Skip to main content

Calexit: California, here I come, right back where I started from

Written By | Nov 12, 2018
calexit, california, secession, paul h. yarborough

WASHINGTON: The mission of the Abbeville Institute of Abbeville, South Carolina,is to preserve and present what is true and valuable in the Southern Tradition. The group had a weekend conference in Dallas, Texas November 9th and 10th. The topic, Secession. Since the un-Jeffersonian monstrous U.S.A., is floundering on its electoral process and bureaucratic quagmire, it is ironic that a leading proponent of the Jeffersonian model is a large body from California. The Institute supports the exit of California from the Union, aka the “Calexit.”

The real Jeffersonian dream of a republic is now a nightmare.

Marcus Ruiz Evans, who heads up the organized effort, Calexit, is a determined advocate for California secession. Evans recognizes that the Southern secession of 1860 is thrown into the tar pit of racism. That the reminder that the 13 colonies did the same thing the Confederate States did is one of those historical facts that so-called historians like Victor Davis Hanson and Douglas Brinkley can’t come to grips with.

Their primary historical sources get paraphrased in dramatic storybook fashion. They end up like little boys playing Cowboys and Indians based on what sounds good.

Jefferson was more than agreeable to the New England states seceding when they made the same overtures of secession during his presidency. Thus, Evans presented himself among Southerners who hold to the pure faith of secession as a legitimate means of dissolving the bands holding different political groups together under a single state.




Calexit’s mission is precisely the same.

Evans was a prominent speaker at the conference and readily admitted his, and most Californians’ difference of opinion with the South, as well as other sections of the country, on a host of beliefs.  These differences are so significant that the only reasonable solution is to separate from the rest of the country and continue to respect the other’s right to govern themselves in their way. However, they could continue to trade and even treaty with them.

This was the opinion held by the South of 1860 and indeed not a question of racism or slavery. The South never seceded so that it could keep its slaves. Insofar as The Abbeville Institute’s conference was concerned, Evans was welcomed like a brother as far as I could tell. As an attendee and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I spoke with him like I had known him my whole life. Just two agreeable guys: Texan and Californian.

Oh Kum Ba Ya, hallelujah!;

One Nation Undivided?

We both understand the horrible Grendel-like monster called Washington and its craving for the socialist Francis Bellamy’s “One Nation Undivided” blather opposing secession.

The usual defense by the present establishment and/or political parties and bureaucrats is that talk of secession is bandied about by a few radical types who don’t understand our great democratic-republic or any such phrase they pull up on any given day.

The greatest government by the greatest minds, etc., or whatever.

One-Third of California supports Calexit

According to Evans, a third of Californians are on board for the exit train, and another fifteen percent are willing to discuss secession. So, the “few radical types” are pretty close to half the population. Moreover, I can tell the establishment from my viewpoint in Houston for 45 years, that we secessionists are not “a few.”

An additional point which Evans carefully and convincingly makes is concerning the Texas vs. White SCOTUS decision in 1869. Whether or not it stands properly against the constitution or if some SCOTUS in the future overturns it, it matters little in any event. The White decision did not say a state could not secede. It said it could not unilaterally do so. That is, as long as the other states agreed, then any state or states could exit.

Jefferson’s model for a republic, any republic, is that it necessarily be small, as Plato envisioned.

Jefferson would cringe at the thought that a land mass of some 6 million square miles populated by over 300 million people would be anything but a fool’s errand for a republican form of government. Something of this magnitude, he believed, would be a bureaucratic hellhole.

His consideration for the Louisiana Purchase was not a dream for a much larger singularly governed republic, but for potentially many more republics, and a treaty necessity. He envisioned, at one point, three republics with small populations: an east coast republic, a republic along the Mississippi River, and a west coast Pacific republic.




Each of these would have a mutually exclusive governor and body politic. Moreover, no one republic will have any rules upon the other with the exceptions of defense and free trade by agreement.

Secession an old-time idea finding new life

Even the present U.S. constitution which is presented as the most sacred text handed down since Deuteronomy, though mostly ineffective today, commands it supports a republic of republics.

However, the idea that secession is a little bitty silly idea fostered by unread, unthinking people living in the past with pipe dreams, is itself a dream. Texas has had two secession movements in its history. I for one, hope California has one in its future.

Paul H. Yarbrough

Paul H. Yarbrough

Born in Mississippi, now calling Texas home, Paul H. Yarbrough is bringing his writing talents to the political arena. Yarbrough has completed three novels. He is also the humorist behind the weekly column, Redneck Diary.