Secession movements have served as a barometer of America’s emotional condition since the nation’s founding. The American Project began with a movement to secede from the 13 colonies’ mother country, Great Britain, in an attempt to found a new nation. The United States nearly foundered in the 1860s when it briefly split into two nations, igniting the Civil War (or, as it is called in some places, the War Between the States). In some future epoch, the United States may well disintegrate due to the actions of some novel secession movement. Such are the ironies of history.
Human affairs being what they are, it is inherently dangerous to predict the ultimate results of contemporary social and political movements, particularly ones that have their beginnings at the fringes of society.
Most fringe movements fizzle out without achieving much. A few move into the mainstream and bring about notable changes, but these changes are often quite modest compared to the radical restructurings their founders hoped to achieve. This is because fringe movements are forced to modify their goals and rhetoric to achieve wider success.
Because most secession movements in U.S. history – inclusive of attempts by municipalities and counties to secede from other counties, municipalities or states to form new political units – have failed, it would be foolish to speculate on the new secession movements’ chances of success.
However, divining what the latest upsurge of ‘secession fever’ says about the health of American democracy is a less risky enterprise. On this subject, the tea leaves are unanimous: rising use of the “s-word” – secession – by U.S. state representatives and right-wing media pundits is a worrisome sign for the condition of the American Project.
OUT OF HIBERNATION
Local and regional secession movements are a recurring feature of American political life. Discontent with rising taxation, disputes over land and water rights, and deep disagreements over hot-button social issues are the main forces that have triggered past secession movements.
Beginning with the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s 44th – and first Black – president in 2008, secession began to re-emerge as a topic of interest for some voters, particularly on the political right.
Although then-Governor Rick Perry of Texas was essentially joking when he quipped to a reporter after a Tea Party event in 2009 that “if Washington continues to thumb its nose at the American people, who knows what may come out of that?”, Perry’s remark touched off a firestorm of criticism. The heat generated by one offhand remark speaks to the anxiety many feel at the prospect of a repeat of 1861-65 – even when it is purely hypothetical.
In fairness to the governor, it was the reporter who used the word “secession” in his question to Mr. Perry, not Mr. Perry himself. The exchange nevertheless served as a “coming out” of sorts for the s-word from the political closet less than six months into Mr. Obama’s presidency. During the Obama years, a variety of county-level secession movements in states as diverse as New York, California, Illinois and Oregon either came out of deep hibernation or took shape from scratch.
The declaration of 50 state public health emergencies in March 2020 to help control the spread of the coronavirus appeared to give an added impetus to several local secession movements. To all appearances, these have accelerated and attracted more followers since last spring at least partly on the basis of broad rural resentment of pandemic lockdown measures in several of states, which rural residents believe were unfairly foisted on less population-dense regions at less risk of viral contagion.
The aftermath of the contested 2020 presidential election, in particular a widespread belief among conservative rural voters that the election was stolen from former President Trump, is another factor that can’t be overlooked in explaining the recent upsurge in support for secession campaigns. If you sincerely believe the nation you call home is no longer a functioning democracy, why wouldn’t you want to break away from it?
Four county-level secession movements are worth noting, because they are garnering significant local support and may be emblematic of secession movements to come.
THE MOVEMENT FOR ‘GREATER IDAHO’
A highly organized grass roots campaign in eastern Oregon calling itself the ‘Greater Idaho’ movement attracted substantial news coverage during the week of May 21 when a majority of residents in five eastern counties – Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur and Sherman – voted in binding local referenda to direct their county boards to consider the means by which they might leave Oregon and merge with Idaho.
In doing so, the five counties named above joined two other counties – Union and Jefferson – whose residents voted for similar measures in May 2020. Margins in favor for the secession measures were in the 70% to 80% range in all seven counties.
The ultimate goal of ‘Greater Idaho’ is to encourage 18 counties in Oregon’s high prairie midsection (Oregon contains 36 counties in all) to break away from the state’s liberal-dominated coast and merge with more politically conservative and rural Idaho. Supporters believe such a merger would be economically advantageous for eastern Oregon residents given Idaho’s lower income and property tax rates and what they describe as a ‘more business-friendly’ political culture.
The main impetus of the secession push, however, appears to be centered on issues related to respect and control. Many eastern Oregonians simply feel disrespected by the coastal representatives who control state politics and the governor’s chair in the state capitol of Salem.
The legislature’s ability to pass gun control and environmental regulation measures at odds with residents’ views has irked rural voters. The length and severity of the pandemic lockdowns also irritated easterners, most particularly because recorded COVID-19 cases in Oregon’s eastern half were low March to July of 2020, even as lockdown measures shuttered local businesses and struck at the livelihoods of rural workers.
The organizers of the ‘Greater Idaho’ movement don’t appear to be ultra-rightist firebrands – at least based on their official materials. The movement’s official website describes its aims as focused on ‘moving the border between Oregon and Idaho’ which is ‘outdated’. Online and print materials describe the proposed border shift as being ‘a win-win’ for both conservative eastern Oregonians and residents of the coastal Willamette Valley for reasons connected with taxation, regulation, and the ability to pass the types of legislation their differing constituencies would prefer.
In essence, the Greater Idaho movement argues that the departure of 18 eastern counties would allow the remainder of Oregon to pass liberal legislation to its heart’s content without being blocked in the legislature by eastern conservatives, while Idaho would gain large numbers of rural conservatives who would expand its economy and support conservative legislation in Idaho’s House and Senate chambers.
BORDER (BROADER?) AMBITIONS
Despite the absence of conspiracy theories and blatantly hostile language regarding the populations of eastern Oregon in the movement’s materials, a reader will note that the campaign literature also prominently argues that a Greater Idaho might reasonably include portions of southwest Washington State and even parts of northern California. Indeed, the movement’s ambitions appear to be greater than merely addressing the inequities perceived by eastern Oregonians, but are instead focused on a wider reimagining of state borders in the Pacific Northwest.
Whether this should be seen as more or less alarming in the current national political context depends on one’s point of view.
For a county or counties to break away from one U.S. state to join another depends on the consent of both states’ legislatures, as well as on an Act of Congress. Separating half of the counties from one state to merge them with another would already be setting a pretty high bar for any secession movement. If the goal is to separate additional counties from two other states to join the merger, then the bar would appear to be far out of reach, or to require decades of organization and lobbying to achieve.
But never underestimate an American social movement with a goal that appears out of reach. The nation has been shaped exactly by a variety of such movements: secession, anti-slavery, pro-slavery, pro-temperance, pro- and anti-abortion, etc. All of them required decades of lobbying, marching and organizing to achieve their goals.
SEPARATING FROM ‘CHICAGO’
A second state-based secession movement that has been gathering steam of late is a campaign by some two dozen counties in southern Illinois to secede from ‘Chicago’ – this is usually the entity identified by secession supporters as requiring separation from their county – in favor of either a merger with neighboring Indiana or the creation of a new state. The roots of the movement go back more than a decade, but the campaign appears to have accelerated as a result of the events of 2020.
The movement, which we’ll term ‘the Southern Illinois secession movement’ for ease of use, is notable for two reasons. First, the speed at which the campaign is moving and the number of residents in the affected counties that have expressed an interest in it is striking. Second, the language used by supporters consistently focuses on separation from ‘Chicago’ rather than from ‘Illinois’. It is almost as if supporters believe the Prairie State to be made up of Chicago and their own counties, with nothing in between.
In fact, Illinois is made up of 102 counties. Chicago, which is located in Cook County, is the largest city in the state by far and accounts for roughly 16% of Illinois’ population. However, Chicago accounts for the bulk of only one county out of 102 and is located some distance away from the group of 24 counties that have voted to explore secession options.
The language used by secession supporters reflects a widespread belief in southern Illinois that Chicago is irredeemably violent and corrupt, an essentially ungovernable city that weighs the rest of the state down with financial demands for social services and pensions.
FEELING UNHEARD IN SPRINGFIELD
In fact, the roots of Illinois’ and Chicago’s financial difficulties are complex and longstanding in nature, and involve decisions made by many state actors over many decades, both in Chicago and in Springfield, the state capitol, and in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, current fiscal and other conditions have left many Illinoisans feeling frustrated and unheard, and this is feeding into the southeastern secession movement.
Voters in 24 counties approved non-binding resolutions in November 2020 which directed their county commissioners to begin exploring the legal and administrative mechanisms needed to advance the secessionist cause. As non-binding resolutions, these mandates lack significant legal force, but are likely to spur years of further legwork by county-level elected representatives to explore and pursue a variety of secession options. As such, they will keep the conversation surrounding secession active and visible.
LISTENERS AND WATCHERS THERE ARE APLENTY
One more thing of note concerning the Southern Illinois Secession Movement: the movement is being actively covered in blogs such as redstatesecession.org, whose curators actively promote the secession of conservative “red states” from the United States. Both editorial content and reader commentary on the redstatesecession blog are markedly more militant and conspiratorial in content than the discourse surrounding the Greater Idaho movement, which provides a useful contrast.
Secessionist and far-right blogs and news sites that cover the Southern Illinois Secession Movement abound with references to QAnon and the stolen 2020 election falsehood. Militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters are described as ‘patriots’ and the stormers of the Capitol Building on Jan. 6 are lauded as ‘heroes’.
While it’s doubtful that the 70% or more of southern Illinois residents who voted in favor of non-binding resolutions to explore secession subscribe to all or any of the far-right wing views on offer at redstatesecession.org, it’s significant that militia members and other far-right actors have embraced the Southern Illinois cause as one worthy of their support. In their conception, the Southern Illinois movement would serve as a half-step in the direction of a future movement by ‘Red States’ to leave the Union.
To put it another way, far-righters are of the opinion that the best way to ‘normalize’ secession as an option for Red States is to support counties in one or more states in their efforts to break away. It would take only one more step to encourage several states to depart from the Union (again). And secession would appear a more viable option if counties paved the way.
SAY HELLO TO EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA
The third county session movement worth noting is a movement of such recent vintage that is can scarce be called a movement. Perhaps a surging sentiment, or a trial balloon with highly placed fans might be more accurate ways to describe a recent campaign by some western Virginia counties to pursue secession from Virginia in favor of The Old Dominion’s neighbor to the west, the aptly named West Virginia.
The movement erupted suddenly in January 2020 in response to the Virginia legislature’s considering a number of pieces of progressive legislation involving background checks for firearms, loosening some restrictions on abortion, and voting to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In response, the elected leaders of 100 Virginia counties and municipalities declared themselves “sanctuaries” for the Second Amendment and thousands of armed protesters descended on Richmond to agitate against gun restrictions.
The reaction to these developments across the border in West Virginia was swift and startling. At a hastily convened news conference, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice and then-Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. spoke sympathetically of the Virginia counties’ desire to secede and opined that the citizens of West Virginia would welcome the seceding localities “with open arms”.
It is very unusual for a sitting state governor to become involved in the internal affairs of a neighboring state, much less encourage a secession drive by municipalities in that state. As such, Gov. Justice’s statement raised more than a few eyebrows, and generated some scoffing that election year craziness was at work. In an election year as heated as 2020, one might expect some strange behavior by officials running for re-election like Gov. Justice, encouraged by the outspoken nature of the then-US president.
The Virginia county secession drive has not made much progress since early last year, partly because the pandemic forced people indoors and away from public gatherings, making it more difficult to organize complicated civic campaigns from scratch.
Gov. Justice was re-elected comfortably in 2020, lessening the short-term attractiveness of supporting an idea as controversial as enlarging the borders of his state. Presidents Trump is out of office, and Mr. Falwell has his own personal and professional problems at the moment stemming from revelations of extramarital activities.
Given these shifts in the fortunes of several key actors in the drama, the Virginia county secession drive has slowed for the moment. But the violence of its initial outburst leaves one to wonder whether it will raise its head again with even greater force if more political tinder is placed on the fire.
NORTH COUNTRY BLUES
The fourth secession movement worth mentioning is, like the case above, one of very recent vintage, but with much less certain or widespread popular support, at least to date. It is based in southern Minnesota (not technically the ‘North Country’, but close enough) and appears to be the brainchild of a single Minnesota state representative, a one Jeremy Munson.
The concept doesn’t exactly have a name yet, but the idea is basically for a group of southwestern Minnesota counties to secede from their home state in favor of joining neighboring South Dakota to the west.
State Representative Munson first floating this idea, which may have had its origin entirely in his thinking, in late 2020 via an official statement and his campaign website. He took the idea a step further in March 2021, when he put forward House File 2243, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Minnesota counties to join neighboring South Dakota. If the bill became law, Minnesota would need to hold a statewide referendum to amend the state constitution to allow for such departures.
Munson admits that the measure has scant chance of becoming law, in part because it is one of 2,400 proposed bills being reviewed by the Minnesota legislature in its spring 2021 session. It also isn’t clear if there enough votes in the state’s Republican-controlled Senate to allow for passage of the bill assuming the legislature were even to consider it.
FRIENDS IN STRANGE PLACES
For an apparent dead letter, however, the measure received a surprisingly high profile endorsement on March 25 when South Dakota’s Republican governor, Kristi Noem, posted a statement to her Twitter account saying that South Dakota “would roll out the red carpet” for like-minded conservative Minnesotans if they decided to leave (whether by seceding or just moving).
As mentioned above, it is most unusual for a sitting governor to opine on a secession movement in a neighboring state, and less common still for a governor in one state to cheer on a secession movement in another state. To provide encouragement of this kind would be considered an unforgivable breach of etiquette and an obnoxious interference in the affairs of another state in normal times.
The fact that Gov. Noem felt no compunction over taking to her Twitter feed to give a shout out in support of Mr. Munson’s proposal is yet another sign that we are not living in normal times. With encouragement from such a high level, who can say how far Minnesota’s secession movement might go?
Our survey of four state-based county secession movements complete, we will turn to the broader political and social implications of the rise in U.S. secession movements in our second and final blog post on the topic, “Fear the S-Word, Part Two”. Look for that in about two weeks.
Until then, I remain –
Greymantle
