Could a Depression Cause a Secession?

Barak Obama made an interesting choice recently: To take the oath of office on Abraham Lincoln's bible. This was not an unthoughtful gesture, but rather than a window into how President Obama wants to be viewed. He obviously desires to be seen as a uniter, someone who transcends black and white, rich and poor, liberal and conservative, and wisely steers them into a commonly held ideology. The comparisons are not that far-fetched, given that he is from Lincoln's home state of Illinois, and inherits a highly divided country, just as Lincoln did.

According to one Russian professor, he will also confront one of the same overarching problems of Lincoln's administration: Secession. Igor Panarin, of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs, says that the US is a sinking ship, and will split up into 6 regional nations. He sees an end to the 50 states under one federal head. In his forecast, he predicts riots based on joblessness, food shortages, and a tear in the fabric of society. Now, it should also be mentioned that Prof. Panarin has written several books on information warfare. His alignment with the Russian political establishment guarantees he has no warm or fuzzy feelings for the United States. In fact, he goes so far as to assert Russia's right to reclaim Alaska for the motherland when this happens.

Support for his views, however, comes from one of the most respected men in the field of trend analysis. His name is Gerald Celente, and he managed to predict, among other things, the 1987 Wall Street Crash, the very quarter that the dot-com boom crashed, the fall of the Soviet Union and the current supbrime mortgage crisis. He's not exactly someone you would call a kook. Mr. Celente recently predicted riots by 2012, caused by inflation, joblessness and the like. While he stops short of secession, he does predict revolution. Revolution usually produces an environment that is conducive for secession, but at the very least, manages to set in motion a regime change.

Given that we have an atmosphere primed for revolution and sociopolitical change, it would be best if we examined our history of secession as a nation. While we do not usually view the birth of the United States through the lense of a secessionary movement, it certainly falls within the definition of the term. The main reasons for our departure, and proclamation of independence were as follows: taxation, no direct benefit from that taxation, the absence of representation for the colonies in the British Parliament, and lack of a right to a fair trial.

The origin of the taxes stemmed from the costs incurred by Great Britain of fighting several wars. The bills of an empire are evidently a little more than those with a shorter international reach. Interestingly enough, the taxes levied were quite a bit less than we see today. The colonists, however, were forward looking, and understood that taxes would continue to increase in the future. So, they declared independence, and started a war.

After the War for Independence, there was yet another secession, although this time, it would be of states from the existing Union. If you will read your history carefully, the secession of the South did not primarily hinge on slavery. This is not how it is portrayed in most films about the era. Rather, it was about the Federal government's rights to interfere in the affairs of the states. Slavery was a decision the states wanted to make by themselves. The South also was far wealthier than the Northern states at the time. If the Federal government had allowed the South to secede, then they would have been letting go of a massive portion of taxable income. The South didn't much care to finance the Federal government, and this was also part of the reasons for secession. Some of the states never gave up on this dream, even after the war. Texas has been the perennial host for separatist movements over 150 years now.

I can hear you asking the question "How would this in any way apply to the current situation we find ourselves in?". Well folks, it all comes down to joblessness and taxes. If America continues to hemorrhage jobs, then there could be a substantial number of non-property owners. This hits both the local and federal sources of tax revenue.

County and city localities gain the vast majority of their income through the collection of property taxes. State agencies gain their revenue from income taxes. The Federal government gains most of its income through payroll and income taxes. If you have a large amount of people out of work along with rising homelessness, then there will be a major shortfall in revenues.

This gives the government no recourse, but to cut services and raise taxes to astronomical levels on those who have a continuing source of income. When the government provides less services for more money, you have a recipe for civil unrest. Consider this: A number of US states currently need to be bailed out by the Federal government, due to existing shortfalls in revenue. Should the situation previous outlined arise, someone is bound to make the argument that Federal income taxes be suspended,or at least redirected, so local state governments receive the monies directly. "After all", the argument would go," why shouldn't the states be recipients of the taxes they generate. Why should the money go all the way to the Federal level, and then be redistributed to some other state? We need the money here."

This is just on the basis of money. Now add separate political and moral philosophies to the mix, and watch that stew boil. The American empire continues to sprawl with what could be considered a 3 or even 4 front war in the Middle East. This does not even count the peaceful military forces that we have we have to maintain, in nations like Korea and Germany. Add that to huge commitments of cash to the UN and other foreign nations, along with a massive debt service, and you might have some idea of the trouble we are in.
The idea of the "Free and Independent State of Wisconsin" complete with a "Cheese Czar" doesn't sound so ridiculous now, does it?

All joking aside, I do pray the US can find a way out of the fix it finds itself in. I don't see it happening, however, simply based on the record of Gerald Celente, Peter Schiff, and other people who refuse to sugarcoat our crises. Darker days are ahead, and President Obama will need more than symbolic comparisons to Lincoln to maintain the Union as it currently is. He will have to wield vast Federal power with impunity in order to keep the general populous on short leash. A relatively young nation stands at the crossroads yet again. Who knows what form it will take next, or what form of rule we will end up with?

Regardless of the answer that history gives, I wish to leave you with this thought: If the Union goes down, I call dibs on "Cheese Czar".