Increasingly it has become evident that the American nation, founded with such high hopes and aspirations in 1787, is expiring, dying a prolonged, painful but also virulently infectious death.

Those words are very difficult to write, especially for someone whose American ancestry goes back to Virginia in 1646, and whose ancestors helped settle other Southern states, who served honorably in both state and local elected offices, and who fought in every major war in which my state North Carolina and this country have been involved, including for the Confederacy in 1861-1865. Indeed, I think it quite conceivable that had the Confederacy been victorious in its efforts at peaceful separation in 1861, much of the later calamities and putrefaction which afflict this country might have been avoided.

Admittedly, such a statement is counterfactual. I recall at the beginning of the “Civil War Centennial” in 1960 that author MacKinlay Kantor authored a serialized work, “If the South Had Won the Civil War,” chronicling a “what if” history of America after a Southern victory in that war for Southern independence. Kantor’s scenario first appeared in installments in Look Magazine, and then in book form in 1961. And there have been others since then.

But it has been largely in the past decade that such alternative histories seem no longer in the realm of fantasy, but actual precursors of events that could very well occur here in the USA.

Over the past five years I have written seven essays suggesting some form of national separation of the American states, perhaps even within states, that might well be the most peaceful, least violent way to alleviate the increasingly unbridgeable, implacable, and vicious divisions tearing this nation apart. Just a cursory read of the “establishment” Leftist press (e.g. The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Salon, etc.) should convince anyone of this—anyone, that is, whose mind has not been thoroughly possessed by the demonic “woke” infection that can only be described as satanic.

The great Russian novelist, Feodor Dostoevsky, 250 years ago (in The Possessed, 1872), understood clairvoyantly both the foul and evil character of such poison, as well as the truly theological nature of such spiritual inversion. In a very real sense, he foresaw the coming not just of the Russian Revolution but also of the successive waves of what is essentially a continuing revolt against God and His Creation. (See my essay, “The Devils in the Demonstrators,” in the November 2022 issue of Chronicles magazine.)

My little essays include: “Is Secession the Answer?” at the Abbeville Institute; “Is It Time for America to Break Apart,” at The Unz Review, the Abbeville Institute, and The American Freedom Union; “Is Political Separation in Our Future?” at the Abbeville Institute; “The Future of the American Republic—How Do We Survive?” at; “The End of America? Hope Amidst the Ruins,” at The Unz Review and; “National Unity is A Mirage,” at the Abbeville Institute and The Unz Review; and “The Oncoming Second American Civil War,” at and The Unz Review.

Now, in a major contribution to this much-needed discussion, Chronicles Magazine, the paramount journalistic voice for traditional conservatism in America, certainly in print form, offers a critical symposium in its October 2023 issue, titled, “The Future of the American Union.”

Featured authors include: Michael Rectenwald (“The Two Nations”), William Lind (“When the Center Does Not Hold”), and  David Azerrad (“Against the Black Pill”)—and most notably, Editor-in-Chief Paul Gottfried, whose detailed contribution, “The Future of the American Resistance,” frames the October issue.

I have written about Chronicles in the past, essentially praising its critical role in any future restoration (or recreation) of the old American republic, or, perhaps better, American republics, plural. Like any national publication with a variety of writers, there will occasionally be a piece with which I disagree; but overwhelmingly the magazine offers critical essays, reviews, and columns which should be required reading for anyone concerned by the Leftist venom which now seems destined to finally murder the Framers’ dream, imprison dissenters, destroy the nuclear family, pervert our children, and engage us in never-ending global war for unobtainable peace to establish some dystopian world “reset” worse than anything George Orwell envisaged in his classic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

What is our future? What would happen if, indeed, somehow Donald Trump would manage to get past all the voter manipulation and outright dishonesty and win the 2024 election? Would there not be extreme violence, even rebellion in Blue States and in major cities? Would not states like California push harder for secession or separation?

Or, let’s suppose that the hysterical Leftist manipulators, the Deep State and their loathsome conservative/GOP collaborators, manage once again to pervert election laws and voter totals, and insure the re-election of the brain dead puppet Joe Biden. Would those who witnessed this remain idle and simply let it happen—again?

Paul Gottfried’s essay (along with the other contributions), while diagnosing the pressing problem, also provides a potential solution. Certainly, it raises serious questions as well. But it should—it really must—be our point of departure as we sink deeper into the cesspool, the “slough of Despond,” from which there is no escape, only spiritual slavery to the powers of Darkness.

Here are Professor Gottfried’s final paragraphs which bring his essay to a close and suggest what concerned, “normal” Americans” should be considering:

The best solution, given the circumstances, is peaceful separation, a solution that can be undertaken in stages even if it cannot be achieved all at once. If Americans committed to opposing the tyrannical left can be induced to settle in common areas and if they can control local and regional administrations, then their living situation should be far from hopeless. The regime’s opponents will be in an optimal position to respond to unwelcome directives from the central state. They can simply avoid enforcing them. If this practice spreads to enough places, it will be hard for the administrative state to impose its unitary will without facing multiple challenges.

It may also be necessary for the survival of enclaves of resistance that the decision of those who choose to live under the regime be treated as irreversible, providing their decision has been reached without provable coercion. It would be foolish for those who opt for freedom to share their hard-won autonomy with those who have opted for the opposite side but who then decided to change their place of residence. Even more suicidal would be to extend full citizenship rights to those who took this step. There is no guarantee that those would-be neighbors would not be carrying with them the views and values of the place they left.

One should not confuse these hypothetical asylum seekers with former Communists who eventually fled Communist rule. Most of those refugees were staunch anti-Communists by the time they defected. Blue State residents who decide to move into Red States, by contrast, usually carry their leftist politics with them. There is no reason to think leftists will behave differently if they move into more conservative regions in the future. Regulating who settles in woke-free areas will be necessary to protect these outposts of freedom from infiltration. Therefore, any attempt by the central administration to tamper with this situation (probably by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment) must be doggedly opposed. (p.11)

Search out the October issue; better yet subscribe to Chronicles.

Boyd Cathey

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations.


  • Earl Starbuck says:

    The Fourteenth Amendment is the keystone of Leftist revolution. It is the main source of the Supreme Court’s “authority” to rewrite State laws at will. It was never ratified and is thus no part of the Constitution. If we are to survive the coming storm, the 14th Amendment must be debunked; more than debunked, it must be staked through the heart, decapitated, and the corpse burned.

  • William Quinton Platt III says:

    There were no slaves in Africa; the free people of Africa became slaves when they stepped aboard slave ships.

    The Royal Navy did not enforce the collection of taxes on every free African sailing the Atlantic.

    There were no northern slave colonies or States.

    The first man to own a black slave in the North American British colonies was not a black man named Anthony Johnson.

    New England only built whaling ships…the slave ships were all built in Jacksonville, Florida.

    The financing of slave ships did not originate in London or Lisbon by non-Christian lenders…the financing of slave ships went through white Christian banks in Dadeville, Alabama.

    Dred Scott was the worst decision in recorded history because it said people could take their property anywhere in the united States.

    The American Civil War (yankee name) should be called what it actually was: THE WAR BETWEEN THE FREE STATES AND THE SLAVE STATES TO FREE THE SLAVES SO THE SLAVES WOULD BE FREE…yankee insistence on calling it the confusing “American Civil War” is typical of lost cause mentality.

    The Corwin Amendment does not exist…if it did exist, it would have been taught to children in school.

    The yankees did not change their military officers’ oath of office in 1862 because the previous oath (1830) references the united States as a group of States and not a nation.

    NO black men fought for the Confederate States, regardless of Frederick Douglass’ lies concerning thousands of armed blacks in uniform for the CSA, Harper’s Weekly drawings of such and hundreds of pensions awarded to black Confederates by Southern States.

    The 14th Amendment didn’t strip White Southern Males of their rights to vote or hold office.

    There were no military governments in the South.

    Reconstruction is a Southern myth.

    Blacks in the north could vote before blacks in the South could vote.

    Fortunately, our government does not lie to us any longer.

    The Federal Reserve is not a private cartel of banks, it is a benign governmental body designed to enrich the middle class.

    The US government did not force covid19 vaccinations on citizens. Losing your job is not the same thing as being “forced”. No one put a gun to your head.

    Wars are not fought over money. Money has nothing to do with Russia/Ukraine or the War Between the States. Ukraine has never been a part of Russia just as the Southern States had never been a part of the united States. The US was just trying to free the slaves…Russia is just trying to free the Slavs.

    The first casualty of war is truth.

  • Julie Paine says:

    Chronicles is a great resource! I loved meeting Paul and Robert at the Abbeville Institute Conference in April and have valued my new subscription to the magazine.

  • Paul Yarbrough says:

    “Therefore, any attempt by the central administration to tamper with this situation …”
    Dr. Cathey, Professor Gottfried sounds (to me) like he thinks it would be only a possibility “to tamper.” I think you can be sure they would not only tamper, but assert Lincoln-like assault!
    In my opinion this isn’t simply the loyal opposition we face. These are the most rabid animals of the warm-blooded species.

  • Page Ciesemier says:

    No need, to secede! OMG, another T shirt.

    No need to secede, amend the constitution.

    Let’s go! SAR 5 times I know of, CSV, RCM Page, major, artillery, Morris battalion, Jackson’s corps, Lee’s Army.

    The cause was NOT lost

  • Barbara says:

    One way for us to get out of this union and to destroy the federal government is to refuse to vote in ANY federal election. By not voting we could dissolve the government so that we could institute a new one that would be so small that if some Luciferian Jew or white psychopath got control of it they couldn’t harm us or destroy our country.

    When you vote in a federal election, you vote for what they’re doing to our children, you vote for more wars for Israel and open borders for us. You vote for what they’re doing in creating a technocracy. You vote for the Great Reset. Don’t even vote for Donald Trump. Don’t vote.

    • billybob says:

      All Abbeville Inst readers would be better off if the NEVER VOTE IN A FEDERAL ELECTION AGAIN!!


      Barbara, your comment is the most intellectual idea I have ever read on this forum. I congratulate you for your advanced intellect. You shuld write articles for these guys! 🙂

  • billybob says:

    Boyd Cathey is a treasonous person who should simply move to another country, since he clearly hates America, and Freedom for All.
    He acts as if a desire to secede is a patriotic idea. It is not.
    He acts as if stopping government from performing its duty is something to be proud of. It is not.

    Shame on you people.

    • scott thompson says:

      why isnt it patriotic…to a republic? the declaration declared 13 sovereigns who delegated some tasks to a general…all 13 acceded separately using state conventions.

    • Paul Yarbrough says:

      Now there you go, billybob, trying to exercise intelligent thought. Now why don’t you go back to your color television set about and have a Coke Cola and some peanuts and don’t get so excited. It ain’t good fer ya,

      • billybob says:

        there ya go pauly, trying to express intelligent thought. ten to one you’ve consumed far more coca cola and peanuts in your life than I even could… please crawl back into yer cave, ya neanderthal.

  • Matt C. says:

    Thanks Mr. Cathy. Anyone willing to answer a question, or offer their thoughts on something? A current writer, seems to me, thinks that the corruption of the U.S., and the government of course, essentially began, in earnest, in the early 20th century. Perhaps beginning with Wilson, then FDR, and the infiltration of Communism in the U.S. government during and after the FDR administration. I don’t deny this. I know the writer has read on the War Between the States and has read up on Lincoln and is aware of his corrupt administration. I know the writer read a book on Lincoln, one recommended by the Kennedy twins (but not because the Kennedy’s recommended it). I have been persuaded, for a long time now, from reading the Kennedy’s and Abbeville writers that “The South Was Right.” But, I am puzzled why a writer, like the one I am referring to, knowing how corrupt Lincoln and his administration was and how much they wronged the South and damaged the Republic (to put it mildly), could focus and assert, almost exclusively, that the origin of this nations woes began in the early 20th century. I wonder, and I’m asking, do some writers, historians to whatever extent, think that in spite of the horrendous event in mid 19th century America, that sometimes after the so-called “Reconstruction” the founder’s Constitutional Republic made a comeback of sorts, and so, they let go and/or dismiss the calamity of mid 19th century America? And then restrict the blame of corruption to early 20th century America and government? Of course, I realize, it’s verboten to to criticize the mid 19th century North and the Lincoln administration. Is there more than that? Do these writer’s and/or historians think it’s a waste of time to begin the blame there, to show that the grievous errors and the corruption began in the early to mid 19th century, because, what, it’s too far in the past? If things can be “fixed,” for the sake of discussion, is that where everyone needs to begin? That’s probably a stupid question, I apologize. I think that’s been Abbeville’s point. I haven’t missed it. Nevertheless, I still ask, is there any merit to their contention that we really should see what transpired within our government in the 20th century, not so much, if at all, in the early to mid 19th century. I think examination has to begin in the early to mid 19th century, but few want or dare do that. And so, we see the distortion and destruction of the South and Southern history, in order to make it difficult to go back there. I think I know another contributing factor to ignoring the 19th century, money. The investments made, writing’s/books, on asserting that the evils began primarily in the early to mid 20th century.

    • William Quinton Platt III says:

      “They” think the uS would have been a bunch of squabbling, petty fiefdoms if the States kept power instead of consolidating power into the central government. “They” think the US under a strong central government could run roughshod all over the world. Just try to imagine 50 small central banks trying to run up 34 Trillion (34 million dollars x1000 x 1000) dollars in debt. The “problem” with the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Of particular note is the 10th Amendment which puts more handcuffs on the central government than all the rest.

      The War Between the States could have been avoided if the US had a strong central government. Great Britain had slavery…and ended it…a law was passed and money was paid to slave owners to free their slaves. If the American Revolution had failed, slavery would have ended with compensated emancipation…just as it ended in GB. However, Slavery was the purview of the States, the 10th Amendment made it so…the Corwin Amendment was merely a restatement (pardon the pun) of the 10th Amendment.

      You can’t have freedom and a strong central government. You can’t have safety with petty, bickering micro-republics. Those who want safety want to do away with your Bill of Rights. The embedded conflicts in the Constitution are being fought out today. The “rugged individualists” versus the “communists” are one way to describe the struggle. The nationalists versus the globalists is another way.

      The conflict between “brothers fighting brothers” resulted in the vanquished being allowed to honor their dead. Both sides could co-exist in the nation, especially once the wealth had been stripped from the South. It is difficult to fight a war without funding. The conflict between nationalists and globalists has been one-sided as the globalists control nearly every facet of life and the last key element is falling to them in the form of the US military structure. The nationalists and globalists are not brothers…they are enemies to the death…all nations are under attack. In a globalist empire, it will be impossible for some of the people to have “superior” rights. Your right to bear arms, to speak your mind, to hold religious beliefs…you will not have these rights under globalism unless for some reason all the other people of the empire suddenly gain these rights. Do not hold your breathe waiting for Canadians to rise up and demand less government intrusion in their lives.

      Once the decision to force the Southern States to remain in the union was reached ( there would have been no possibility of a nation strong enough to run roughshod over the world with half the country departed) the nature of the country was changed almost immediately. In 1862, military officers no longer swore allegiance to the United States…to defend THEM against THEIR enemies…the oath was now to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. The strong central government hated by the anti-federalist who insisted upon the Bill of Rights came into being.

      Perhaps this helps…if the question “when did the lies begin?” wasn’t answered, it’s because lying to gain advantage is part of a weak human nature to attempt to get something for nothing…and rule number one of the universe remains YOU CAN’T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

  • Mike Moses says:

    Yes, yes. We are hyper polarized and it is s not amenable to change–ever. We’re also to large to govern efficiently and representatively. Our constitution has been corrupted by the courts and a flawed democratic process that shifts ever leftward toward financial ruin. Secession is our best hope for non leftists. However, I would recommend consideration of a plan that would continue , in some form, social security and medical benefits.

  • Matt C. says:

    The following is how I would word my question to the writer who pretty much begins the corruption of the U. S. government in the early to mid 20th century. It might be a bit more clearer than what I recently tried to express here. Speculations /answers to this question are welcome. Here it is: “I’m still a bit puzzled by the focus of attention on the early to mid 20th century, being the start time when the corruption of our nation began. I think it began in the early to mid 19th century. I know you think there was much trouble then, but the concentration is on the 20th century. I see the investment is there. I can only guess the reason is, that in spite of the terrible calamity of the war between the states and the awful “Reconstruction,” a recovery of sorts back to the Constitutional Republic is seen shortly thereafter. And then, what? The corruption returns in the 20th century? Teddy, Wilson, FDR, etc. So, the focus then, begins there?” Oh, Mr. Cathey, I apologize. I misspelled your name in my other reply here.

    • William Quinton Platt III says:

      I don’t think there was ever a lull in the graft. The Confederate Constitution prohibited government from favoring any particular business…it was an attempt to bring honesty back…if it ever existed in government.

      All we have to do to eliminate corruption in politics is to select our representatives from a pool of vetted individuals who are given permission to decide policy for an extremely limited period of time. At least then, the corruption will only exist in the “deep state”…though lifetime protection from the deep state for the “jurors” will be expensive until the deep state is eliminated. Who are the deep state? They are the people who write your laws for your congressman. They are the ones terrified of “fake news”…and they absolutely hate truth in any form.

      • billybob says:

        there is no “Deep State”, only conspiracies that weak minded individuals believe and propagate when they do not get their way.

        • William Quinton Platt III says:

          And Covid19 eliminated the flu…and came from an exotic meat store in Wuhan…and WTC7 fell because of a fire…and Colon Powell twirled wmd in a glass vial in front of the world…and no matter who gets elected: jobs keep moving offshore, drugs keep moving onshore, inner city schools can’t teach math and mlk’s records are still sealed…evolution is still taught in school despite failing 99.9 percent of the time…even billbybobs don’t evolve despite obvious contradictions between their programming and their observations. billybobs just show up bereft of facts bluffing as an internet first-responder, proving the emergency occurring at Abbieville is one of awareness and one which the powers cannot tolerate. Eisenhower thought there was a deep state…he called it the MIC…it hides in the shadows and drags us into war every single generation…it loves the Federal Reserve and the IRS and the income tax and bribing our politicians…it loves debt…34 Trillion and climbing…but most of all, it loves apathy.

          • billybob says:

            nah,man. billybob just trolls you fools cuz its ez.
            i have no stock in what i write, i just write it to get under yer skin. and it works!

            if such a thing as deep state did exist, it would prefer the uneducated over apathy… hence, Q.

          • William Quinton Platt III says:

            BBob does us a service here as others learn from the discussions he generates. This isn’t a woke-ist social media’s bulletin board where unpopular opinion gets erased and propaganda is state-sponsored. Nope, you keep trolling, Bb. We’ll keep educating those who come to watch the show.

Leave a Reply