was getting at the political idea of the states we're talking about are not purple. The states we are talking about are deep blue or deep red. They're not like, the purply state of Virginia, the purply state of North Carolina. These are states that, where people have a tendency to be in line with each other in terms of their political will.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: Do you think that's part of the reason for the increase?
J. Aughenbaugh: According to political scientist, Bridget Coggins, ethno national mobilization is one of the main reasons why you've seen an increase of secession. People want to be politically in, if you will, government jurisdictions with other like minded or similar people to them, whether it'd be demographics, etc.
J. Aughenbaugh: It strikes me that what I would think the other big factor would be with secession is exactly what you were talking about just a few minutes ago with resources. Alaska could feel that it has a better chance at secession because it looks at the rest of the United States and says, oh, by the way, we have a whole bunch of the Nickel, we have a whole bunch of the oil that you need. We have favorable terms to negotiate a secession.
N. Rodgers: Yeah, and you see this a lot, for instance, in third-world African nations. As economic trends in developed nations change and their resource demands change, they look around the world, and certain resources become more important or more highly valued, and then all of a sudden, the minority groups, where those resources are, feels though they have leverage to go ahead and say to their governing regime, either you treat us better or we're gone, or they say to the international community, don't you want to support us because we have been mistreated?
J. Aughenbaugh: We have stuff. We've stuff that is valuable to you, and if you help us we will make deals with you or we will make it available to you.
N. Rodgers: That's been a long standing concern, for instance, in regards to secession movements in response to colonization. When the Western European powers in the 1600s and 1700s were colonizing other parts of the world, they did it in large part because of resources.
J. Aughenbaugh: The colonies were a great place to get wood and cotton grows here when it doesn't grow in the UK. There's all stuff where they're like this place is a paradise of stuff.
N. Rodgers: Indigenous, if you were a populations that say, hey, wait a minute, here. You're colonizing us, you're dominating us, you're subjugating us. We have something that you want.
J. Aughenbaugh: Let's talk.
N. Rodgers: Let's talk.
J. Aughenbaugh: I know that there's a lot of, like when you talk about justification for succession. There's a lot of patriotic talk about the right to identity and the right to nation-statehood and all that stuff. But it seems to me that a fair number of times with secession, it's also about, and I'm thinking in terms of the Basque region. It's terms of cultural identity and, like no, and I think Americans did that at the beginning. The colonists weren't really British anymore. In the same sense of people who were living in the UK, they were removed from that and had a very different culture in the colonies than you would find.
N. Rodgers: There are two competing dominant justifications for secession. One is known as choice theory. Basically, nobody should be forced to be part of a sovereign jurisdiction if they no longer want to be.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's a very modern concept, isn't it?
N. Rodgers: Well, actually, it goes as far back as the American colonies.
J. Aughenbaugh: But like in longer history. Serfs don't like the King. Too bad.
N. Rodgers: Too bad. Now, the Serfs would have a justification under the second dominant theory, which is the just cause theory. You have been gravely discriminated against or mistreated, so you have a choice. I have a just cause.
J. Aughenbaugh: So I can see the two.
N. Rodgers: Those are the two competing dominant theories.
J. Aughenbaugh: We want self determination, or we want to just stop getting kicked around.
N. Rodgers: Kicked around. But there are other justifications. If you look at the American Secession from the British crown, it was rooted in Hobbs and Locke's notions of the right to liberty, freedom of association, and private property. By the way, private property is a big one throughout history.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because let's take a powder here for just a moment and say, the colonists could not claim just caught. They could not claim that they were being stomped into the ground because they weren't. Taxation without representation is a very first world problem.
N. Rodgers: Yes.
J. Aughenbaugh: I'm just saying.
N. Rodgers: Yes.
J. Aughenbaugh: There were first world problems even in the 1700s, and that was one of them. Like, it's not nice and it's not particularly fair, but it's not a life ending the way.
N. Rodgers: Legally, the colonies had no leg to stand on because the charters were pretty clear.
J. Aughenbaugh: You don't get any representation, and people said, okay, because they just wanted to go to the new world and make a new life and see what fraction they can make and religious reasons.
N. Rodgers: They did it for economic religion and in religious reasons.
J. Aughenbaugh: They don't fall under the just cause. They fall more under the choice theory. I want liberty. I don't want this king. I want a different king. I'd like Mr. Washington to be king, please, or what have you.
N. Rodgers: But then you have another theory that arose, and you see this pretty clearly, Nia, with the US Civil War, and that is where you get regions claiming that the national government are treating them like second-class citizens. The South claimed that as the United States became more mercantilist and more industrialized, that the national government was beginning to destroy their way of life.
J. Aughenbaugh: In losing out on those benefits.
N. Rodgers: But what's interesting is the South was using a discriminatory institution to maintain if you will.
J. Aughenbaugh: A discriminatory institution.
N. Rodgers: We're talking about slavery here, listeners.
J. Aughenbaugh: Amazing what a pretzel form people can twist themselves into to justify their behavior.
N. Rodgers: But another justification is, and this goes back to a point that you just made, culture. If you think about what happens after big international wars, like World War I and World War II.
J. Aughenbaugh: They defied it up by.
N. Rodgers: Yes. You had the winners come in and basically just pull out much and completely ignore, if you will, cultural ties, long historical norms.
J. Aughenbaugh: Language.
N. Rodgers: Language.
J. Aughenbaugh: Shared language.
N. Rodgers: Shared religious beliefs.
J. Aughenbaugh: After World War I you get the Austrian Hungary Empire chopped up into weird so that some of the nations like Austria have huge German-speaking populations.
N. Rodgers: Yes.
J. Aughenbaugh: German cultural populations who are then in this whole other country and they're like, we don't belong with, like this doesn't make any sense and don't even get started on the Middle East. Now, the Middle East got carved up by the allies.
N. Rodgers: Yes.
J. Aughenbaugh: After World War II, and that's why there's been no peace since because it didn't take into account ethnic or social, or religious concerns at all. It was just, Okay, well, we'll make a country here and a country here and they'll be this shape. I don't know.
N. Rodgers: What goes on in that process is that the groups that are going to be affected by the map or line drawing frequently don't have a seat at the table.
J. Aughenbaugh: You're part of Iran now, and you're like, wait, what?
N. Rodgers: Even if they were willing to accept, the new, if you will, geographical boundaries because they didn't have a seat at the table, a voice in the process. They're almost immediately holding, if you will, resentments and grudges.
J. Aughenbaugh: Reasonably so.
N. Rodgers: They don't understand why they didn't have their own self determination. Again, that becomes a huge issue as you move into the late 1900s and into the 20th century. Self determination of people is a big justification. Then you get things like rectification of past injustices. You see this a lot in Africa. One tribe has committed genocide. But it's not a complete genocide. Eventually, at some point in time, those who are remaining they want to succeed. You've already mentioned discriminatory retribution. Here, you're talking about tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs. Again, this happens in resource-rich areas where we have a democracy now and we're going to regulate stuff. But the regulations mean those in power get to keep the wealth, etc. But those of you who are poor never get a chance. Then within a generation or two, those that are still poor are like, we want out of here because this is a system that doesn't work for us. But you have pointed to something that's very 21st century, the preservation of either liberal purity or conservative purity. Again, you are seeing this with the rise of populism in a lot of Western democracies.
J. Aughenbaugh: We are either liberal or we're conservative. Right.
N. Rodgers: Right and if this chunk is the opposite, it wants out.
J. Aughenbaugh: It wants out.
N. Rodgers: I don't want to be part of this crazy liberal. I want to go back to conservative or the verse.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. There are any number of justifications here. Listeners, if you saw my Google document that I wrote up for this podcast episode, there's like a one whole page of justifications I came across.
N. Rodgers: Yeah.
J. Aughenbaugh: Nia, are there arguments against secession?
N. Rodgers: Not only that, like, listeners, you can't see his notes, but the arguments against secession are pretty limited. But they basically have to do with exactly what he was talking about earlier with the federal or the larger state.
J. Aughenbaugh: The national state.
N. Rodgers: The national state being able to make sure the secessionists cannot protect their own interests. Oh, California. Really, you want to go? Let's see if anything from Asia comes through your ports ever again. Or the rest of the United States, you can, you can sell lettuce to people in Kansas, but the tariff on that is going to be 200%. The punishment that you will get for seceding it's pretty intense. That's an argument against seceding because the punishment is.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's a very pragmatic reason or argument against secession. The main theoretical one, particularly if you're talking about a democratic regime is in a democracy, whose will should dominate? The majority.
N. Rodgers: The majority you're the minority.
J. Aughenbaugh: If you're a minority and you go ahead and say, well, we want out, because we never have a chance at succeeding politically. Well, by definition, okay, majority will. If you want to go ahead and change your condition, you need to go ahead and force who to concede. The majority.
N. Rodgers: Which they're not going to do.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, or it's difficult.
N. Rodgers: If they're ready for you to leave, you got bigger problems.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, I described, for instance, in a number of my classes, Nia, if you're talking about the African-American population in the United States, post Civil War, you get the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. The promise of those amendments get completely gutted because of a series of Supreme Court rulings that allowed Southern states to enact Jim Crow Laws, which then basically meant that the African-American community had to convince the majority to pass laws, that no longer discriminated against them.
N. Rodgers: Which took 50 years, by the way?
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, in some cases, until the 1960s. You don't get the Civil Rights Act until 1964. You don't get the Voting Rights Act until 1965. But even when you get those you will force the majority to concede, to give up power. But then you got to go ahead and be vigilant so that they don't try to take back. Because that's what happens in democracies.
N. Rodgers: Side note for California, Texas, and Alaska, who may or may not be considering secession at any point in the near future. You stand no chance against the United States if it decides to take you back? You stand no chance.
J. Aughenbaugh: No chance.
N. Rodgers: Let's also keep that in mind as an argument against secession. Is your secession may be very short lived. It may be that the United States says to you, how about for two years? You try out the succession thing, see how it works and in that time, if you go out of the pocket, we just come back and take you. But if you manage to maintain yourselves, we will support you as a country, that's not how secession. That's not how people want to they want to secede and be gone, and they're like but you can't when you're seceding from something like the United States. I don't like California may be military, but I don't like its chances against the United States.
J. Aughenbaugh: Also the United States, if you just take a look at the border areas that the United States would now no longer effectively control, if, for instance, California and or Texas decided to suceed. That is all the justification for, I don't care who is president to go ahead and say, that is wholly unacceptable.
N. Rodgers: It opens up the Southern border on two very large fronts.
J. Aughenbaugh: The Western coast of the United States, okay, sorry I ain't go to happen.
N. Rodgers: It's now undefended.
J. Aughenbaugh: That ain't going to happen. Sorry.
N. Rodgers: The thing we don't do in the United States that is done in other countries that I wanted to mention from your notes because it struck me after I read them, I was like, exactly, is this paternalism that countries have where they think that those people cannot manage themselves or that region cannot manage itself. That is the British-Irish like seriously, you don't think Ireland can manage itself? But Britain didn't for a very long time, think that Ireland could manage itself. Hello it's a very strange, but it comes out of colonialism and it comes out of this idea of superior nations versus non superior nations. Oh, India can't possibly rule itself because they leave it unsaid. But what they mean is, frankly, and I'm not trying to say this is my opinion, but I believe this is what the British believe, Brown people can't take care of themselves. We have to take care of them. It's our stewardship and our responsibility to care for them like children. The Indians were like, have you met us? We are not children. We are perfectly intelligent bright people who can take care of ourselves as they have proven.
J. Aughenbaugh: For our listeners who are American who would believe that maybe that is a British attitude. Think about how many of you who may be listening to this podcast, who are liberal, who will go ahead and say, well, those Texans are crazy, and they can't govern themselves. Or if you're conservative.
N. Rodgers: Or the Native American tribes.
J. Aughenbaugh: Or if you're conservative, how do you usually think about and talk about Californians and Californian politics? If you don't think soft paternalism would not exist here in the United States, you're wrong.
N. Rodgers: You're very wrong.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because I hear it all the time. From other political scientists. We can hear it with government officials and we hear it from our students and our friends and our family. If they are different than us, we almost immediately evolve into this, but we need to take care of them because they are crazy or they're incapable of governing, or they govern terribly, etc. We always cherry pick the bad examples.
N. Rodgers: Right.
J. Aughenbaugh: Texas not being able to respond to an ice storm a couple winters ago, or California not being able to go ahead and take care of their homeless population or that policy issue. We always cherry pick the worst examples to go ahead and say, they can't govern themselves. They need to be a part of our union.
N. Rodgers: Because the argument doesn't hold otherwise. If you don't choose crappy examples, then, are there people everywhere who can't govern themselves? Yes, I am a person who can't govern myself very well. I need a calendar, I need a boss. I need things in my life to help me stay on target. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people in my acquaintance who are perfectly capable of managing themselves.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yeah.
N. Rodgers: But I do think that's an interesting that it tends to be white advanced society attitude as if the other societies have not advanced and are not perfectly functioning capable of taking care of themselves. But you see that in Vietnam. Vietnam changes hands 87,000 times to various nations because people are the Vietnamese can't take care of themselves, sure they can. For thousands of years. They'll be fine. It's a weird is a thing that the West tends to do, and especially the White West. Something that we should keep in mind. The other thing I think that's interesting argument against is and it's purely money. It's, you can leave, but you have to pay us for all the infrastructure we build.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: I would imagine we nip many secession attempts in the bud. If you said now Texas has its own power and all kinds of. It may infrastructurally not be that bad. But if you said to California, we're going to need you to pay us back for every road we built in California.
J. Aughenbaugh: Or, if California wanted the defense bases.
N. Rodgers: That's going to cost you $800,000,000,000 each or whatever. We don't have that money. Yeah, too bad. Guess you can't succeed then.
J. Aughenbaugh: In states like California and Texas always complain that the residents pay more in taxes than they receive in federal aid. But if all of a sudden you removed all that federal aid, and even if your citizens were paying taxes to state government instead of the federal government, you would still have to go ahead and spend millions of dollars just to go ahead and replicate the IRS system within your state. There are so many services that the federal government provides that are almost impossible to put $1 amount in terms of their value. Nia, your example was-.
N. Rodgers: Medicaid Medicare, Social Security, IRS.
J. Aughenbaugh: Because previously your example was tangible stuff.
N. Rodgers: Right.
J. Aughenbaugh: Roads, schools, defense bases, etc. But let's start talking about the intangible stuff. The stuff that the federal government is good at. Sending out checks.
N. Rodgers: Right.
J. Aughenbaugh: Handling volumes of paperwork. You're now going to have to replace that, if you will, infrastructure of government bureaucracy.
N. Rodgers: Yeah, and guess what, kids. The worst thing you're going to have to build is a post service.
J. Aughenbaugh: My goodness, yes.
N. Rodgers: Yes, if you think Amazon's not going to deliver stuff to California or within California, you're bonkers because that's a company that works in every country. How are you going to get those packages delivered? The last mile is the US Postal Service.
J. Aughenbaugh: That's right.
N. Rodgers: Side note, we should talk about their new trucks. Their new trucks are awesome.
J. Aughenbaugh: You like their new trucks?
N. Rodgers: I like them. They're stupid looking. I love them. Look at the big thing on the front. They've got giant bumpers so they can't be hit anymore. I feel great for the postal workers being safe because I think they're a lot safer in the new vehicles than they are in the Grummans.
J. Aughenbaugh: I like the old bland.
N. Rodgers: Heat boxes that had no air conditioning?
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes.
N. Rodgers: What cruel monster are you, anyway?
J. Aughenbaugh: It reflects the fact that for a good chunk of my early adulthood, I worked in the freezer section of a perishable warehouse. I know I'm getting old because now I'm starting to sound like my grandparents. When I was a kid.
N. Rodgers: You've moved into ancient hood.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. But the last thing I want to mention, listeners, is, and we're running out of time in this podcast episode to really delve into a specific example. But there is a really good book that touches upon the Confederate States secession that led to the Civil War. It's a book written by the editors were two historians, Eric Foner and John Garraty, G-A-R-R-A-T-Y. And the name of it is the reader's companion to American history. It was written like a textbook, but they have a really good description of secession that led to the outbreak of the American Civil War, and I highly recommend it.
N. Rodgers: Aughie, can we do you think as another full episode and talk about the succession of the South and the Civil War and what the implications are, how that came to be. Then what happened during the war all the different parts of it and then carry on for the future.
J. Aughenbaugh: Well, yeah, because it's a really good instructive lesson for those who might be thinking.
N. Rodgers: I'll be planning. I'm planning a succession. Me and Aughie's guide to seceding from the United States.
J. Aughenbaugh: This succession thing.
N. Rodgers: Think about it.
J. Aughenbaugh: Might be something to consider. Well, let's go ahead and do a follow up episode. That's a good idea.
N. Rodgers: Guys, that's an in depth thing. I don't think we can do it justice if the rest of what we do in a normal episode, which is about 10 minutes. I don't think you can really cover the civil war. You'd have to talk really fast to cover all of it.
J. Aughenbaugh: Sometimes I have that skill, but not in this particular instance. It really touches upon some of the other material we've already covered in this episode. What are some of the historical justifications for secession. Why did the North push back against secession?
N. Rodgers: Well, but also what's the follow on after that? Because we're not quite done with this yet, I don't think.
J. Aughenbaugh: No, we're still dealing with it.
N. Rodgers: That's our primer on secession, and we'll come back with you all in another episode with the specific example of the Civil War of the United States and different parts of the secession, and then what happened afterwards.
J. Aughenbaugh: Sounds good.
N. Rodgers: Cool, Aughie. Thank you.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes. For listeners, for those of you who are wondering, because we don't want to leave you hanging. We're not a big fan of cliff hangers. Unless this was-.
N. Rodgers: An episode of Dynasty.
J. Aughenbaugh: Yes, right, or your favorite show on your streaming services. Nia and I are not planning to secede from VCU. Rest assured, we will be at our jobs.
N. Rodgers: We have neither cause, I suspect.
J. Aughenbaugh: We don't have cause. I think you and I are at an age to where we're afraid of what would be the repercussions.
N. Rodgers: That and really secession is for people who have a lot of energy. At this point we are like, see, I think I'm just going to take a nap instead.
J. Aughenbaugh: No, I'm just put a nap or I'm just going to pour myself another cup of coffee. I'll get back to you in 15.
N. Rodgers: That's right. Gears. Thanks Aughie.
Announcer: You've been listening to civil discourse brought to you by VCU libraries. Opinions expressed are solely the speaker zone and do not reflect the views or opinions of VCU or VCU libraries. Special thanks to the workshop for Technical Assistance. Music by Isaac Hobson. Find more information at guides.library.vcu.edu/discourse. As always, no documents were harm to the making of this podcast.