Secessionism Meets the New World Order: The Southern League, David Hume, and the Urge to Create Borders

Introduction In recent years, many organizations and theoreticians have advocated, in one form or another, the elimination of national borders. Recent interviews, for example, with the newly elected president of Mexico suggest that he foresees a future in which there is no border between the United States and his nation; President Fox has proposed broad initiatives to make that vision a reality.1 Similarly, the increasing economic unification of Europe has meant a substantial erosion of national sovereignties, and many see the ultimate outcome of such an effort as the creation of a United States of Europe.2 Borders are disappearing all around us, it seems. Yet significant movements exist in many nations, including the United States, toward secession, fraction, and division of nations. This paper examines the theoretical underpinnings of such movements in the developed nations of the West, paying particular attention to the Southern League (USA), examining the philosophical tensions implicit within the theoretical underpinnings of this philosophy of secession. Secessionist Movements in the Modern World The impression commonly generated in our modern world is that the day of unification has arrived. Large-scale efforts, such as the European Union and "free-trade" zones like NAFTA3 might be construed as an indication that the world is moving towards ever larger and more inclusive states, probably to conclude with a one-nation world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The modern age is in fact an age of secessionist movements; some, like the ones in Bosnia, the former USSR, and Quebec, have succeeded or have a high chance of success. Some, like the American secessionist movements, appear to have very slim chances indeed. But there are hundreds of such movements active in our world, and they are political forces that deserve more serious attention than they have received. Researchers have published estimates that only twenty-five states in the United Nations do not have active secessionist movements;4 active campaigns for at least partial sovereignty operate in at least sixty nations.5 In the United States, there is an Alaskan independence movement; it has twenty thousand members, making it the third largest political party in the state. As Mark Chyson, leader of the party, suggests, the goal of their party is a vote on statehood: The party is advocating a legal and legitimate plebiscite"-or vote-Chryson told WorldNetDaily, because "in 1958, there was a statehood vote," but the question asked of voters was not in line with U.S. treaties with the United Nations and international law. "The question, basically, was, `Shall the statehood act be adop-ted, yes or no?"' Chryson said. "But the 1947 United Nations charter-and I'm no fan of the United Nations, however, that is a treaty the U.S. signed-states that Alaska is a non-self-governing land." As such, he said, "we were entitled to have a vote on self-government." Those choices "include independence, territorial status, remain a state or become a separate, independent nation. The 1958 vote had just two choices, not the four."6 A similar movement exists in California; the Free California Movement argues that their state subsidizes the USA to the tune of eight billion dollars per year.7 There is also a New England Confederation, which advocates home rule for New England; this group specifically advocates non-violent political change. All of our current members have agreed to a statement, as part of their application for membership, taking an absolute and uncompromising stand against political violence to achieve political goals, and all future members will be required to do the same. We categorically denounce all who would take up arms against any government-whether it be local, state, or federal-and consider such action foolish, dangerous, unlawful, and politically damning for those groups and individuals who employ such tactics. …