The Catholic Case for Secession? | Crisis Magazine – with reflections

Source: The Catholic Case for Secession? - Crisis Magazine

This is not only an excellent article in and of itself – while coming from, and speaking to, a Roman Catholic perspective, there is plenty in here for Christian and other conservatives who are not of that observance to appreciate – the mere fact that it has been written and published by a magazine of the stature of Crisis indicates the fact that the Overton window is being stretched far enough to include serious consideration of secession by relatively mainstream (albeit still conservative) sources. That actually encourages me a great deal.

I love the idea of America, "one nation... under God, with liberty and justice for all," extending "from sea to shining sea." But the reality is that we are – like it or not – no longer one nation, either socially, politically, or morally, nor in the case of the secular Left, under God. And there are weaknesses as well as strengths in trying to maintain a single nation-state that extends from sea to shining sea, especially when the population is so large, and so dramatically divided between the urban-coastal "elite" (self-proclaimed) and what used to be honored as the Heartland, but is now mocked and disparaged as "fly-over country."

The chief argument against division that I see, at this point, is the China threat. But as this article points out, "there is no reason that a divided America could not remain a confederation of allies when it comes to military defense. An attack on any one new American nation-state could be considered an attack on all nation-states." And if recent years – decades – are anything to go by, it seems that our differences are likely to increase, rather than decrease, as time goes on. And I am in complete agreement with the conclusion of this essay:

"If secession is inevitable, then the longer it is put off, the more likely it becomes that violent conflict will be the only remaining option. Secession might well be the most peaceful means to move forward, when the alternative is using the force of the state to keep people together who want to go their separate ways."

As I have commented here on more than one occasion, an amicable – or at least, peaceful – separation is almost certainly likely to be far better for all parties concerned than a violent civil war... and a real one (*), this time!

---

(* What is usually called "the (American) Civil War" was not a true civil war at all: an actual civil war is between two or more factions, for control of the central government. That one was between a region which sought to separate itself and be left alone to work out its own destiny – e.g., self-determination, much as in the American War of Independence, which wasn't technically a "Revolutionary" War, either – and a central government determined to prevent that, by whatever means necessary. Thus my comment, above...)