Secession Isn’t Rebellion—It’s Retreat

Hotel California: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Jan 26, 2025

Last week, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber approved a campaign to gather signatures petitioning for a vote on whether the Golden State should leave the U.S. and become an independent country.

I appreciate the notion of secession from the Union. If any state could operate independently, it’s California.

With its staggering GDP, capabilities, and resources, California has the clout to govern itself. If it suddenly wielded seniorage, federal powers, and its own military, it would instantly become the fourth-largest economy in the world—outranking Japan, Germany, Italy, and more. Only the United States, China, and France would stand ahead of it. California’s GDP of over $4 trillion dwarfs that of most nations, and its influence extends across industries like technology, agriculture, entertainment, and renewable energy. The United States, even with California’s departure, would remain #1 in GDP, but it would take a significant hit both economically and geopolitically.

So, I get it. California’s frustrated, fed up with the direction of national politics, and ready to say, “We’re out.” The state sees itself as a progressive beacon, often at odds with federal policies on climate change, immigration, healthcare, and civil rights. Theoretically, it could be self-sufficient. It could govern itself. It’s not the only state in such a position. Illinois, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and even New Jersey also come to mind. They could go it alone—at least on paper.

But history shows us that secession isn’t as simple—or as peaceful—as its proponents imagine.

The Historical Parallel: South Carolina and Secession

Let’s rewind to December 20, 1860, when South Carolina attempted the same path. It issued the infamous "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." It was a bold statement, invoking language eerily similar to the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the 'United States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

The cause? Slavery—plain and simple. South Carolina and the other Confederate states feared losing their economic system, which was built on the forced labor of enslaved people. But instead of stating this outright, they dressed it up in states’ rights rhetoric, proclaiming:

"We hold that the government of the United States is not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, each has an equal right to judge for itself."

In their view, the federal government had overstepped its bounds, and they justified rebellion by claiming sovereignty. It was, of course, a thinly veiled attempt to protect their economic and social order. Every Confederate state issued similar declarations, wrapping their defense of slavery in language that echoed freedom but ultimately sought to deny it to millions.

The Cost of Secession: The Civil War

Abraham Lincoln, recognizing secession as a direct challenge to the very idea of the Union, raised the Union Army to quash what was, in truth, insurrection and rebellion. The Civil War followed.

For four bloody years, the Union and Confederate armies clashed in battles that devastated the nation. By the time General Lee surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, the human cost was staggering: over 620,000 soldiers were dead, 1.5 million were wounded, and countless civilians suffered displacement, poverty, and trauma. The Battle of Antietam, the war’s single bloodiest day, saw over 12,000 Union casualties alone.

The Confederacy’s gamble failed. Lee surrendered to Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse after his armies were defeated on April 9, 1865. By May 13, 1865, after the last battle at Palmito Ranch, Texas, the Union was finally restored. But the question of secession wasn’t just resolved on the battlefield—it was paid for in blood.

Texas v. White: Secession Is Unconstitutional

And yet, even after the Civil War, the legal question lingered. Could a state leave the Union? Enter Texas v. White (1869).

During the war, the Confederate government of Texas sold U.S. bonds—originally issued to Texas in 1845 as part of its annexation—to fund the rebellion. After the war, Texas’s Reconstruction government sued to recover the bonds, arguing that the Confederate sale was illegal. But the larger question before the Supreme Court was this: Did Texas have legal standing, given that it had claimed to leave the Union?

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, answered unequivocally:

No state can unilaterally secede.

“The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”

This landmark decision didn’t just declare secession unconstitutional—it made it clear that even during the rebellion, the Union remained intact. Texas had never legally left the United States, and its actions during the Confederacy were null and void under federal law.

The Constitution: A Perpetual Compact

Here’s the distinction that matters: The Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States before the Constitution, allowed for voluntary participation. States retained their sovereignty and could, in theory, leave at will. But the Articles were fundamentally flawed. Without the power to tax, regulate commerce, or enforce laws, the central government was ineffective, leading to chaos and instability.

The Constitution replaced the Articles in 1789 with a new framework—a perpetual compact that bound the states into an indivisible Union. Texas v. White affirmed that the Union’s strength lies in its permanence.

Secession isn’t just impractical; it’s impossible under the Constitution.

California’s Secession: A Flawed Argument

California’s grievances are valid—its citizens often feel their progressive values are at odds with federal leadership. But secession isn’t the answer. The Constitution provides mechanisms for change. States can amend it, influence federal policy, and shape the national agenda through elections, legislation, and activism.

Secession, by contrast, abandons these tools. It’s not defiance—it’s surrender.

Secessionists often portray their cause as a bold act of rebellion—a refusal to accept the status quo and an assertion of independence against a perceived tyranny. But the truth is the opposite: secession is surrender, not defiance. It’s the ultimate abdication of responsibility, a retreat from the very mechanisms that allow for resistance and reform.

When you secede, you’re not standing up to federal power—you’re walking away from the table where decisions are made. California’s secession would strip the state of its influence in Congress, its representation in the Senate, and its role in shaping the future of the nation. Leaving the Union doesn’t send a message of strength; it signals a willingness to abandon the fight altogether.

Let’s assume California’s grievances are legitimate (which I agree they are): frustration with federal policies on climate change, immigration, rule of law, and/or civil rights. How are these issues addressed by walking away? They aren’t.

The Constitution, as a framework for collective action, offers tools to fight for change:

Elections: Californians can vote for leaders who share their values and influence the direction of the nation.
Legislation: California’s representatives in Congress—one of the largest delegations in the country—have the power to draft, debate, and pass laws that reflect the state’s priorities.
Federalism: Even within the Union, California retains the ability to govern itself on most issues, from environmental regulations to healthcare initiatives, under its own progressive framework.

Secession forfeits all of these tools. It’s not a declaration of independence—it’s an acknowledgment of defeat. A state that walks away from the Union doesn’t defy tyranny; it concedes to it by saying, “We can’t change the system, so we’re giving up.”

The Constitution was designed to be adaptable. Its framers understood that no government is perfect and that reform is inevitable. That’s why the Constitution includes mechanisms like the amendment process and judicial review. It’s why elections are staggered, giving voters the chance to regularly hold their leaders accountable. These systems aren’t always efficient, but they are resilient.

Leaving the Union is an admission that these tools are too difficult to use. It’s a shortcut that doesn’t solve the underlying problems—it just avoids them. But the problems don’t go away. California’s secession wouldn’t stop climate change, fix immigration policy, or resolve healthcare inequities. It would only remove California from the conversation, leaving 49 states to address these challenges without one of the most powerful voices in the room.

California’s power doesn’t come from isolation; it comes from its role in the Union. As part of the United States, California is a global leader in technology, agriculture, and culture. Its influence is amplified by its position in the world’s largest economy and its access to federal resources, including infrastructure funding, military protection, and international diplomacy.

If California truly wants to rebel against federal policies, the solution isn’t to leave—it’s to use its considerable power to demand change. California has the largest delegation in the House of Representatives. Its senators have the ability to influence federal legislation. Its innovation and economic might give it leverage that few states can match. That’s not a position to abandon—it’s a position to wield.

By leaving, California doesn’t gain independence—it loses the ability to leverage these strengths. It becomes a smaller player on the world stage, forced to negotiate treaties, trade agreements, and alliances without the backing of the United States. Secession isn’t bold; it’s self-defeating.

Secessionists want to be seen as radicals, but the real radical act is staying and fighting for a better Union. The United States was built on the idea that diverse states can come together to form something stronger than the sum of their parts. Running away from that idea doesn’t defy tyranny—it lets it win.

The Irony of Independence in a Globalized World

California thrives not because it’s an isolated powerhouse but because it’s deeply integrated into both the national framework and the global economy. Secessionists argue that California could chart its own course, free from federal constraints, but this idea overlooks the realities of modern interdependence. Independence wouldn’t make California stronger—it would make it more vulnerable.

Economic Integration with the U.S.

California’s $4 trillion economy is inextricably tied to the rest of the United States.

Trade and Supply Chains: California’s agricultural exports, technology products, and manufactured goods rely on domestic supply chains and trade agreements negotiated at the federal level. Without the infrastructure of interstate commerce, California’s economy would face significant disruption. Goods traveling from California to other states could face tariffs or regulatory barriers, raising costs and slowing trade.
Consumer Base: The rest of the United States represents California’s largest market. Its companies—from Silicon Valley tech giants to Central Valley agricultural producers—rely on demand from U.S. consumers. Secession would put up new barriers between California businesses and their primary customers, damaging their bottom lines.
Federal Funding: California benefits from billions of dollars in federal funding annually. This includes infrastructure grants, disaster relief for wildfires and earthquakes, and support for research at public universities like UC Berkeley and UCLA. Independence would sever access to these funds, leaving California to bear the financial burden of these programs alone.

The Military and National Defense

California’s geographic position makes it critical to U.S. national security. It hosts key military installations like Naval Base San Diego, Edwards Air Force Base, and Camp Pendleton, as well as major ports vital for defense and trade. If California left the Union, it would face complex questions about how to maintain its security:

Would it create its own military? How would it fund, recruit, and equip it?
Would the United States retain control of its existing bases, potentially creating a foreign military presence within California’s borders?

California’s ability to maintain security and defend itself against foreign threats—whether from cyberattacks or geopolitical tensions—depends on its integration with the U.S. military apparatus. Alone, it would struggle to fill that void.

Global Trade and Diplomacy

As a U.S. state, California operates within a web of international trade agreements and diplomatic relationships negotiated at the federal level. Secession would force California to renegotiate these agreements from scratch, as an independent entity with far less leverage than the United States.

Trade Agreements: Currently, California benefits from U.S. trade deals that give its exports access to global markets. Without these deals, it could face higher tariffs and restrictions, making its goods less competitive.
International Influence: California wields global influence as part of the United States. Alone, it would have less negotiating power in diplomatic and economic matters. For instance, securing favorable terms with major powers like China, the EU, or Japan would be far more challenging without the weight of the United States behind it.

Energy and Infrastructure

California’s infrastructure—its water systems, energy grids, and transportation networks—are deeply tied to the rest of the country.

Energy Interdependence: California imports electricity from neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona to meet its energy demands. Secession could complicate these relationships, potentially driving up energy costs or causing shortages.
Water Resources: California’s water system depends on agreements with neighboring states and federal projects like the Central Valley Project. Independence would require renegotiating these agreements, potentially jeopardizing access to critical water supplies.
Transportation: Federal funding supports California’s highways, bridges, and public transit systems. Secession would cut off these funds, leaving California to bear the full cost of maintaining and expanding its infrastructure.

The Myth of Sovereignty in the Modern Era

In today’s interconnected world, no country—let alone a single state—operates in isolation. Even the most powerful nations rely on alliances, trade agreements, and shared resources to sustain their economies and protect their interests. For California, leaving the Union wouldn’t create independence—it would replace one set of interdependencies with another, while weakening the state’s ability to navigate them.

Economic Vulnerability: Outside the Union, California would face heightened competition from global powers like China, the EU, and India. Without the support of the United States, it would struggle to compete on the same level in international markets.
Diplomatic Isolation: California’s voice on the world stage is amplified by its position within the United States. Alone, it would be just another medium-sized country, competing for attention and influence in a crowded international arena.

Secession Is Regression

The vision of a self-sufficient California is rooted in nostalgia for a world that no longer exists—a world where borders were impermeable, economies were local, and nations could thrive in isolation. But that world has long since passed. Today, success comes from integration, not isolation. California’s strength comes from being part of something larger. Secessionists who dream of independence overlook this fundamental truth: California doesn’t succeed despite its place in the Union; it succeeds because of it.

Conclusion: The Union Forever

“There are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights.” (West Wing, “Game On” S4E6)

The United States is more than a collection of states—it’s a bold experiment in collective governance. Secession doesn’t solve problems; it shirks responsibility. The Union is indestructible—not by force, but by design.

The United States is the “Hotel California” of compacts:

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

California can’t leave. And it shouldn’t want to.

The Union forever.
Down with traitors.

Up with the Star.

As a final thought, since we’re talking about federalism, state contributions, unfunded mandates, and the President’s threats of punishing states he doesn’t “like” (such as California), here’s something worth considering:

The State of California remits approximately $740 billion annually in taxes—individual and corporate—to the U.S. federal government. That makes California the single largest state contributor, accounting for roughly 15% of total federal revenues. And because we’re all part of one happy Union, the vast majority of that money doesn’t stay in California. It flows to other states, funding everything from tanks and missiles to welfare programs and disaster relief—programs that benefit the entire nation.

Republicans often talk about fairness, self-reliance, and pulling one’s weight, with plenty of rhetoric about “freeloaders.” To that, I’d simply say: do the math. On average, California receives about $150 billion annually in federal subsidies, including disaster relief through FEMA. That means for every $1 California receives from the federal government, it sends nearly $5 back to Washington.

So when the President or Congress makes threats about withholding aid from California or punishing it for political reasons, it’s hard not to feel a certain way. California’s contributions are the lifeblood of the Union—it bankrolls programs and projects that keep the country running.

I understand California’s frustration and even its desire to entertain secession. But the idea is, ultimately, preposterous. California has far better tools to address federal overreach and unfair treatment. Rather than cutting itself off, it should wield its economic and political influence to fight for a better Union—one where contributions like California’s are recognized and respected.

The Long Memo (TLM)

Discussion about this post