Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Let's Ditch Dixie The case for Northern secession.

By Mark Strauss
Posted Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker

Call it the rebel yell heard 'round the world. Last year, under the watchful eyes of God and the rheumy stare of the last surviving, 93-year-old Confederate war widow, some 2,500 sons and daughters of Dixie gathered in Montgomery, Ala., to issue a Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence from a nation "violent and profane, coarse and rude, cynical and deviant."

The rally was staged by the League of the South, an organization that fondly remembers the Confederacy as a golden age (with the awkward exception of slavery) and that seeks to liberate the Southern people from the yoke of "a tyrannous central government" unrestrained by the Constitution. Most people dismiss League members as either harmless eccentrics or closet white supremacists (they're probably a little of both), but their views resonate in circles well beyond the good ol' boys who don Confederate Gray on weekends to re-enact the Battle of Antietam and pretend-kill some Yankees. You hear echoes of Southern nationalism whenever Mississippi invokes "states' rights" to justify flying the Confederate flag over their capitols; or when the GOP's honorary Dixie chick Gale Norton mourns the defeat of the South saying that "we lost too much"; or when John Ashcroft praises Southern Partisan magazine for helping "set the record straight" on the War Between the States.

This re-emergence of Confederate pride is merely the symptom of a much deeper problem: The North and South can no longer claim to be one nation. If you want proof, just look at the electoral map from the last presidential election. Or consider that, although Texas Gov. George W. Bush lost the U.S. popular vote by 500,000, he won the old Confederacy by a resounding 3.1 million votes. Meanwhile, the cultural gap that pits NASCAR fans against PBS viewers continues to widen. Ted Turner all but confirmed the balkanization of America when he established a cable network exclusively for the citizens of Dixie, serving up finger-lickin' TV fare that includes Andy Griffith reruns, the best of World Championship Wrestling, CNN South, and slapstick movies such as Dumb and Dumber (which, according to the president of "Turner South," gets unusually high ratings regionally).

The United States doesn't have to refight the Civil War to set matters right. Rather, North and South should simply follow the example of the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Shake hands, says it's been real, and go their separate ways. And if the South isn't inclined to leave anytime soon, then we should show them the door by seceding unilaterally. Because for all the hue and cry of the South being a conquered people, it is the North that increasingly finds itself under the dominion of the Confederacy. The White House has been occupied by a Southerner for 17 of the last 37 years. And the Confederacy's foot-in-the-door of the Oval Office will become even more pronounced in the next century: The latest census allowed Dixie to pick up six additional Electoral College votes (thanks, in part, to the migration of warmth-seeking Northerners in numbers sufficient to swell the population of the South, yet insufficient to shift its political landscape). Had Al Gore won the same states in 1972 as he did in 2000, he would have trumped Bush with an electoral vote margin of 278 to 260. In 1984, he still would have won by 271 to 267. But in 2000, even with Electoral College juggernauts such as New York, Pennsylvania, and California in his corner, Gore couldn't win the White House without the support of the old Confederacy.

As the electoral center of gravity has shifted in the United States, so too have the orientations of the two major political parties. The Democrats lost their historic claim to the "Solid South" when the party fractured over the New Deal and the civil rights movement. With Dixie up for grabs, the GOP went carpetbagging for electoral votes—Barry Goldwater paved the way when he won the loyalty of Southern delegates at the 1964 Republican convention through his championship of states' rights and his opposition to the civil rights bill. Every victorious Republican candidate since then has dished out exactly what Southern voters want to hear: Nixon attacked busing and racial quotas; Reagan embraced the Christian Right while his attorney general, Ed Meese, charged that the 1965 Voting Rights Act discriminated against the South; and Massachusetts-born George Bush Sr. surrounded himself with country and western stars and added a Willie Horton plank to his platform. Since Republicans won the House in 1994, Southerners have dominated the congressional leadership. Today, Republicans maintain their bare voting majority in the evenly split Senate by virtue of the fact that there are four more Republicans from Dixie than Democrats.

The Dixification of the "Party of Lincoln" would be tolerable if the North had a political party of its own. But increasingly it doesn't; hence the rise of Ralph Nader, who expressed the pent-up frustration among liberals and populists who no longer feel comfortable in a Democratic Party that speaks with a down-home drawl. In all the presidential elections between 1980 and 1992, the Democrats succeeded in winning only one Confederate state. Clinton's path to victory was the trashing of Sister Soulja as he and other Southern Democrats weaned their party away from Northern special interests (aka "the party base") such as environmentalists, organized labor, African-Americans, consumer advocates, Latinos, and gays. Gore lost the election (and even his home state, which he loyally represented for 16 years) because he went off message and dared to espouse progressive, populist themes on government, gun control, and the environment. Shut out of all branches of government, some party leaders are once again pushing a Southern strategy to retake the White House and Congress, all but guaranteeing that the Democratic Party will continue whistling Dixie.

Economically and socially, secession will be painless for the North. The South is a gangrenous limb that should have been lopped off decades ago. More people live below the poverty line in the old Confederacy than in the Northeast and Midwest combined. You are three times more likely to be murdered in parts of Dixie than anywhere in New England, despite a feverish devotion to "law-and-order" that has made eight Southern states home to 90 percent of all recent U.S. executions. The South has the highest infant-mortality rate and the highest incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, while it lags behind the rest of the country in terms of test scores and opportunities for women. The Confederate states rail against the tyranny of big government, yet they are the largest recipients of federal tax dollars. They steal business away from the North the same way that developing countries worldwide have always attracted foreign direct investment: through low wages and anti-union laws. The flow of guns into America's Northern cities stems largely from Southern states. The tobacco grown by ol' Dixie kills nearly a half-million Americans each year.

Imagine then, for just a moment, the North as its own nation. Trent Lott and Dick Armey would be foreigners. We would no longer be subjected to round-the-clock TV commercials for Dale Earnhardt commemorative plates. If you were to expel all Southerners from Congress (both parties, mind you) the new liberal majority would be able to pass tougher gun laws and legislation barring discrimination against gays and lesbians immediately. With the South banished from the Union, we could begin to correct the most objectionable aspects of Southern behavior with the same tools we use to engage countries such as China: by making trade and continued foreign aid contingent upon sincere efforts to clean up the environment and improve human rights. We could implement "Plan South Carolina" to convince tobacco growers to develop alternative crops. Northern observers could ensure democracy in Florida polling places. Peace Corps volunteers could teach the necessary skills that would allow Southerners to pull themselves out of poverty and illiteracy while simultaneously promoting a better understanding of American values.

In fact, the only obvious downside is that the South would almost certainly insist on keeping the 3,150 nuclear warheads that are scattered throughout Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia. Maybe we could strike a deal to get those nukes back, the same way Russia did with Ukraine after the Soviet Union broke up. If not, then perhaps national missile defense might not be such a bad idea after all.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Mark Strauss is the senior editor of Foreign Policy magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: Sometimes we try in this section to give a representative sample of the replies, a selection which really reflects how many posters felt. This is not such a case: the posts on this one led Jane to say "stop proving his point", and those below are in no way representative of the Fray as a whole…]


If the only function the South serves in the U.S. is to moderate the left wing-Democratic agenda, then I'm all for it. I was raised in New England and I currently live in Alabama, and believe me, neither has a monopoly on political or social wisdom. The North is not anything close to as open minded (read liberal in the original sense) as it flatters itself into believing it is, nor is it as less provincial than the South as it believes it is. The North and the South need each other to balance their respective inadequacies and immoderations. If only the left-wing, self congratulatory echo chamber that is the North actually understood itself and that dynamic

--David N. Levy

(To reply, click here.)


Thanks, Mr. Strauss. I've had the same thoughts for years, too, and was glad to see someone else voice them. The utter lack of humor (or appreciation for satire) displayed by your southern responders proves your point. But that's been a problem since Swift.

Of course, I'd miss my many radical and liberal friends in N. Carolina, Texas, and elsewhere who dream of (and work hard for) a genuine social democracy; and of course you won't get all of the south out of the north simply by lopping off the old confederacy--there's always Indiana. But still.

Perhaps the next step is for the north to ally with Canada and let the Dixiecrats unite with their military friends in S America.

--Plandsk

(To reply, click here.)


 Maybe you can get your energy cheaper from Opec. That way we can keep it all for ourselves. Not only energy but NASA, technology, military aircraft, food production (try growing fruit in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania), tourism (try getting people to come to Chicago, Buffalo, Pittsburg, New York in January), Saturns, shrimp, and more.

--Former Carpetbagger

(To reply, click here.)


 That article is nothing but a tease. You really got my hopes up. If I can help you in any way to remove your liberal "politically correct" ways from my life please tell me. But when we make that happen you must agree to take back the Yankees that have moved down here in the past 10 years. Lets make sure however we have strict immigration laws. We don't want ya'll comin' down after your unions close your factories, your fuel bills skyrocket, and your liberal handout politicians give your tax dollars away. So pleeeeeeease, lets shake hands and part ways. Especially now that Bill and Hill are from New York

--David McLerran

(To reply, click here.)

 (3/14)




Washington Post