By Professor Wall

It is becoming increasingly clear to many people that the time for secession is near. However there are still hindrances to this approach being accepted by a larger share of the general populace thanks to vocal critics. When Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently spoke on Twitter in support of “national divorce,” she ignited a firestorm of debate across social media. Many cried “treason!,” mocking her as a Confederate sympathizer who could not understand the notion that the question of breaking up the American Union had been permanently settled in the 19th century. Others applauded her statements as giving voice to their growing frustration.

Secession supporters should note that what was particularly striking about Greene’s comments regarding ‘national divorce’ was the fact that they presented the idea of secession in an optimistic, problem-solving light. In years past, positive discussion of secession has been relegated to the realms of wishful thinking and academic curiosity. But as the world continues a seemingly accelerating process of unraveling, the growing need for a resolution is leading many ordinary people to turn towards the idea of secession as a hopeful solution to the challenges facing the world today.  

For many who have advocated or written about secession in years past, this necessary transition in perspective is proving difficult. Renowned Southern scholar Brion McClanahan is one of the leading voices arguing that secession was not illegal in the eyes of the Founding Fathers and is designed to be an effective check on tyranny. A month before Greene’s comments, however, McClanahan published a blog post and podcast episode on his website where he made statements regarding secession in the union today which were discouraging and confusing to many secession advocates.  

McClanahan was responding to an article denigrating modern secession movements in the united states which appeared in National Review, written by Hillsdale College professor Miles Smith IV. McClanahan conceded in his response to Smith that ‘the time was not right for secession,’ citing his belief that the American people were not ready for it. He raised the specter of Texas v White (1869), citing it as a reason it would never happen except as a power reserved to Congress where Congress could expel a state. He further proposed that successful secession could only come from the Left. McClanahan’s analysis is reminiscent of the pessimistic and legally rigid thought processes which came to dominate the school of secessionist thought during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.  

This view of secession is outdated. Accelerating economic collapse, spurred by an international elite class becoming completely detached from reality, has created a situation ripe for ordinary people to take matters into their own hands. Parents have started taking over local school boards in spite of federal government harassment and opposition. Many individuals have chosen to opt out of tyranny by seeking a better life in freer states, leading to a mass exodus from tyrannical hotbeds such as California and New York. Many who are unable to move are engaging in grassroots efforts to initiate border changes in places such as Oregon, Illinois and California so their respective areas can come under a less tyrannical jurisdiction. Most importantly, nullification is beginning to become a common theme among local jurisdictions, such as counties, in response to growing efforts to restrict gun ownership, free speech, and various other rights.  

For those who advocate for secession, it is now time to embrace secession optimistically and with vigor. The thirteen colonies in 1776 had no legal basis in British law for seceding, but they did it anyway because of the natural rights which the founding generation recognized as inherently belonging to all men. Nor should there be concerns about the propaganda campaigns coming from the Totalitarian Left and their cronies in the mainstream media. Thanks to Donald Trump, their mystique has been shattered and their reputation has only gotten worse since 2016. Rather, work should be done to re-frame the narrative surrounding secession in the public eye, as Trump’s followers did so brilliantly with the “fake news” label.  

Finally, and most importantly, there needs to be an emphasis on the virtues and rights of local government, especially county and town governments. Local governments need to be recognized as the true “laboratories of democracy,” because the voice of a self-governing people is most effectively heard at the most local level. In this way, secession becomes the true expression of the people’s voice.  

It is time to think “outside the box” on secession and continue developing the idea in more forward-thinking, optimistic ways. As the great Ron Paul has often said: “An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government.” The great challenge of this era is to restore freedom; the only way that will be accomplished is by the common people at the grassroots level breaking up the fossilized, bureaucratic monoliths that many of the world’s countries have become. The Time of Secession is coming, and it is time to change the perspective from the pessimism of a McClanahan to the optimism of those like Michael Malice:True, a house divided against itself cannot stand. But some houses don’t need to remain standing at all.”  

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Liberty Block or any of its members. We welcome all forms of serious feedback and debate. Professor Wall (@ProfessorWall76) is an independent educator, podcaster, self-determination advocate, and grassroots veteran of the Ron Paul 2012 campaign. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history and a masters degree in education. He opines on self-determination-oriented topics regularly at his website On This Terrestrial Ball and his subscription site

1 Comment

Keith Bessette · April 4, 2023 at 1:54 pm

IMO Professor Wall misrepresented McClanahan’s analysis of the article covered in the Brion McClanahan Show episode raised here. McClanahan pointed out where he agreed and where he disagreed with the article. It seems Wall heard just as much of Brion’s quoting an article including where he disagreed as Brion’s actual positions.

Brion’s “pessimism” (I wouldn’t use that term for what he said, but OK) expressed in this episode in my interpretation is that the majority of American voters are not yet ready for a national divorce, for a breaking up of the US today. I consider this true.
McClanahan also said the right base majority in total in America is less likely than the left to support secession right now, as the right wants to maintain control and impose their values on all of America. I consider this true.

Professor Wall’s take on McClanahan’s position on Texas v. White is wrong. Brion has repeatedly pointed out why the SCOTUS case is not a legitimate argument against unilateral state secession, in detail. In this episode he stated that many people use it as an argument against secession unless Congress “kicks out” a state, and referenced the Calexit movement [note – here he referred the Calexit 2.0 full state secession version of the leftists].

McClanahan was reporting what he sees – how Texas v. White is used – often successfully – to get both left and right to believe unilateral state secession is “treason”, “rebellion”, “illegal”, “unconstitutional”. This is true – I often argue with those who believe the false claim, and suspect that stats would show the majority of Americans who have heard of Texas v. White would say it means a state cannot leave. Lots of conservative Republicans believe it is illegal.

McClanahan has done multiple shows and course segments on why Texas v. White doesn’t make secession “illegal”, answering every normie argument I’ve ever heard that uses the case to deny the right of self governance of a state.

In one discussion on secession, when asked what is the proper response to the Texas v. White objection, Brion answered with the best response I have ever heard to the false normie claim, one I’ve used since hearing it: “Who cares!”.
In other words, Brion’s position on Texas v. White as an argument against a state deciding to leave the union is that the SCOTUS opinion doesn’t matter at all legally.

For those interested in Brion McClanahan’s position on secession, there are numerous episodes of his show covering many details of why secession is the proper, legal, moral, constitutional response. He also has several classes on secession, one of which I’ve taken (“Secession”) and a newer one of which is on sale now (“Reading Secession”). See

In a recent episode of the Brion McClanahan show Brion discussed the practicality of Texas, Florida, and California, each seceding and forming independent countries. He went over the reasons he sees these as likely being first, and why they would be successful as independent. He then discussed Greater Idaho as more likely to happen first, as an middle step moving state lines, the possibility of a group of New England states leaving together to get a larger economy and sea access for the landlocked states, and the exception in New England of the Free State Project and New Hampshire with the libertarian reason for leaving.

There is much to be learned about secession from Professor Brion McClanahan, one of the strongest supporters of unilateral state session that I follow.

Reading Professor Wall’s take made me wonder – is Professor Wall a Yankee?

😁 (No offense intended the good professor. I’m glad there are people who push for “optimism” on secession, as there are some who are reached by that emotional take. I might often sound “optimistic”. But I also appreciate knowledgeable historians such as McClanahan with a solid and realistic view on the current political environment in America and what might be a realizable near-term secession movement, and how to argue for secession using a firm understanding of the Founder’s viewpoints).

[end of rant]

Keith Bessette

Comments are closed.