Wondering if I got the current status of secession wrong./ "American Secession" by F.H. Buckley

I had concluded that the secession movements in America were moribund unless Donald Trump lost re-election as president. I also tend to think that Donald Trump will get re-elected. So secession movements will have to wait until 2024 to get traction.

However, it was brought to my attention by a colleague the book, "American Secession" by F.H. Buckley.  It is published by Encounter Books and I am not sure  who they are. It seems like they are some type of conservative or neoconservative publisher of the Encounter for Culture and Education non-profit corporation. On the dust jacket, besides the author and title is the warning, "The Looming Threat of a National Breakup."

https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/american-secession/

He is a Foundation Professor at George Mason University Scalia School of Law. He is senior editor at the conservative publiscation American Spectator, he has a column in the New York Post, and has written for a variety of prominent publications.

The author and the book has gotten some fair amount of coverage. Here are some links to news stories about the book.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/11/new-secession-movement-growing-america-f-h-buckley-book/

https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/how-to-avoid-americas-coming-secession-crisis/  This article is by F.H. Buckley.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/20/embracing-the-state-secession-movement-make-americ/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/buckley-is-america-on-the-brink-of-a-third-secession

C-Span had an article. Click on link to see all of the video.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?469400-3/washington-journal-fh-buckley-discusses-book-american-secession



In his New York Post article he says the United States is "overly big." He has neo-Confederate ideas about secession stating, "Originalists on the court might recall that the Framers at their 1787 Convention thought secession was very possible. Almost every delegate conceded that if one region or state wanted to leave the union, it was perfectly possible to do so."

But his focus is on liberal states seceding. 

I have noticed continuing discussion of secession elswhere. There was the idea that counties could secede from Virginia and join West Virginia. 

Here is a Feb. 29, 2020 article about secession in New York State. African Americans have risen to power in the New York State legislature and upstate conservative whites want to secede. 

It seems like a lot of rural areas want to secede and have their small populations get two U.S. Senators. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/26/across-country-rural-communities-secede-states-why-column/4851817002/

Evidently the cause of rural areas seceding from their states is something being pushed by at least one conservative group.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/24/virginia-secession-movement-underscores-lefts-growing-contempt-for-rural-americans/

The reason seems to be nothing more than they are on the losing side of an election. Before when they were winning it was fine to be in a big state, but now that they are losing they are whining they want their own state. 

I am sure these proponents for small rural states see the disportionate influence of states like North Dakota (pop. 760,000) and South Dakota (880,000) with the having 4 U.S. Senators, even though  their total is 1.6 million out of 327.8 million. They are over represented about eight times. 

Some elected officials seem to be lunatics on the issue such as the governor of Idaho. 

https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2020/idaho-governor-digs-rural-oregon-secession-movement-another-county-joins/

So I thought I need to re-think this secession issue. What was I missing? I came up with the following.

1. Trump is not seen as a sure thing for re-election. Maybe secessionists are reving up their movements thinking Trump is not going to be re-elected or maybe just preparing based on the chance that he might not be re-elected.  If there is a good possibility or an appreciable possibility perhaps some people will want to get involved in secession movements just in case. 

2. Some conservatives don't find Trump reactionary enough. Maybe since the country hasn't gone hard right or become a white dominated society yet, some conservatives and racist groups are thinking that they need to have secession to achieve their goals. I don't think this would drive the current revival of secession, though it might be a minor source driving secession talk. 

3. Some want to push liberals out of the nation to secure a conservative American future. This is what F.H. Buckley hints at when he suggests in his New York Post article, "Finally, there’s the president. I don’t think we’d see one who’d want to send in the Army to invade a state. Were he of the other party, he might even look at the electoral map and say, “Erring sister, depart in peace.” If California was an independent nation, the Republicans would have the electoral map locked up. On the other hand, California pays alot of tax money into the U.S. Treasury, is an economic powerhouse, and has a lot of the West Coast as its boundary.

However, I think that the above ideas of secession of a new nation aren't the only secession ideas that need to be considered. The revival of secessionist ideas may not to create a new nation but seize power in the existing nation. 

4. Subverting American democracy by forming rotten boroughs. The term "rotten borough" originates from 18th century politics in which there were boroughs that were very small but elected a member of parliment.  For example there was Old Sarum that had two members of parliment but only seven voters while Birmingham and Manchester had no MPs to represent them at all. See this British Library article. 

https://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/chartists1/historicalsources/source2/reformact.html

The thing is that a series of newly created states you could have the U.S. Senate permanently biased towards a conservative majority. Six states of totally rural populations would have twelve U.S. Senators.

There is no reason to believe if a few rural states were carved out of larger states, the effort would be restricted to just six. A quick look at a map would show that you could make two dozen rural states easily which would added 48 senators, and do it without losing any Republican dominated states. Of course the credibility of the American government of being some type of reasonable constitutional arrangement would be defunct in the cities, but I am sure elites and conservatives would justify it. 

I think that this prospect is what is perhaps behind the revival of American secession. 

5. Intimidation of a state government. The threat to secede might be used to intimidate a state government. I think that the Democrats are basically corporate types who dont' want a fuss and don't have the firmness of character to not be intimidated. I think the Malhuer Refugee crisis shows how the Democrats are basically gutless. 

It could be that now secession is a form of expression with bravado of an antipathy to state governments, but what starts out as a shout or bravado can be the first step to being for something in earnest later.

The fact that a member of the establishment, F.H. Buckley, law professor, columnist, not some person living in a tent or rural compound, has expressed this about secession works to legitimize it. 

I think we have reason to be concerned about secession. I have gone over some actions which can be taken against secession and I urge the reader to think of their own. I think that there should be an anti-secession group formed for every state in which there is currently a secession movement or might be a secession movement. I see it a sort of emergency preparation. To get some preliminary organization going, at least getting opponents of secession grouped together, with the sharing of some basic ideas, so an anti-secession movement doesn't have to start from zero if a crisis arises.