Twitter exploded after Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested a national divorce, and so did the liberal side of the talking-head caucus, as well as many establishment Republicans. Here’s our take on what she got wrong about efforts to separate.
The idea of a “national divorce” is not new. That a sitting US congresswoman would advocate for it, well, that’s new. One might think as proponents of Texit that we’d be excited to see the concepts of peaceful separation rise to the forefront. To a degree I suppose we are, as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” On the other hand, there’s a distinct lack of nuance to Greene’s suggestion, and it ignores the work that has already been done and is currently ongoing. Let’s break it down a bit.
First off, when a firebrand like MTG says anything, it’s the right wing equivalent of AOC saying something on the left. You can virtually guarantee that everybody from the middle all the way over to the other extreme is going to throw a fit. Is the planet and environment important? Sure, but if AOC says so, it’s the “Green New Deal” all over again. Similarly, is it important to rationally examine the case for peaceful separation? Of course, but if MTG is the one who says it, it’s the “Civil War” all over again. When a person at the edge of the mainstream says something, those of us who try to advocate rationally tend to cringe a bit, as we don’t want our legitimate grievances to get lumped together with perceived extremism. At the same time, many are familiar with the concept of the “Overton Window,” the idea that extreme positions have a way of expanding what’s considered acceptable. Any time one of the MTG types puts a peaceful separation message out, even though we all cringe, conceptually it brings the separation discussion closer to the “acceptable” range.
If lawmakers, media, and the public are having a discussion about peaceful ways to break up the United States, we’re totally down for that.
But, words matter. “National divorce” is a great slogan, but doesn’t accurately capture the complexities of the situation. Further, to propose that the divorce should be between “red states and blue states” also misses critical points. The idea of national divorce is also predicated on a false understanding of the nature of the union. If “The United States of America” were a country and not a political entity, then maybe divorce would make sense. The most accurate portrayal is that the Federal government has power only because of the fifty sovereign states that contribute to it. To assume somehow congress could negotiate a red state/blue state split is to ignore the reality that it is the states themselves that are sovereign. Texas must decide on its own to leave. Alaska must decide to leave. Utah, New Hampshire, even California must on their own decide to leave. There’s no “United States” to divide, only individual states whose people have the right to determine their own association to the union. Who gets the car and who keeps the house? That’s up to each state to negotiate for themselves.
In Texas at least, it’s clear that sovereignty rests in the hands of the people. It is not some nebulous “red” or “blue” that would vote for separation, it’s me, you, our neighbors, and so on. Any future breakup of the union must legitimately come from the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. Any kind of negotiated or crisis-based split without a popular vote would be much more likely to have a train-wreck outcome. To shortcut the process by violence or political intrigue will push the country toward a more volatile crisis. On the other hand, secession via ballot box is only “sedition” or “treason” if voting itself is treason.
The idea of national divorce as a peaceful negotiated split has some appeal, and is a decent metaphor. At the same time, each state has the right to negotiate its own terms. When we promote Texas independence, we are not calling for a “national divorce,” we are calling for state sovereignty. The only similarity is that we call for a peaceful separation due to the unfaithfulness of the Federal government to the Constitution. The USA has committed adultery against its states, and some of us have had enough. National divorce is a slogan, but it’s not a plan. It’s not a path to separation, nor a viable way forward.
Predictably, naysayers have thrown out “the Civil War” again. The threat of violence, or at least the fearmongering of impending violence, is a tool of the mainstream to prevent progress. As we’ve said many times, the threat of abuse is hardly a sign of a healthy relationship. To her credit, MTG has been firm that a peaceful separation is the goal, and has challenged every idea that such a separation must inevitably lead to war. If separation comes to war, it will only be because those who want to leave are forcibly attacked by those who would keep us captive. It is not the secessionists who promote war, it’s the establishment. Nobody but a fool wants war, and nobody but a fool uses the threat of war as a tool to maintain the status quo.
The media is beside itself over the idea of national divorce, as if it were somehow unique to this moment that people would consider leaving the union. Even those who now are starting to embrace the idea of peaceful separation are newcomers. The Texas Nationalist Movement wasn’t founded because of Obama, Trump, or the 2020 election fiasco, but was founded in 2005. Our president, Daniel Miller, was converted to the cause of Texas independence in 1996. For those who want to think that peaceful separation is a new phenomenon, think again. For those who think “national divorce” is just impulsive rhetoric in the heat of the moment, think again. The TNM and our leadership have been working on peaceful separation for literally decades.
There is no path to national divorce between Red states and Blue states, because the union isn’t between Red and Blue. The path to a peaceful split has already been proposed: Texas independence through a popular referendum followed by negotiations of exit terms. That’s not red, and it’s not blue, it’s a single Lone Star.
We don’t cheer for the red team or the blue team. Instead, we work toward a free and independent Texas where Texans from every perspective can work together to make a better future. Without unsustainable debt, without open borders, without endless wars, without a crushing regulatory burden and administrative state, Texans can thrive. Without endless red vs blue at the Federal level, Texas can creatively problem solve. A free Texas doesn’t need to be “bipartisan,” because it doesn’t need to perpetuate the ineffective political divisions of some other country. National divorce is a decent slogan, but Texit offers a defined path, an established grassroots organization, and a clear methodology with international precedent.
If you’re tired of the abuse by the Federal government, tired of the liberal media, tired of the political quagmire, join us. If you are drawn to the idea of national divorce but don’t know what that looks like, join us. The path to freedom is Texit.
Noah is the Acting Editor of the Texian Partisan. He has written for the Texian Partisan, the Texas Nationalist Movement, and several other large-circulation publications and sites. Named for an early Texas settler and veteran of the Texas Revolution, Noah pours his passion for Texas independence into his writing. He is a 6th generation Texan from the Hill Country.
