Partition, Secession, and Balkanization

This section is largely undeveloped. Please see the partition section under Web Links as well for other sites of interest.

There are several possible approaches to partition and secession. One is geographical and cultural in nature and is exemplified by the first essay listed, argued by Professor Livingston. In the second essay, Dr. Samuel Francis responds to the general argument. Another partition approach is specifically racial and is argued in the third essay by Professor Hart.

Professor Donald W. Livingston, a philosopher at Emory University, has written extensively on the history and morality of partition and secession. We are pleased to have his latest piece, Secession and the Modern State (December 1996), here in its entirety. You will be interested to note the connection with and rejection of the ideology of natural rights (see also Taboos: Human Rights) and his comments on that issue.

Next we come to Dr. Samuel Francis who rejects the idea of secession as "an infantile disorder." His article entitled "An Infantile Disorder," in the the February 1998 issue of Chronicles has brought considerable outrage from members of the League of the South. The subsequent issues contained several letters and articles from critics and Dr. Francis' response. I'll leave it to Chronicles readers to determine who had the most telling argument.

Professor Michael H. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influencial Persons in History. In recent years he has come to believe that peace between the races can only come from the actual racial partition of the United States. His Racial Partition of the United States, also written in 1996, offers another perspective on the subject. In fact, one could argue that much of the philosophy of Dr. Livingston's piece in inherent in Dr. Hart's piece as well, though the converse in certainly not true.