In addition to recent protests which followed a legitimate election of Donald Trump as President, many people in the United States of America today, particularly specific groups of individuals in California, Oregon, and Washington (and potentially other states), are increasingly pursuing the notion of secession from the United States as a response to the recent Presidential election. This article will briefly describe the problems with secession movements and the politics of division, and provide some ideas for how to combat both of those things.

1) Pro-secession arguments, particularly those which have surged following the Presidential election of November 2016, center around the idea that "America is lost" and that the only path forward that could possibly "save the country" is if the secessionist's candidate had won. After all, they reason, there would be no need for secession if their candidate had attained the Presidency. These premises are fundamentally flawed as their proponents engage in sort of a magical reasoning that there is only one particular candidate and one particular ideology that America is about (and if their candidate can't win, then no-one else will be allowed to). This is perhaps how North Korea works, or China. However, the United States of America doesn't work based on the idea that people cannot make actual choices at the ballot box.

2) President John F. Kennedy stated in February of 1962, "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Secession is the argument of people who are afraid of allowing people to judge the truth and falsehood of ideas through a legitimate election, and would like to run away from a nation's problems, but don't want to get serious enough to engage in meaningful dialogue with other people in the country. Unfortunately, in California, for example, nearly every proposition placed on the ballot passes without critical examination of its potential effects. This doesn't need to be the case. There are ample opportunities to engage in dialogue with others to elevate issues of importance so that many people are discussing them and engaging in a free and open exchange of ideas. One organization that promotes and fosters dialogue is National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD). Another organization is National Dialogue Network, which has offered grants to people who are willing to engage in dialogue with others. Or you may want to take advantage of this guide for developing a dialogue across the red-blue divide. These are not by any means the only ways to do something good for those around you, but they are a few examples, and they don't involve running away from your problems.

Structured dialogues present the possibility of a situation in which no-one need win (as there is no "winning" a dialogue, and it's not even necessarily about coming to an agreement -- read this handy guide which describes what dialogue really is) and yet everyone walks away with a net gain in useful information.

3) Secession is impermissible. Looking back into history, when Democrats in 1860 decided to engage in an experiment of secession, and following this, the nation entered into a bloody Civil War with great human cost, one of the lessons that our nation has learned is that we cannot permit secession to occur. The concept of having a nation which is composed of states that are bound together is simply superior to the idea of states being able to do whatever they want whenever some interest group in a state has a conniption. Indeed, if we did allow states to engage in secession efforts whenever they had sincere differences with the federal government, we would simply end up with various states claiming to be independent (with an increasing number of these over time), each of these with their own feudal warlord contending with other states, an obviously untenable solution. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in a letter on the subject in 2006, "If there was any Constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." Some secessionists, ignoring the obvious facts and concerns cited above, have recently argued that they could simply present an amendment to the U.S. Constitution for secession, but merely for it even to be considered by the state legislatures it would first have to be passed by 2/3rds of the House of Representatives and 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate, which would not be allowed to happen. Similarly, in the convention of states scenario, such a proposal would have to be approved by 2/3rds of the delegates to the convention, which could never be allowed to occur. Even though these avenues may formally exist for the purpose of constitutional amendments, they were not intended to facilitate secession.

Secession is impermissible -- and there is no right to secede.

More likely is that the states will simply adopt their pro-secession resolutions or ballot measures indicating that residents of the state intend to secede (since they will not be able to actually cause secession to happen as it is impermissible) - but there are dangers even if that is all that California, Washington, and Oregon ever do on the topic of secession. The "Yes California" secessionists actually claim that "peace and security" is a reason why they seek "independence." The Oregon secessionists, who just days after the election submitted in a huffy rush an "Oregon Secession Act" to their Secretary of State, claimed in their "Act" that "many other American States do not share (...) values (of life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness) as shown by their electoral outcomes, laws, and public policies" -- a ridiculous and baseless claim, but even if it were true, it would not justify secession. (Almost as soon as Oregon secessionists filed their first post-election "Secession Act," they quickly withdrew it, but are likely to try again.)

The case will be made below that even seeking secession brings a state very far from having any sort of peace and security.

4) The dangers of a state (or states) adopting simply a pro-secession resolution or a Secretary of State allowing a measure to be sent to the voters which would ask the voters if they wish to have the State pursue secession (even if this would never be permitted to happen legally) are as follows:

The first step in responding to states where secession is likely to occur will, without question, involve federal officials communicating with the States' Attorney Generals (OAG) and Secretaries of State, to inform them that secession efforts will be viewed as impermissible by the federal government. Considering that as of November of 2012, people from 47 states already had filed petitions to secede, without any luck, you would think that this would inform the States appropriately. But it will not be surprising when the Secretaries of State in California, Oregon, and Washington (the "Western Wall") ignore any initial warnings from the federal government and allow secession measures to move forward - because there presently is not enough political will in these "Western Wall" states (both in the voting public and in the offices of government) to prevent secession from advancing. Indeed, in a joint statement released from legislative leaders of California on Nov. 9, 2016, certain California legislators openly rejected the idea of California being part of the United States of America. Kevin de León, an influential State Senator (President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate) who signed that joint statement, said in response to one secessionist, who interviewed him, "if the rest of the country doesn’t want to go our (California's) direction, we’re going it alone." Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom went so far as to state that California is a "nation-state" in the days following the election. And, as of November 21, 2016, the so-called "Yes California" secessionists have submitted to the Initiative Coordinator of the State Attorney General's office their request for title and summary of a secession initiative for the state ballot, with the intention to launch the secession question to the California voting public in March 2019 or sooner. Thus it is likely that in order to stop secession movements, further steps (as described below) will need to be taken other than the initial advisory and warning step described above.

The second step that will be used to respond to states where secession measures have occurred will likely be punitive financial measures. This would take the form of withdrawal of certain forms of federal aid on a limited basis until such time as the States involved would agree to disqualify any secession measures, including referenda or initiatives.

The third step would occur if the states were to actually allow the secession to proceed to the ballot. It is difficult to say what would happen at this stage, but I surmise that a federal response might very well be a full withdrawal of any federal funding to the offending State or States with the exception of funds for military, base(s) and military schools, as well as SSI, SSDI, WIC, and TANF. As an example of the impact of this on one state, California would suddenly have nine percent less funding for its public schools, and federal aid as a percentage of general revenues in California (in 2013) was 25 percent. The effect would not be insignificant, and the pressure would continue until the offending state (or states) would surrender and sign paperwork acknowledging that their secession proposals are invalid, can not be pursued, and that the state(s) are inseparable from the United States of America. It is also worthwhile to note that any officials who participated or facilitated in the secession effort at this stage would likely be fined or imprisoned -- and would never be allowed to serve office in the United States again. That is because, under 18 U.S. Code § 2383:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The final step would occur if the offending state(s) refused to acknowledge that they are part of the United States of America even after the first steps have been followed, and if those states were to attempt to create and enforce their own laws while claiming to be "independent." Here, undoubtedly, even more financial sanctions would be imposed on the offending state(s) by Congress and the President, such as imposition of a tax for any good which would be exported from the state, and revision of the 1922 Colorado River Compact (via an act of Congress) to reduce water to California. In this scenario, observing that the residents of the affected State(s) would be subjected to an extrajudicial system (not permitted by the Constitution) created by secessionist state actors who have made illegitimate claims, it is entirely possible that the federal government would send in troops to an offending State's Capitol to secure surrender paperwork so that the offending State's "government" would acknowledge on paper that its "secession" is invalid, can not be further advanced, and that the state(s) (is/are) inseparable from the United States of America. If anyone in the offending state were to "levy war" against federal troops who would be tasked with securing such a surrender, or if the federal government were to have declared war before having entered the State's Capitol to secure surrender (even if no-one in the offending state had ever fired a shot), then action against those federal troops would be treason as defined in law per 18 U.S. Code § 2381.

If you want to prevent civil conflict in America, work on countering the secession narrative that certain Democrats are now promoting in the "Western Wall" states (CA, OR, WA), as they hearken back to the dark days of 1860. Encourage people to engage in reasoned dialogue and suggest resources they can use to conduct their dialogues with others instead of proceeding with secession. If they succeed with secession at the ballot box (even if it were a ballot proposition which were to ask the state to pursue secession and could have no chance of becoming law), you could eventually see federal troops in State capitols. Defeat secession, and you secure peace. Or as Ben Franklin said, on the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, "A Republic, if you can keep it."