November 19, 2025 • 43 mins
Kal Penn has worked everywhere from Hollywood to the White House. In this joint episode of SNAFU and Kal's new podcast, HERE WE GO AGAIN, Ed tells Kal the story of a small town that decided to secede from America, only to realize their desire to buy beer and party would win out in the end Then, they call up U.S. historian Richard Kreitner to learn about secession movements in America today, like Calexit, Texit, and the Greater Idaho Movement.
You can check out HERE WE GO AGAIN here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I always thought it was called a buck strap, but
that's not what it is. It's a flank strap. Yeah,
and the you know, people think that it squeezes their balls,
and by day buck, that's actually not true.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So you're saying there's an opening there for a new product.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
That might make them buck a little harder. I don't know.
Hey there, I'm Ed Helms, and welcome to Snapoo.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I'm kel Pen and welcome to here we go again.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
This week.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
We are here together doing a special joint episode of
our shows because hey, we're both funny guys who love
history and storytelling. And you know what that means. It's synergy, people,
It means synergy. First, I'm going to take you through
a wild Snapfoo about a town that decided to throw
caution to the wind and secede from the Union way
(00:53):
back in eighteen fifty, only to realize it would leave
them him a little thirsty or perhaps a little high
and dry.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
And then I'm going to walk us through a discussion
with journalist and historian Richard Kreichner about the continued and
very recent secession movements today. Think about like col exit
or tech sit or the Greater Idaho movement, which sounds
like a brewery but really isn't. Let's see why the
same shit keeps happening again and again and again.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
This really feels like synergy.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
This is like like our podcasts that they just they
merge so beautifully. I'm so excited that your podcast is
finally out in the world, and I just I just
think it's smart and terrific.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think you are smart terrific. Thanks and full disclosure
to our listeners.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Cal is working with my podcast company, Snafoo Media, and
I'm an executive producer on his show. I ask all
my guests on snaphu, do you have any specific snaphoo
from your life that you can.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Tell us about? Oh, Man, can be huge, can be tiny,
doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So many there are so many, I'll tell you for
folks who don't know. I took it to year sabbatical
from acting with the intent to always come back acting
and performing as my first love. But I was the
President's liaison to young Americans and Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders in an office called the Office of Public Engagement.
Think of it as like an outreach office. And on
my third day, the National Security Council.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Are you in the White House, in.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
The White House, in the actual White House, they add
me to a massive email chain. And these email chains
have like one hundred people on them, real serious national
security people in those days, and everything in government is
an acronym, right, So like, for example, if you get
an email from the National Security Council, it'll say National
Security Council. Then any other time in the email, it'll
(02:43):
just say NSC. And so they had they said, you know,
plus cal cal because you're the president's new the aison
to the Asian American community, you should know about this
delegation from the Philippines that's meeting at the White House.
And the thing that you should know is about this
terror group in the Philippines that you might get questions on.
(03:04):
They're called the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. And then in
parentheses it just said MILF. And then the rest of
the email, I'm not working with you. The rest of
the email said MILF is considered highly dangerous. MILF is
known to recruit young men, and then things like things
(03:24):
like you know, many young men grow to the to
regret their affiliation with MILF over time.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
This is the opposite of a snapoo this is delightful.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
I love that there are these little, these little nuggets
of governmental awkwardness.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Great. So I thought this was so wonderful that in
my head, I'm at my desk laughing my ass off.
I hit reply all and I wrote, Yo, their main
terror group are the MILFs. Amazing, And I hit send.
And as soon as I hit send, I was like,
you idiot, you are not in a writer's room at Universal.
You are in the White House on an email chain
(04:00):
with the National Security Council. And I couldn't unsend it.
And I and it like it was silent after that.
And in the hallway, coworkers, many of whom in the
in the pod world you all know a lot of
the Pod Save America guys, and Tommy Vietort and Ben
Rhodes and these guys I worked with at the time.
In the hallway, we're like, yo, that you was so funny.
(04:21):
We were all thinking it, like, will one of you
please hit reply all and just say lol, that's all
I need. I just need one of you to l
ol me. And they all were like, hell, no, man,
this is gonna be a public record one day. I
just don't want my name associated with you. Calling out
the milk thing. So that was my one of my
(04:41):
professional snatfoods.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Oh my god, I love it. You know.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
The only thing that would have made that snapoo better
is if Obama himself had like walked up into your off,
like leaning against the door jam and just been like,
cow buddy, what the hell we're gonna have to fire you?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Like you're gonna this is not you can't do this.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
If that were the case, I felt like it would
have gone the other way and he would have just
been like, did you see the name of this terror group?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I feel like the government needs more people like you,
cal It'd be a lot more fun, a lot more
like chuckles in the hallways.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
And I enjoyed it. It's so serious all the time.
All right, Well, let's dive in because we have a
great snaff foo today. I'm excited to tell you about it.
We begin in California in eighteen forty nine, and you
know what that means.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
There's gold in them, there are hills. The gold Rush
was in full swing.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
In fact, it was the largest mass migration in the
history of the United States. By the mid eighteen fifties,
while roughly one hundred thousand indigenous people lived in California,
the number of non indigenous settlers ballooned from just a
few hundred to over three hundred thousand, a massive influx
and a crazy impact on the region cal Any, guess
(06:00):
what the current population of California is?
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Boy? Uh? Thirty two million plus a Kardashian.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That's a good, that's a solid. Yes, it's thirty nine
point four to three million. Yes, give or take a
Kardashian or Himsworth or two. One of the many boom
towns that sprang up during the Gold Rush was founded
by a mining company out of Wisconsin and led by
a man named, wait for it, Captain Absalom Austin Towntenshend.
(06:31):
I mean, come on, what a great name. I mean,
if you met that guy today, he would one hundred
percent have a sideburned grooming kit, maybe a pocket watch,
and definitely overuse the phrase. Good sir, my name is Absalom.
Good sir, that's a wonderful, wonderful name.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Great name.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Now this Captain Townshend. He had served under General Zachary
Taylor during the War of eighteen thirty two, and apparently
Townshend was quite enamored with his general Taylor. I'm going
to test your grade school memory here, cal do you
recall who Zach Taylor was or became?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
If memory serves, he was one of the non Milf presidents.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
I cannot verify whether alf president he was al president,
but uh, that is correct.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
He was our twelfth president.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And he had a fun little nickname, old rough and Ready.
I know that that has a great backstory.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
It feels kind of kinky.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
I don't know, it sure does.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yeah, yeah, it feels just wrapped up in kink in
a good way. So Captain Townshend decided what better way
to pay homage to my boy Zachary than to name
this newly formed town after him. To name the town
rough and Ready, which is a weird name for a town,
like usually towns don't have adjectives as their name. But
(07:58):
but I don't know, I guess they just sort of
thought it was It was kind of baller. So if
you ever heard someone mention rough and ready, would you
guess it was the name of a town.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
My first guess would have been, like yours, I would
have thought it would have been sort of like a kink thing.
And the ready really signifies the sex positive nature of that,
you're like rooting for the person because they're also ready.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
I feel like it could be like a monster truck
rally or oh yeah, maybe like a cowboy themed Swingers
retreats or oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
All right.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Well, despite its odd name, rough and Ready grew fast
thanks to all that gold in them the our hills.
But then came the Foreign Miners Tax, a state law
that slapped non US citizens with a twenty dollars monthly
fee just to dig for gold. Most of those foreigners
were Chinese and Latin American miners. And yes, this tax
(08:51):
was discriminatory as hell. Now here's the twist. Even though
the tax didn't target US born miners, towns like rough
and Ready still hated it. Why because it drove away
cheap labor, sparked conflict, and messed with the free for
all gold rush hustled that they were all trying to
cash in on. Plus, it planted the idea that any
minor could be next in the government's taxation crossairs that
(09:14):
will come to play later. Let's just say the good
people of rough and Ready were not ready to be
roughed up by the tax man. So cal this tax
eventually was ruled unconstitutional, but it still stirred up a
lot of immigrants sentiment. And you were to the White House,
You've been in the political trenches. Why is scapegoating immigrants
(09:36):
such a go to move in American politics?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
It's easy for people who are insecure, and it's I
think if you look at what's happening today, it's way
easier to blame immigrants for something that's happening in our
own communities, like groceries are too expensive, or things feel
less safe than they should be, or the cost of
(10:00):
my doctor's visit is too high. It's very easy to
blame immigrants and much harder to fix those problems. So
if you look at generally, the people who are blaming
immigrants don't have a plan on how to fix actual problems.
And that's historically true as well well. Their plan is
to get rid of immigrants, right, which is not going
to fix the problem, which doesn't actually address the problem.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, I think you're exactly right.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Being an immigrant is a very easy way to otherise someone,
of course, or like, or to label someone. And once
you have that label, once that otherization is in place,
then you just start tacking on all the all the things,
all the problems.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
And the other tragedy of that is, you know, it's
perfectly reasonable for reasonable people to talk about levels of
immigration and types of immigration every country.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
And the real way is that that immigration affects communities, effects,
and it affects Yeah, all.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Totally fair things to do. But when when people scapegoat
immigrants and don't solve own problems at home, it then
robs us of the opportunity to actually have the real
conversations we should be having about these things.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Amen, here's where things really go off the rails. Next,
the government tried to slap on a new general mining
tax that applied to everyone, no matter where you were from,
just like they were afraid of. And they also suddenly
tried to ban alcohol, by the way, just to clarify,
this was a full seventy years before the federal alcohol
ban in the nineteen twenties and thirties. That was prohibition
(11:26):
came much later. So yeah, a town full of miners
with no booze and more taxes. Let's just say they
were more pissed off than a bull in a flank strap.
And I actually I looked up. I looked up, I googled,
what's the thing that they strap around a bowl to
(11:46):
make him buck in a rodeo. And because that's the
metaphor I wanted to use here. And it's called a
flank strap. I always thought it was called a buck strap,
but that's.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Not what it is.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
It's a flank strap, app and the you know, people
think that it has their their balls. Yeah, in the
planet squeezes their balls the buck. That's actually not true. No,
that's an urban urban myth or a rural rural legend.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
So you're saying there's an opening there for a new product.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
That might make them buck a little harder. I don't know,
but no, it's just an irritant and it makes them
want to get it off. And that's why the buck
so cal. We've got new taxes, we've got an alcohol ban,
we've got a lot of dusty, angry miners.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
What do you think they're going to do.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Every time you say that it's a town full of
miners or dusty angry miners who can't trink alcohol, I
picture a bunch of twelve year olds or just fighting
with each other over beer that doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yes, yes, basically, yeah, that's what they're reduced to, essentially.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah, right. I mean I would imagine some sort of uprising,
some sort of like, yes, let's change this immediately.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
They want to secede, they want it to take it
all the way, get out of the United States. They
are pissed.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
So to pull this off, the town called a meeting
and voted to secede on April seventh, eighteen fifty. They
even sent official quote unquote official paperwork to Washington, DC
and renamed their brand new nation, drum roll please, the
Great Republic of rough and Ready, Oh, which I mean
(13:28):
is kind of a cool flex.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I feel like that's a good name.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Like, oh, I wouldn't mind if the United States was
the Great Republic of rough and Ready.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
It's a good brothel name.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Next, they drafted and signed their own constitution, which bore
a striking resemblance to the one hour founding fathers drafted
a century earlier, which.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Actually kind of makes sense.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
America's founding document was basically the og Secession Manual. So
the town rejoiced no more taxes, but spoiler alert, that
joy was very short lived. Pretty soon it's July fourth,
eighteen fifty, good old Independence Day in the United States. Now,
despite having just seceded from the United States, the proud
(14:21):
citizens of rough and Ready still felt the need to party,
because nothing says we're our own country now like crashing
your ex country's birthday party. But when they rolled into
neighboring towns to stock up on libations, shop owners refused
to sell alcohol to them. Why well, because they were
now technically foreigners. Cal have you ever been in another
(14:43):
country and realized you just can't get something you really
wanted because you're not a local.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
So first of all, yes, right, like there were there's
some stuff that people will just laugh at you. Like
I was shooting a film in Bangkok and I ran
out of my face lotion, and so I asked the
the you know, the makeup woman at work, you know,
do you have the recommendation this is what I use?
And she laughed at me, and she said, do you
know how close you are to South Korea? Go get
(15:09):
some really good South Korean skin products. They're so cheap
here compared to what you'd have to spend in America.
And I just sort of was like, yeah, of course,
of course they are. Of course I should do this,
look at where I am in the world. But so, yeah, sorry,
I have been in this situation where I've been on
the road and can't get the thing you're used to.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, these rough and readiers had suddenly otherwised themselves, and
now everyone in the United States around them is like, sorry,
we're not selling the foreigners.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It seems kind of petty, but I'm not sure what
the motivation was there. After realizing that commerce with their
neighbors was going to be a huge pain in the ass,
and only three months into their independence, the citizens of
this young nation gathered for another emergency meeting and, wait
for it, voted to rejoin.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Oh there it is, Yeah it is.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Do you think we should have taken them back or
door just be like sorry, no vaccines.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I guess that. You know, it depends on the type
of chip that we would have had on our shoulders
at the time.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah, did we need them back or did they ever
actually go?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
That's the better question. You're right.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I have a feeling that, you know, whoever they sent
these letters to to officially secede was kind of like, okay, whatever, Yeah,
it's just like put it aside, Like okay, guys, yeah,
whatever you need to tell yourselves. But you're still like
a literally a tiny little dot in the middle of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Yeah, you got to take them back, You got to
set the precedent. It makes people know full circle. They tried,
it didn't work, Let's move on.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
AnyWho.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
After a few swift signatures, they were back in the Union.
Apparently in the wild West you could form or dissolve
entire nations with just a little bit of paperwork. So
today the town is still kicking, with a whopping population
of six hundred and fifty nine as of twenty twenty three.
In fact, we found a flyer online for a Secession
(17:06):
Day celebration that includes a chili cookoff and an article
touting a reenactment play being performed.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Would love to see that.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Actually, seems like the townspeople remain proud of their quirky history.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Can I propose something?
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Can we audition for that play next year?
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Yeah? If this feels like a like a Waiting for
Guffman type movie.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, like what if we just did the play that
we need to make this movie?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Cow, I'm super down. That's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Let's leapfrog the play, Like, let's just make make this movie.
This is like such a Christopher Guest amazing. So with
just people being like like getting caught up in the
in the sort of mundane bureaucracy of like what it
takes to secede and the number of votes that the
(17:58):
town council must pass. And of course so you have
all these like these like crush the old gold miners
in these meetings, but they have to like focus and
dig in on this like smallst mundane stuff.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I don't know, I love it.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
And the very the very real emotional you know, valid
emotional concerns people have that just like normally stop when
you have a good therapist, but in said then become
this whole other thing when you're not checking yourself. Uh huh.
There it is.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That is the story of Rough and Ready caw Pen.
Any any major takeaways, any thoughts, reflections.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
A couple of big takeaways. One very interesting obviously, which
is which is why you wanted to tell us the story,
and I appreciate that. Two, I'm a little bit of
a nerd for countries that aren't recognized by the rest
of the world. There's one called trends Inistria, which is
sort of between Moldova and Romania, that has a really
(18:54):
fascinating history, especially now with the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
And obviously there are tons of countries like this or
places that are not fully designated countries, but oftentimes they
have their own currency, their own leadership, their own military.
So when you were telling me this, I loved that
there are examples that you know, I didn't know this story.
(19:16):
There are examples of this in the US that are fascinating.
Also when you were talking about okay, they're foreigners. I'm
the type of person we look at American history. We
are an experiment in democracy. Things are always going to
move forward and backwards constantly. That's sort of what it
means to be American. So when we look back at history,
I'm one of those people that looks at it and says, wow,
we've come a really long way. And so I don't
(19:38):
necessarily think that teaching accurate history means that we should
feel shame. I think the opposite. We've come so far,
oh amen, right, that we look back and say, wow,
this was super bad that we did this. It's great
that we're not that way anymore. We should feel proud
that we're not that way anymore. So it weirds me
out when people don't feel that way, and it really
weirds me out when people are caught up with if
(20:01):
celebrating the Confederacy because it was a foreign country. So
it's not to say that we shouldn't learn our history.
And if you personally are proud of relatives who had
a role in that, more power to you, even if
I may disagree. But the obsession with teaching it as
though it's American history is incorrect factually because it was
(20:23):
a foreign country. Right, So when you were talking about
all this stuff, it reminded me how that affects today,
right exactly. It reminds me of how that affects us today.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Still, it's a complex stew Well, just to your point
about looking back at difficult chapters in a nation's history
and that being a very positive thing. But it's not
just because we can be proud that we have moved
on from those things. It's also like, look at these
specific mechanics that got our country into this situation, and
(20:55):
let's make sure we're keeping an eye out for those
mechanics and whether they're starting to sort of like happen again, tour,
and how do we avoid those things, these these terrible
face plants throughout history or great injustices that we as
a country perpetrated or took part in. Let's own our history,
own the pride. Like you said that we have moved
(21:15):
on and also learn from our mistakes, but study the mistakes,
be transparent about the mistakes.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Yes, And if we're not going to do that, then
at the very least the big takeaway from rough and
Ready is that it would, as you said, make an
incredible key.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Party, exactly cowboy themed, a cowboy excuse me?
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Years retreat.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Ed. Did you know that as recently as twenty twenty
four there were reportedly twelve states trying to succede. What
I know, I don't have all twelve in fun of me,
it would have been a fun drinking game.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
That's absurd.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, like fully succeed just twelve because that's like the
size of the Confederacy, but they're not contiguous.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Right, Yeah, twelve seemed like a lot to me. Also
right to help us look at what's happening today and
what might happen in the future of secession in the US,
I knew only one journalist and historian would do. Richard
Kreichner is author of Break It Up Secession, Division and
the secret history of America's Imperfect Union. He's a contributing
(22:26):
writer at The Nation and Hudson Valley magazines, and the
host of the history podcast Think Back. Richard, thank you
for being here to talk to me, and Ed. Thank you, Cal,
Thank you, Ed.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Yeah, we're happy to have you. So, Okay, you're the
expert here. We've got movements like cal exit or Tech
sit which are attempts to make those states independently governed.
There's also things like the Greater Idaho movement attempting to
shift state boundaries. It seems like the idea of secession
is almost dare I say, like in style again, why
(23:01):
is that if that's correct.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Yeah, I think it is. I think it really has
been in the last twenty twenty five years, maybe since
around two thousand, with each election really starting with two
thousand and four, whichever side loses threatens to secede or
in you know, in liberals case, sometimes the expression is
that they're going to move to Canada instead, which is
kind of a different expression of the same impulse of
just wanting out from the.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Entire just because we have passports. Right on the other side, doesn't.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
Yeah, exactly, they've got the guns because Canada the Keebaquah,
that's been a huge session movement forever.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, just throwing that in the mix.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
You mentioned Greater Idaho.
Speaker 5 (23:36):
You know, there's different kinds of movements. There's cale Exit,
which wants to actually take all of California and leave
the United States. And then there's Greater Idaho, which wants
to take some counties from eastern Oregon and add them
to Idaho. Or downstate Illinois wants to secede from Chicago
and you know, separate themselves. So there's two different types
of movements. You know, you mentioned there's twelve states that
have secession movements. I'd be surprised if some of them
(23:58):
had twelve people in them, you know, like, but there's
other ones like New Hampshire where this like libertarian type
of politics really defines the state, you know, and has
for a long time. So there's movements of varying degrees
of seriousness. But what's unmistakable is this growing trend in
the last twenty to twenty five years after each election
of the sore losers kind of falling back on this
(24:18):
as the last resort.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
And what are those proponents, the serious ones, not the
ones that don't have very many people, but the serious ones.
What do they hope to get out of seating? I
know it goes goes beyond the taxation that Ruff and
Ready was facing in eighteen fifty. And I'm also wondering
for you know, is it about states, right? Some of
these states that you mentioned, the state governance is quite
different between them, right.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
Yeah, sure, Well, let's state California. You know, that's a
state that sends more money to the federal government than
they get back in expenditures. And Gavin Newsom and the governor,
in his recent clash with Trump in the spring, actually
threatened to withhold tax revenues from the state to the
federal government, which would be the beginning of some kind
of secessionist movement, you know. And a lot of people
there see that California only has two senators for their
(25:00):
population of something like forty million people, whereas Wyoming is
the same two senators for a population of like six
hundred thousand people, which is wildly disproportionate. So they see
that they don't get enough sway as they should in
the legislature.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
I want to ask ed this too, because I know
he does work with a great group called represent Us,
which protects democracy. So do you think the polarization of
recent years is influencing the desire to succeed?
Speaker 3 (25:26):
I definitely think so. It's also part of that sort of.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Long held American ethos of individualism, and it's still I
think speaks to a kind of like hunker down, protect mine,
get my crew together mentality. Polarization really is rooted in
a kind of fear, and that all of this stuff
is a kind of fear of like interdependency and collectivism,
(25:55):
and not all unjustified. I mean, there are some live
abilities that come with a giant country that has a
sort of more collective form of governance. But I think
the polarization and this sort of need to secede are
part of the same mentality.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
Yeah, I completely agree. I think that this idea of
seceding or individualism not wanting to be a part of
some kind of larger structure is really baked into the
American thing from the beginning. At the very beginning of
my book, I show how reluctant American colonists were too
former union in the first place. They wanted nothing to
do with one another, and that's really all they had
in common with each other was this desire for independence.
(26:38):
And then we joined together to form a country, the
very awkwardly named United States of America, which really spoke
to more what they wanted to happen rather than what
was actually already existing in seventeen seventy six, because it
was the only way that they could declare independence from Britain.
So anytime that our politics gets really heated as it
is in this current moment, as it was before the
Civil War, Americans are going to turn to this idea
(27:01):
of independence. You know. The declaration of independence is a
secessionist manifesto as the kind of remedy for any ills
that they see in the country, especially when it's being
governed by people who they see as their total political enemies.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I love manifesto. It makes it sound so charged it
was it was yeah, yeah, and it's violent too. Can
you give us a like a two minute primer on
something so the I'm curious about the legalities surrounding secession
from the country, namely the court case Texas v. White,
which was I think eighteen sixty nine that deemed it unconstitutional.
(27:34):
So what's the deal? With that, and then what's the
legality today?
Speaker 5 (27:37):
Yeah, maybe a bit of an outlier on people who
study this question because I don't give a lot of
weight to that court case, which was basically an attempt
to kind of wrap up all the loose ends of
the Civil War and be like, oh, by the way,
it's not only that we beat you on the battlefield,
but it's also unconstitutional. So it was a way to
kind of accomplish judicially what they'd already done militarily.
Speaker 4 (27:56):
You know.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
It was what's called dicta in the legal profession. It's
it's something that the court wasn't actually being asked to
comment on. They were just like, oh, yeah, by the way, also,
secession is illegal.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
I'm gonna put a dict to you face say it again. Nothing.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
It's not clear to me that more than a century
and a half later, you know that that's going to
carry much weight if Texas or California or both, you know,
choose to get up and go.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
I know, I said I wanted to ask you about
California again. So then given that I note that cases
and hold a whole lot of weight for you, But
how are these movements the serious ones?
Speaker 4 (28:30):
Right?
Speaker 2 (28:31):
The ones that are getting on the ballot, Like in California,
there's a ballot measure aimed for twenty twenty eight. So
what happens after that? Potentially the ones that are that
are taken a little more seriously. And I guess the
second part of that question two for for California, if
I understand correctly, it's still the world's fifth largest economy,
right if you remove that from the US, so they
could conceivably actually live on their own, with their own
(28:55):
fully functioning everything.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Yeah, possibly, it's not clear that they would still be
the fifth largest economy if they were detached from everything
that being part of the United States gives you, which
at least now has been like fairly fairly good things.
So what happens after that is kind of anybody's guests.
A lot would depend on what the federal government chose
to do. Republicans might have every reason to say, forget you,
(29:18):
We'll never lose another presidential election without California's, however, many
electoral College votes, that's always in their power.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
I somehow don't see that.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Trump seems to already be pretty interested in sending troops
to California, and I think it would probably get a
lot messier than the people who back those initiatives tend
to suggest.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Yeah, I can.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I mean, the right always is very happy to take
all this blue state tax money and pour it into
red states. As you mentioned earlier, Right, red states as
a whole don't generate a whole lot for a federal
tax dollars for federal programs. Yeah, and they're also crazy,
that is fair.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
To say, generally, yes, And they're also very happy to
talk about secession themselves when Obama was in power or
when Biden was in power. But as soon as it flips,
his treason and Trump should crush him with all, with
all prejudice.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
And do you live in California?
Speaker 1 (30:05):
Right?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Oh? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (30:06):
Is this?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Uh? Has this actually come up, like aside from the
we're bummed about the election or or the real horrors
of what the president's doing with ice, especially in LA.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of sort of seething
contempt and resentment for the the way that the federal
government is kind of jumping into Los Angeles.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Uh, and and pushing people around.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
And obviously these ice raids, which which were sold to
us as a way to just get rid of criminals,
and is clearly not that, and it's been insanely disruptive
and uh and created a lot of fear and confusion
in so many communities that that has has people sort
(30:55):
of joking about like would in got shouldn't we just
get out of here. I don't take any of it
very seriously, but I think it's coming from a visceral
place of frustration and a feeling that like the federal
government may not really have our back right now.
Speaker 5 (31:08):
I mean, that's what That's what Brexitt was too as well,
you know, as well before Trump was everybody was like,
there's no way this is going to happen. And that
itself was a secession referendum, which actually our teeth into it,
you know, in it because it was binding, which none
of these, none of these ones are. That's simply an
expression of discontent. If California votes to leave, only then
would you know, would it really come to pass?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
To me, the fact that this is happening on the
left and the right at different times is a real
symptom of a lack of trust in our institutions, especially
our democratic institutions. That I know you do a lot
of work in this space, but is there in the
work that you do, or Richard, the research and the
writing that you do. Are there any metrics on how
bad things have gotten or how volatile maybe is a
(31:48):
better word, rather than just putting the good bad binary
in there.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's all kinds of statistics
about political violence and distrust and institutions, and especially not
just institutions, but in each other, you know, as citizens.
It's I think, as bad as it has been since
the Civil War. It's striking to me what you say
about it being both sides, because that reminds me of
earlier periods in American history, Like I mentioned, in the
colonial period, when nobody wanted anything to do with one
another and that's all they had in common. That's kind
(32:12):
of the case now as well. You know, none of
us are really quite certain what the purpose of this
union is or what function it is serving. And I
think a lot of people are frustrated, not only when
they're out of power, but when they're in power, and
it's so difficult to pass laws, you know, partly because
of the filibuster, partly because of you know, poor representation.
We've become a little bit of an ungovernable country and
(32:34):
that's growing frustrating for both sides.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
Yeah, and just on that metric question, I mean, there
was a famous Princeton study that showed that public sentiment
around a given.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Cause or policy had a statistically.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Non existent effect on whether or not that policy would
become a law. When when that's the reality of how
the government is functioning, of course, it's incredibly alienating for
for so many people, and there's so much frustration and
and I think a legitimate distrust in uh in some institutions.
(33:14):
Congress right now deserves a lot of scrutiny and a
lot of distrust. Unfortunately, that's spilling over into the judiciary
and things like you know, the CDC and other things
that that I that I don't think deserve the same
level of distrust scrutiny. Sure, but that feels like a
(33:36):
very toxic and spreading mindset right now.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah. The politicization of what should be independent branches or
agencies is very jarring. Before we go to the next section,
I had a follow up for you, Richard on the
on the Greater Idaho movement, which you mentioned was more
about changing borders rather than technically secession. I assume that's
still quite difficult and unlikely. Is that the case? Is
(34:04):
it more feasible? And if those folks actually won, what
does that winning mean and what's the mechanism in which
it could occur.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
Yeah, the Greater Idaho movement is advocating the transfer of
some number of counties. I couldn't tell you exactly how many,
something like ten from eastern Oregon, which is the eastern
side of the Cascade Mountains that really divide Oregon into
a kind of lusher, bluer, more progressive western part and
a more dry and much more conservative eastern part that's
very rural and in fact a lot more like Idaho,
(34:32):
which is right next door. And it would send them
into Idaho. So Idaho would become bigger and Oregon would
become smaller. And that would not really have much of
any kind of effect on national politics. It wouldn't change
the composition of the Senate very much. It wouldn't really
change the electoral college. Maybe one vote would switch. But
the constitutional mechanism for it happening is a little bit
easier than seceding from the United States, which is super
(34:54):
dubious and led to a massive civil war last time.
In this case, it would need the ascent of both Idaho,
which is already granted it, I believe, or at least
looked at it, and I think is supportive, and Oregon,
which is dominated by Democrats and is much less willing
to lose something like one third of their territory, and
then the United States Congress would also need to sign on.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
So it's pretty far fetched.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
It's unlikely, but it's not inconceivable that it could be
part of some larger package that you know, admits DC
or Puerto Rico or something as a state in exchange
for moving borders around in this way. And I think
it fundamentally reflects the same kind of discontent with the
way the lines have been drawn on the map and
the way that things have worked for generations that Calaxit
and Texit also suggest.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Okay, so that's what was happening with secession right now,
when we're back, let's talk about the future of this
imperfect union. America. You mentioned this, Richard, very eloquently, much
more than I could ever say, is a nation born
out of secession from Great Britain. So I get in
my liberal nation reading, you know, blah blah blah, why
(36:00):
some people might think that it's possible or even viably
revolutionary to consider secession. What would you both tell those people?
And I'm curious also, given your democracy.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Work, read the Declaration of Independence, read the Constitution, and
remind yourself why this incredible experiment that is the United
States is so special and that if we double down
on what those documents say, then we can be pretty great.
(36:32):
I think what's happened is that a lot of our
institutions have degraded over time. A lot of what represented
US does is fight corruption. I would say, don't give
up on the United States. There's something really incredible and
special here, and we just need to fix some of
(36:53):
what's broken.
Speaker 5 (36:54):
To me, what the Declaration of Independence says is that
when your government, when your system gets corrupted, when it
starts getting degraded, and your government begins attacking your rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you have
the right to alter or abolish that government, you know,
and one way of doing that is secession. I think
this should be an option of last resort, not first resort,
(37:14):
which is what kind of differentiates me from the people
who are for callexit. You know, in twenty twenty five,
I think we're absolutely not there yet, and I would
say to those people, like, keep your powder dry. You know,
keep this in mind. This is a truly, you know,
classic kind of American story. As much as anything else,
is this idea of secession. It's not just the Confederates,
it's not just racist slave owners and stuff who have
(37:36):
had this idea. Abolitionists wanted the North to secede from
the United States not only to protest slavery, but to
actually undermine it because they thought that giving their tax
dollars to a pro slavery government was perpetuating institution. So
we shouldn't be scared of the idea. I think it's
as American as anything else. But I agree with ed that.
I you know, I've got a lot of sentimental attachments.
I like driving across the country. I don't want to
(37:56):
have to show my passport to do that. I think
there's a lot that this country has accomplished in the
past and still count in the future. But I do
think that there are worse things than a potential break
above the country, which would be kind of you know,
all of us falling under some kind of fascist dictatorship.
Better to maintain real liberty in at least one part
of it, or a few parts of it, against the
(38:17):
day that we can kind of take back control over
the whole thing and return to the principles that we
all grew up to admire in this country.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Well said, Yeah, very well said. I share your cross
country love like my partners from rural Mississippi. And it
still floors me that I need a passport to go
to Toronto or London or you know, any of these places
that are culturally way more similar to the parts of
the US that I've always lived in, And I don't
need a passport to go to rural Mississippi, which culturally
(38:46):
is completely different from anywhere I've ever lived. And I
love that because it just shows you that the incredible diversity, warmth,
you know, all of that that exists in one country,
one large country where people don't necessarily see eye to
either's something really beautiful about that that I really enjoyed.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
Yeah. I mean, I'm such a sentimentalist that I actually
think that the more people from New York and Chicago
and Boston do travel to Mississippi and vice versa, and
we just kind of circulate around the country a little
more and get to know not just each other better,
which is a little cheesy, but like even each other's
like places like that, might that might do something to
kind of bring us to the future.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Richard, you were describing Oregon as as having like the coastal, lush,
liberal elite side and then the dry eastern portion, and
I was wondering if there's if that's just correlation, or
if maybe there's some humidity causality.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
To a political disposition.
Speaker 5 (39:42):
I'm sure some historian of Oregon could tell you about
how the economy has been shaped and the people and
all of that. I will tell you that, having done
research on all of this stuff in the nineteenth century,
that there were ideas of splitting up Oregon even back
then in the eighteen forties, when Oregon was first getting
you know, settled quote unquote by by white emigrant, and
there was this idea of these are two completely different places.
(40:03):
We should draw a line at the mountain ridge. So
this idea of greater Idaho is only really returning to
this older idea.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
I don't know, Idaho I has such a nice, clean
vertical line there, nice there, It's like a beautiful little chimney.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
What are the factors that could impact whether or not
these secession movements continue to gain momentum throughout history. And
I guess follow up question that question is obviously a
historic more sort of long term. But in the states
that we talked about, are there any serious contenders in
the next five to ten twenty years.
Speaker 5 (40:36):
I would say California and Texas seem like the most
likely contenders. They're the biggest states, you know, by land,
at least in the lower forty eight. I think they
can make the most plausible case about going it alone,
even though, as I said before, I think that's both
cases are kind of dubious. I've always said, honestly, I
think the most likely way that this happens is not
just on a clear blue day California holds a vote
(40:56):
to secede and then the federal government ever either lets
them or not. I see it as happening in the
context of some much larger kind of national crisis where
you know, say the twenty twenty election never really got resolved,
and you have two people pretending to be president and
then the country just cracks, you know, the constitution just
kind of falls apart, and in that context, states, you know,
pick up the pieces and do different things. I think
(41:19):
it's more likely than a Brexit style referendum that provokes
a crisis. We're knitted together in so much more complicated
in thorough ways than we were in eighteen fifty or
in eighteen sixty one or something like that. Anybody who
tells you that they know exactly how this would work
out and that it would be great, and that you know,
seniors would still get their Social Security checks or something,
which is something that somebody, a secessionist from Texas told
(41:40):
me on the Doctor Phil Show last year, and I
was just like.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
No, Well, Richard, thank you so much for being here
to help us learn about the modern day secession movement.
Thanks guys, and thanks to our listeners for checking out
this joint episode of Here we Go Again and snaffu ed.
This was really fun. I'm glad we did it.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Likewise, I think we may have hatched something here.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Let's continue to grow the hatch Are they called hatchlings?
Speaker 4 (42:03):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (42:03):
I think in podcast linger it's called a hatchling.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
Yeah, the hatchlings. Well, great by everyone, see you next week.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Snafu is a production of iHeart Podcasts and Snapfo Media,
a partnership between Film Nation Entertainment and Pacific Electric Picture Company.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Our post production studio is Gilded Audio.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Our executive producers are me Ed Helms, Mike Falbo, Glenn Basner,
Andy Kim Whitney, Donaldson, and Dylan Fagan. This episode was
produced by Alyssa Martino and Tory Smith. Our video editor
is Jared Smith. Technical direction and engineering from Nick Dooley.
Our creative executive is Brett Harris. Logo and branding by
(42:42):
The Collected Works. Legal review from Dan Welsh, Meghan Halson
and Caroline Johnson. Special thanks to Isaac Dunham, Adam Horn,
Lane Klein, and everyone at iHeart Podcasts, but especially Will Pearson,
Kerry Lieberman, Nikki Etoor, Nathan O'towski and Alex Corral. While
I have you, don't forget to pick up a copy
(43:04):
of my book, Snaffoo, The Definitive Guide to History's Greatest
screw Ups.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
It's available now from any book retailer. Just go to.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Snaffoo dashbook dot com.
Speaker 3 (43:15):
Thanks for listening, and see you next week.
I always thought it was called a buck strap, but
that's not what it is. It's a flank strap. Yeah,
and the you know, people think that it squeezes their balls,
and by day buck, that's actually not true.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So you're saying there's an opening there for a new product.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
That might make them buck a little harder. I don't know.
Hey there, I'm Ed Helms, and welcome to Snapoo.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
And I'm kel Pen and welcome to here we go again.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
This week.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
We are here together doing a special joint episode of
our shows because hey, we're both funny guys who love
history and storytelling. And you know what that means. It's synergy, people,
It means synergy. First, I'm going to take you through
a wild Snapfoo about a town that decided to throw
caution to the wind and secede from the Union way
(00:53):
back in eighteen fifty, only to realize it would leave
them him a little thirsty or perhaps a little high
and dry.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
And then I'm going to walk us through a discussion
with journalist and historian Richard Kreichner about the continued and
very recent secession movements today. Think about like col exit
or tech sit or the Greater Idaho movement, which sounds
like a brewery but really isn't. Let's see why the
same shit keeps happening again and again and again.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
This really feels like synergy.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
This is like like our podcasts that they just they
merge so beautifully. I'm so excited that your podcast is
finally out in the world, and I just I just
think it's smart and terrific.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think you are smart terrific. Thanks and full disclosure
to our listeners.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Cal is working with my podcast company, Snafoo Media, and
I'm an executive producer on his show. I ask all
my guests on snaphu, do you have any specific snaphoo
from your life that you can.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Tell us about? Oh, Man, can be huge, can be tiny,
doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So many there are so many, I'll tell you for
folks who don't know. I took it to year sabbatical
from acting with the intent to always come back acting
and performing as my first love. But I was the
President's liaison to young Americans and Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders in an office called the Office of Public Engagement.
Think of it as like an outreach office. And on
my third day, the National Security Council.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Are you in the White House, in.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
The White House, in the actual White House, they add
me to a massive email chain. And these email chains
have like one hundred people on them, real serious national
security people in those days, and everything in government is
an acronym, right, So like, for example, if you get
an email from the National Security Council, it'll say National
Security Council. Then any other time in the email, it'll
(02:43):
just say NSC. And so they had they said, you know,
plus cal cal because you're the president's new the aison
to the Asian American community, you should know about this
delegation from the Philippines that's meeting at the White House.
And the thing that you should know is about this
terror group in the Philippines that you might get questions on.
(03:04):
They're called the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. And then in
parentheses it just said MILF. And then the rest of
the email, I'm not working with you. The rest of
the email said MILF is considered highly dangerous. MILF is
known to recruit young men, and then things like things
(03:24):
like you know, many young men grow to the to
regret their affiliation with MILF over time.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
This is the opposite of a snapoo this is delightful.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
I love that there are these little, these little nuggets
of governmental awkwardness.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Great. So I thought this was so wonderful that in
my head, I'm at my desk laughing my ass off.
I hit reply all and I wrote, Yo, their main
terror group are the MILFs. Amazing, And I hit send.
And as soon as I hit send, I was like,
you idiot, you are not in a writer's room at Universal.
You are in the White House on an email chain
(04:00):
with the National Security Council. And I couldn't unsend it.
And I and it like it was silent after that.
And in the hallway, coworkers, many of whom in the
in the pod world you all know a lot of
the Pod Save America guys, and Tommy Vietort and Ben
Rhodes and these guys I worked with at the time.
In the hallway, we're like, yo, that you was so funny.
(04:21):
We were all thinking it, like, will one of you
please hit reply all and just say lol, that's all
I need. I just need one of you to l
ol me. And they all were like, hell, no, man,
this is gonna be a public record one day. I
just don't want my name associated with you. Calling out
the milk thing. So that was my one of my
(04:41):
professional snatfoods.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Oh my god, I love it. You know.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
The only thing that would have made that snapoo better
is if Obama himself had like walked up into your off,
like leaning against the door jam and just been like,
cow buddy, what the hell we're gonna have to fire you?
Speaker 3 (04:59):
Like you're gonna this is not you can't do this.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
If that were the case, I felt like it would
have gone the other way and he would have just
been like, did you see the name of this terror group?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I feel like the government needs more people like you,
cal It'd be a lot more fun, a lot more
like chuckles in the hallways.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
And I enjoyed it. It's so serious all the time.
All right, Well, let's dive in because we have a
great snaff foo today. I'm excited to tell you about it.
We begin in California in eighteen forty nine, and you
know what that means.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
There's gold in them, there are hills. The gold Rush
was in full swing.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
In fact, it was the largest mass migration in the
history of the United States. By the mid eighteen fifties,
while roughly one hundred thousand indigenous people lived in California,
the number of non indigenous settlers ballooned from just a
few hundred to over three hundred thousand, a massive influx
and a crazy impact on the region cal Any, guess
(06:00):
what the current population of California is?
Speaker 4 (06:02):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Boy? Uh? Thirty two million plus a Kardashian.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That's a good, that's a solid. Yes, it's thirty nine
point four to three million. Yes, give or take a
Kardashian or Himsworth or two. One of the many boom
towns that sprang up during the Gold Rush was founded
by a mining company out of Wisconsin and led by
a man named, wait for it, Captain Absalom Austin Towntenshend.
(06:31):
I mean, come on, what a great name. I mean,
if you met that guy today, he would one hundred
percent have a sideburned grooming kit, maybe a pocket watch,
and definitely overuse the phrase. Good sir, my name is Absalom.
Good sir, that's a wonderful, wonderful name.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Great name.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Now this Captain Townshend. He had served under General Zachary
Taylor during the War of eighteen thirty two, and apparently
Townshend was quite enamored with his general Taylor. I'm going
to test your grade school memory here, cal do you
recall who Zach Taylor was or became?
Speaker 2 (07:09):
If memory serves, he was one of the non Milf presidents.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
I cannot verify whether alf president he was al president,
but uh, that is correct.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
He was our twelfth president.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
And he had a fun little nickname, old rough and Ready.
I know that that has a great backstory.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
It feels kind of kinky.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
I don't know, it sure does.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Yeah, yeah, it feels just wrapped up in kink in
a good way. So Captain Townshend decided what better way
to pay homage to my boy Zachary than to name
this newly formed town after him. To name the town
rough and Ready, which is a weird name for a town,
like usually towns don't have adjectives as their name. But
(07:58):
but I don't know, I guess they just sort of
thought it was It was kind of baller. So if
you ever heard someone mention rough and ready, would you
guess it was the name of a town.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
My first guess would have been, like yours, I would
have thought it would have been sort of like a kink thing.
And the ready really signifies the sex positive nature of that,
you're like rooting for the person because they're also ready.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
I feel like it could be like a monster truck
rally or oh yeah, maybe like a cowboy themed Swingers
retreats or oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
All right.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
Well, despite its odd name, rough and Ready grew fast
thanks to all that gold in them the our hills.
But then came the Foreign Miners Tax, a state law
that slapped non US citizens with a twenty dollars monthly
fee just to dig for gold. Most of those foreigners
were Chinese and Latin American miners. And yes, this tax
(08:51):
was discriminatory as hell. Now here's the twist. Even though
the tax didn't target US born miners, towns like rough
and Ready still hated it. Why because it drove away
cheap labor, sparked conflict, and messed with the free for
all gold rush hustled that they were all trying to
cash in on. Plus, it planted the idea that any
minor could be next in the government's taxation crossairs that
(09:14):
will come to play later. Let's just say the good
people of rough and Ready were not ready to be
roughed up by the tax man. So cal this tax
eventually was ruled unconstitutional, but it still stirred up a
lot of immigrants sentiment. And you were to the White House,
You've been in the political trenches. Why is scapegoating immigrants
(09:36):
such a go to move in American politics?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
It's easy for people who are insecure, and it's I
think if you look at what's happening today, it's way
easier to blame immigrants for something that's happening in our
own communities, like groceries are too expensive, or things feel
less safe than they should be, or the cost of
(10:00):
my doctor's visit is too high. It's very easy to
blame immigrants and much harder to fix those problems. So
if you look at generally, the people who are blaming
immigrants don't have a plan on how to fix actual problems.
And that's historically true as well well. Their plan is
to get rid of immigrants, right, which is not going
to fix the problem, which doesn't actually address the problem.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
Yeah, I think you're exactly right.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Being an immigrant is a very easy way to otherise someone,
of course, or like, or to label someone. And once
you have that label, once that otherization is in place,
then you just start tacking on all the all the things,
all the problems.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
And the other tragedy of that is, you know, it's
perfectly reasonable for reasonable people to talk about levels of
immigration and types of immigration every country.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
And the real way is that that immigration affects communities, effects,
and it affects Yeah, all.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Totally fair things to do. But when when people scapegoat
immigrants and don't solve own problems at home, it then
robs us of the opportunity to actually have the real
conversations we should be having about these things.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Amen, here's where things really go off the rails. Next,
the government tried to slap on a new general mining
tax that applied to everyone, no matter where you were from,
just like they were afraid of. And they also suddenly
tried to ban alcohol, by the way, just to clarify,
this was a full seventy years before the federal alcohol
ban in the nineteen twenties and thirties. That was prohibition
(11:26):
came much later. So yeah, a town full of miners
with no booze and more taxes. Let's just say they
were more pissed off than a bull in a flank strap.
And I actually I looked up. I looked up, I googled,
what's the thing that they strap around a bowl to
(11:46):
make him buck in a rodeo. And because that's the
metaphor I wanted to use here. And it's called a
flank strap. I always thought it was called a buck strap,
but that's.
Speaker 3 (11:58):
Not what it is.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
It's a flank strap, app and the you know, people
think that it has their their balls. Yeah, in the
planet squeezes their balls the buck. That's actually not true. No,
that's an urban urban myth or a rural rural legend.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
So you're saying there's an opening there for a new product.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
That might make them buck a little harder. I don't know,
but no, it's just an irritant and it makes them
want to get it off. And that's why the buck
so cal. We've got new taxes, we've got an alcohol ban,
we've got a lot of dusty, angry miners.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
What do you think they're going to do.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Every time you say that it's a town full of
miners or dusty angry miners who can't trink alcohol, I
picture a bunch of twelve year olds or just fighting
with each other over beer that doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yes, yes, basically, yeah, that's what they're reduced to, essentially.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Yeah, right. I mean I would imagine some sort of uprising,
some sort of like, yes, let's change this immediately.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
They want to secede, they want it to take it
all the way, get out of the United States. They
are pissed.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
So to pull this off, the town called a meeting
and voted to secede on April seventh, eighteen fifty. They
even sent official quote unquote official paperwork to Washington, DC
and renamed their brand new nation, drum roll please, the
Great Republic of rough and Ready, Oh, which I mean
(13:28):
is kind of a cool flex.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
I feel like that's a good name.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Like, oh, I wouldn't mind if the United States was
the Great Republic of rough and Ready.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
It's a good brothel name.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Next, they drafted and signed their own constitution, which bore
a striking resemblance to the one hour founding fathers drafted
a century earlier, which.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
Actually kind of makes sense.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
America's founding document was basically the og Secession Manual. So
the town rejoiced no more taxes, but spoiler alert, that
joy was very short lived. Pretty soon it's July fourth,
eighteen fifty, good old Independence Day in the United States. Now,
despite having just seceded from the United States, the proud
(14:21):
citizens of rough and Ready still felt the need to party,
because nothing says we're our own country now like crashing
your ex country's birthday party. But when they rolled into
neighboring towns to stock up on libations, shop owners refused
to sell alcohol to them. Why well, because they were
now technically foreigners. Cal have you ever been in another
(14:43):
country and realized you just can't get something you really
wanted because you're not a local.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
So first of all, yes, right, like there were there's
some stuff that people will just laugh at you. Like
I was shooting a film in Bangkok and I ran
out of my face lotion, and so I asked the
the you know, the makeup woman at work, you know,
do you have the recommendation this is what I use?
And she laughed at me, and she said, do you
know how close you are to South Korea? Go get
(15:09):
some really good South Korean skin products. They're so cheap
here compared to what you'd have to spend in America.
And I just sort of was like, yeah, of course,
of course they are. Of course I should do this,
look at where I am in the world. But so, yeah, sorry,
I have been in this situation where I've been on
the road and can't get the thing you're used to.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well, these rough and readiers had suddenly otherwised themselves, and
now everyone in the United States around them is like, sorry,
we're not selling the foreigners.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It seems kind of petty, but I'm not sure what
the motivation was there. After realizing that commerce with their
neighbors was going to be a huge pain in the ass,
and only three months into their independence, the citizens of
this young nation gathered for another emergency meeting and, wait
for it, voted to rejoin.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Oh there it is, Yeah it is.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Do you think we should have taken them back or
door just be like sorry, no vaccines.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
I guess that. You know, it depends on the type
of chip that we would have had on our shoulders
at the time.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah, did we need them back or did they ever
actually go?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
That's the better question. You're right.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I have a feeling that, you know, whoever they sent
these letters to to officially secede was kind of like, okay, whatever, Yeah,
it's just like put it aside, Like okay, guys, yeah,
whatever you need to tell yourselves. But you're still like
a literally a tiny little dot in the middle of
the United States.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Yeah, you got to take them back, You got to
set the precedent. It makes people know full circle. They tried,
it didn't work, Let's move on.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
AnyWho.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
After a few swift signatures, they were back in the Union.
Apparently in the wild West you could form or dissolve
entire nations with just a little bit of paperwork. So
today the town is still kicking, with a whopping population
of six hundred and fifty nine as of twenty twenty three.
In fact, we found a flyer online for a Secession
(17:06):
Day celebration that includes a chili cookoff and an article
touting a reenactment play being performed.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Would love to see that.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Actually, seems like the townspeople remain proud of their quirky history.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Can I propose something?
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Can we audition for that play next year?
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Yeah? If this feels like a like a Waiting for
Guffman type movie.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
Yeah, like what if we just did the play that
we need to make this movie?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Cow, I'm super down. That's a great idea.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Let's leapfrog the play, Like, let's just make make this movie.
This is like such a Christopher Guest amazing. So with
just people being like like getting caught up in the
in the sort of mundane bureaucracy of like what it
takes to secede and the number of votes that the
(17:58):
town council must pass. And of course so you have
all these like these like crush the old gold miners
in these meetings, but they have to like focus and
dig in on this like smallst mundane stuff.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I don't know, I love it.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
And the very the very real emotional you know, valid
emotional concerns people have that just like normally stop when
you have a good therapist, but in said then become
this whole other thing when you're not checking yourself. Uh huh.
There it is.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
That is the story of Rough and Ready caw Pen.
Any any major takeaways, any thoughts, reflections.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
A couple of big takeaways. One very interesting obviously, which
is which is why you wanted to tell us the story,
and I appreciate that. Two, I'm a little bit of
a nerd for countries that aren't recognized by the rest
of the world. There's one called trends Inistria, which is
sort of between Moldova and Romania, that has a really
(18:54):
fascinating history, especially now with the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
And obviously there are tons of countries like this or
places that are not fully designated countries, but oftentimes they
have their own currency, their own leadership, their own military.
So when you were telling me this, I loved that
there are examples that you know, I didn't know this story.
(19:16):
There are examples of this in the US that are fascinating.
Also when you were talking about okay, they're foreigners. I'm
the type of person we look at American history. We
are an experiment in democracy. Things are always going to
move forward and backwards constantly. That's sort of what it
means to be American. So when we look back at history,
I'm one of those people that looks at it and says, wow,
we've come a really long way. And so I don't
(19:38):
necessarily think that teaching accurate history means that we should
feel shame. I think the opposite. We've come so far,
oh amen, right, that we look back and say, wow,
this was super bad that we did this. It's great
that we're not that way anymore. We should feel proud
that we're not that way anymore. So it weirds me
out when people don't feel that way, and it really
weirds me out when people are caught up with if
(20:01):
celebrating the Confederacy because it was a foreign country. So
it's not to say that we shouldn't learn our history.
And if you personally are proud of relatives who had
a role in that, more power to you, even if
I may disagree. But the obsession with teaching it as
though it's American history is incorrect factually because it was
(20:23):
a foreign country. Right, So when you were talking about
all this stuff, it reminded me how that affects today,
right exactly. It reminds me of how that affects us today.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Still, it's a complex stew Well, just to your point
about looking back at difficult chapters in a nation's history
and that being a very positive thing. But it's not
just because we can be proud that we have moved
on from those things. It's also like, look at these
specific mechanics that got our country into this situation, and
(20:55):
let's make sure we're keeping an eye out for those
mechanics and whether they're starting to sort of like happen again, tour,
and how do we avoid those things, these these terrible
face plants throughout history or great injustices that we as
a country perpetrated or took part in. Let's own our history,
own the pride. Like you said that we have moved
(21:15):
on and also learn from our mistakes, but study the mistakes,
be transparent about the mistakes.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Yes, And if we're not going to do that, then
at the very least the big takeaway from rough and
Ready is that it would, as you said, make an
incredible key.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
Party, exactly cowboy themed, a cowboy excuse me?
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Years retreat.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Ed. Did you know that as recently as twenty twenty
four there were reportedly twelve states trying to succede. What
I know, I don't have all twelve in fun of me,
it would have been a fun drinking game.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
That's absurd.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, like fully succeed just twelve because that's like the
size of the Confederacy, but they're not contiguous.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Right, Yeah, twelve seemed like a lot to me. Also
right to help us look at what's happening today and
what might happen in the future of secession in the US,
I knew only one journalist and historian would do. Richard
Kreichner is author of Break It Up Secession, Division and
the secret history of America's Imperfect Union. He's a contributing
(22:26):
writer at The Nation and Hudson Valley magazines, and the
host of the history podcast Think Back. Richard, thank you
for being here to talk to me, and Ed. Thank you, Cal,
Thank you, Ed.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
Yeah, we're happy to have you. So, Okay, you're the
expert here. We've got movements like cal exit or Tech
sit which are attempts to make those states independently governed.
There's also things like the Greater Idaho movement attempting to
shift state boundaries. It seems like the idea of secession
is almost dare I say, like in style again, why
(23:01):
is that if that's correct.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
Yeah, I think it is. I think it really has
been in the last twenty twenty five years, maybe since
around two thousand, with each election really starting with two
thousand and four, whichever side loses threatens to secede or
in you know, in liberals case, sometimes the expression is
that they're going to move to Canada instead, which is
kind of a different expression of the same impulse of
just wanting out from the.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Entire just because we have passports. Right on the other side, doesn't.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
Yeah, exactly, they've got the guns because Canada the Keebaquah,
that's been a huge session movement forever.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely, just throwing that in the mix.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
You mentioned Greater Idaho.
Speaker 5 (23:36):
You know, there's different kinds of movements. There's cale Exit,
which wants to actually take all of California and leave
the United States. And then there's Greater Idaho, which wants
to take some counties from eastern Oregon and add them
to Idaho. Or downstate Illinois wants to secede from Chicago
and you know, separate themselves. So there's two different types
of movements. You know, you mentioned there's twelve states that
have secession movements. I'd be surprised if some of them
(23:58):
had twelve people in them, you know, like, but there's
other ones like New Hampshire where this like libertarian type
of politics really defines the state, you know, and has
for a long time. So there's movements of varying degrees
of seriousness. But what's unmistakable is this growing trend in
the last twenty to twenty five years after each election
of the sore losers kind of falling back on this
(24:18):
as the last resort.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
And what are those proponents, the serious ones, not the
ones that don't have very many people, but the serious ones.
What do they hope to get out of seating? I
know it goes goes beyond the taxation that Ruff and
Ready was facing in eighteen fifty. And I'm also wondering
for you know, is it about states, right? Some of
these states that you mentioned, the state governance is quite
different between them, right.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
Yeah, sure, Well, let's state California. You know, that's a
state that sends more money to the federal government than
they get back in expenditures. And Gavin Newsom and the governor,
in his recent clash with Trump in the spring, actually
threatened to withhold tax revenues from the state to the
federal government, which would be the beginning of some kind
of secessionist movement, you know. And a lot of people
there see that California only has two senators for their
(25:00):
population of something like forty million people, whereas Wyoming is
the same two senators for a population of like six
hundred thousand people, which is wildly disproportionate. So they see
that they don't get enough sway as they should in
the legislature.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
I want to ask ed this too, because I know
he does work with a great group called represent Us,
which protects democracy. So do you think the polarization of
recent years is influencing the desire to succeed?
Speaker 3 (25:26):
I definitely think so. It's also part of that sort of.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Long held American ethos of individualism, and it's still I
think speaks to a kind of like hunker down, protect mine,
get my crew together mentality. Polarization really is rooted in
a kind of fear, and that all of this stuff
is a kind of fear of like interdependency and collectivism,
(25:55):
and not all unjustified. I mean, there are some live
abilities that come with a giant country that has a
sort of more collective form of governance. But I think
the polarization and this sort of need to secede are
part of the same mentality.
Speaker 5 (26:16):
Yeah, I completely agree. I think that this idea of
seceding or individualism not wanting to be a part of
some kind of larger structure is really baked into the
American thing from the beginning. At the very beginning of
my book, I show how reluctant American colonists were too
former union in the first place. They wanted nothing to
do with one another, and that's really all they had
in common with each other was this desire for independence.
(26:38):
And then we joined together to form a country, the
very awkwardly named United States of America, which really spoke
to more what they wanted to happen rather than what
was actually already existing in seventeen seventy six, because it
was the only way that they could declare independence from Britain.
So anytime that our politics gets really heated as it
is in this current moment, as it was before the
Civil War, Americans are going to turn to this idea
(27:01):
of independence. You know. The declaration of independence is a
secessionist manifesto as the kind of remedy for any ills
that they see in the country, especially when it's being
governed by people who they see as their total political enemies.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
I love manifesto. It makes it sound so charged it
was it was yeah, yeah, and it's violent too. Can
you give us a like a two minute primer on
something so the I'm curious about the legalities surrounding secession
from the country, namely the court case Texas v. White,
which was I think eighteen sixty nine that deemed it unconstitutional.
(27:34):
So what's the deal? With that, and then what's the
legality today?
Speaker 5 (27:37):
Yeah, maybe a bit of an outlier on people who
study this question because I don't give a lot of
weight to that court case, which was basically an attempt
to kind of wrap up all the loose ends of
the Civil War and be like, oh, by the way,
it's not only that we beat you on the battlefield,
but it's also unconstitutional. So it was a way to
kind of accomplish judicially what they'd already done militarily.
Speaker 4 (27:56):
You know.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
It was what's called dicta in the legal profession. It's
it's something that the court wasn't actually being asked to
comment on. They were just like, oh, yeah, by the way, also,
secession is illegal.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
I'm gonna put a dict to you face say it again. Nothing.
Speaker 5 (28:09):
It's not clear to me that more than a century
and a half later, you know that that's going to
carry much weight if Texas or California or both, you know,
choose to get up and go.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
I know, I said I wanted to ask you about
California again. So then given that I note that cases
and hold a whole lot of weight for you, But
how are these movements the serious ones?
Speaker 4 (28:30):
Right?
Speaker 2 (28:31):
The ones that are getting on the ballot, Like in California,
there's a ballot measure aimed for twenty twenty eight. So
what happens after that? Potentially the ones that are that
are taken a little more seriously. And I guess the
second part of that question two for for California, if
I understand correctly, it's still the world's fifth largest economy,
right if you remove that from the US, so they
could conceivably actually live on their own, with their own
(28:55):
fully functioning everything.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Yeah, possibly, it's not clear that they would still be
the fifth largest economy if they were detached from everything
that being part of the United States gives you, which
at least now has been like fairly fairly good things.
So what happens after that is kind of anybody's guests.
A lot would depend on what the federal government chose
to do. Republicans might have every reason to say, forget you,
(29:18):
We'll never lose another presidential election without California's, however, many
electoral College votes, that's always in their power.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
I somehow don't see that.
Speaker 5 (29:26):
Trump seems to already be pretty interested in sending troops
to California, and I think it would probably get a
lot messier than the people who back those initiatives tend
to suggest.
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Yeah, I can.
Speaker 2 (29:36):
I mean, the right always is very happy to take
all this blue state tax money and pour it into
red states. As you mentioned earlier, Right, red states as
a whole don't generate a whole lot for a federal
tax dollars for federal programs. Yeah, and they're also crazy,
that is fair.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
To say, generally, yes, And they're also very happy to
talk about secession themselves when Obama was in power or
when Biden was in power. But as soon as it flips,
his treason and Trump should crush him with all, with
all prejudice.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
And do you live in California?
Speaker 1 (30:05):
Right?
Speaker 4 (30:06):
Oh? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (30:06):
Is this?
Speaker 2 (30:07):
Uh? Has this actually come up, like aside from the
we're bummed about the election or or the real horrors
of what the president's doing with ice, especially in LA.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of sort of seething
contempt and resentment for the the way that the federal
government is kind of jumping into Los Angeles.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
Uh, and and pushing people around.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
And obviously these ice raids, which which were sold to
us as a way to just get rid of criminals,
and is clearly not that, and it's been insanely disruptive
and uh and created a lot of fear and confusion
in so many communities that that has has people sort
(30:55):
of joking about like would in got shouldn't we just
get out of here. I don't take any of it
very seriously, but I think it's coming from a visceral
place of frustration and a feeling that like the federal
government may not really have our back right now.
Speaker 5 (31:08):
I mean, that's what That's what Brexitt was too as well,
you know, as well before Trump was everybody was like,
there's no way this is going to happen. And that
itself was a secession referendum, which actually our teeth into it,
you know, in it because it was binding, which none
of these, none of these ones are. That's simply an
expression of discontent. If California votes to leave, only then
would you know, would it really come to pass?
Speaker 2 (31:27):
To me, the fact that this is happening on the
left and the right at different times is a real
symptom of a lack of trust in our institutions, especially
our democratic institutions. That I know you do a lot
of work in this space, but is there in the
work that you do, or Richard, the research and the
writing that you do. Are there any metrics on how
bad things have gotten or how volatile maybe is a
(31:48):
better word, rather than just putting the good bad binary
in there.
Speaker 5 (31:51):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's all kinds of statistics
about political violence and distrust and institutions, and especially not
just institutions, but in each other, you know, as citizens.
It's I think, as bad as it has been since
the Civil War. It's striking to me what you say
about it being both sides, because that reminds me of
earlier periods in American history, Like I mentioned, in the
colonial period, when nobody wanted anything to do with one
another and that's all they had in common. That's kind
(32:12):
of the case now as well. You know, none of
us are really quite certain what the purpose of this
union is or what function it is serving. And I
think a lot of people are frustrated, not only when
they're out of power, but when they're in power, and
it's so difficult to pass laws, you know, partly because
of the filibuster, partly because of you know, poor representation.
We've become a little bit of an ungovernable country and
(32:34):
that's growing frustrating for both sides.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
Yeah, and just on that metric question, I mean, there
was a famous Princeton study that showed that public sentiment
around a given.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
Cause or policy had a statistically.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Non existent effect on whether or not that policy would
become a law. When when that's the reality of how
the government is functioning, of course, it's incredibly alienating for
for so many people, and there's so much frustration and
and I think a legitimate distrust in uh in some institutions.
(33:14):
Congress right now deserves a lot of scrutiny and a
lot of distrust. Unfortunately, that's spilling over into the judiciary
and things like you know, the CDC and other things
that that I that I don't think deserve the same
level of distrust scrutiny. Sure, but that feels like a
(33:36):
very toxic and spreading mindset right now.
Speaker 5 (33:40):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah. The politicization of what should be independent branches or
agencies is very jarring. Before we go to the next section,
I had a follow up for you, Richard on the
on the Greater Idaho movement, which you mentioned was more
about changing borders rather than technically secession. I assume that's
still quite difficult and unlikely. Is that the case? Is
(34:04):
it more feasible? And if those folks actually won, what
does that winning mean and what's the mechanism in which
it could occur.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
Yeah, the Greater Idaho movement is advocating the transfer of
some number of counties. I couldn't tell you exactly how many,
something like ten from eastern Oregon, which is the eastern
side of the Cascade Mountains that really divide Oregon into
a kind of lusher, bluer, more progressive western part and
a more dry and much more conservative eastern part that's
very rural and in fact a lot more like Idaho,
(34:32):
which is right next door. And it would send them
into Idaho. So Idaho would become bigger and Oregon would
become smaller. And that would not really have much of
any kind of effect on national politics. It wouldn't change
the composition of the Senate very much. It wouldn't really
change the electoral college. Maybe one vote would switch. But
the constitutional mechanism for it happening is a little bit
easier than seceding from the United States, which is super
(34:54):
dubious and led to a massive civil war last time.
In this case, it would need the ascent of both Idaho,
which is already granted it, I believe, or at least
looked at it, and I think is supportive, and Oregon,
which is dominated by Democrats and is much less willing
to lose something like one third of their territory, and
then the United States Congress would also need to sign on.
Speaker 3 (35:13):
So it's pretty far fetched.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
It's unlikely, but it's not inconceivable that it could be
part of some larger package that you know, admits DC
or Puerto Rico or something as a state in exchange
for moving borders around in this way. And I think
it fundamentally reflects the same kind of discontent with the
way the lines have been drawn on the map and
the way that things have worked for generations that Calaxit
and Texit also suggest.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
Okay, so that's what was happening with secession right now,
when we're back, let's talk about the future of this
imperfect union. America. You mentioned this, Richard, very eloquently, much
more than I could ever say, is a nation born
out of secession from Great Britain. So I get in
my liberal nation reading, you know, blah blah blah, why
(36:00):
some people might think that it's possible or even viably
revolutionary to consider secession. What would you both tell those people?
And I'm curious also, given your democracy.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Work, read the Declaration of Independence, read the Constitution, and
remind yourself why this incredible experiment that is the United
States is so special and that if we double down
on what those documents say, then we can be pretty great.
(36:32):
I think what's happened is that a lot of our
institutions have degraded over time. A lot of what represented
US does is fight corruption. I would say, don't give
up on the United States. There's something really incredible and
special here, and we just need to fix some of
(36:53):
what's broken.
Speaker 5 (36:54):
To me, what the Declaration of Independence says is that
when your government, when your system gets corrupted, when it
starts getting degraded, and your government begins attacking your rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you have
the right to alter or abolish that government, you know,
and one way of doing that is secession. I think
this should be an option of last resort, not first resort,
(37:14):
which is what kind of differentiates me from the people
who are for callexit. You know, in twenty twenty five,
I think we're absolutely not there yet, and I would
say to those people, like, keep your powder dry. You know,
keep this in mind. This is a truly, you know,
classic kind of American story. As much as anything else,
is this idea of secession. It's not just the Confederates,
it's not just racist slave owners and stuff who have
(37:36):
had this idea. Abolitionists wanted the North to secede from
the United States not only to protest slavery, but to
actually undermine it because they thought that giving their tax
dollars to a pro slavery government was perpetuating institution. So
we shouldn't be scared of the idea. I think it's
as American as anything else. But I agree with ed that.
I you know, I've got a lot of sentimental attachments.
I like driving across the country. I don't want to
(37:56):
have to show my passport to do that. I think
there's a lot that this country has accomplished in the
past and still count in the future. But I do
think that there are worse things than a potential break
above the country, which would be kind of you know,
all of us falling under some kind of fascist dictatorship.
Better to maintain real liberty in at least one part
of it, or a few parts of it, against the
(38:17):
day that we can kind of take back control over
the whole thing and return to the principles that we
all grew up to admire in this country.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Well said, Yeah, very well said. I share your cross
country love like my partners from rural Mississippi. And it
still floors me that I need a passport to go
to Toronto or London or you know, any of these places
that are culturally way more similar to the parts of
the US that I've always lived in, And I don't
need a passport to go to rural Mississippi, which culturally
(38:46):
is completely different from anywhere I've ever lived. And I
love that because it just shows you that the incredible diversity, warmth,
you know, all of that that exists in one country,
one large country where people don't necessarily see eye to
either's something really beautiful about that that I really enjoyed.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
Yeah. I mean, I'm such a sentimentalist that I actually
think that the more people from New York and Chicago
and Boston do travel to Mississippi and vice versa, and
we just kind of circulate around the country a little
more and get to know not just each other better,
which is a little cheesy, but like even each other's
like places like that, might that might do something to
kind of bring us to the future.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Richard, you were describing Oregon as as having like the coastal, lush,
liberal elite side and then the dry eastern portion, and
I was wondering if there's if that's just correlation, or
if maybe there's some humidity causality.
Speaker 3 (39:40):
To a political disposition.
Speaker 5 (39:42):
I'm sure some historian of Oregon could tell you about
how the economy has been shaped and the people and
all of that. I will tell you that, having done
research on all of this stuff in the nineteenth century,
that there were ideas of splitting up Oregon even back
then in the eighteen forties, when Oregon was first getting
you know, settled quote unquote by by white emigrant, and
there was this idea of these are two completely different places.
(40:03):
We should draw a line at the mountain ridge. So
this idea of greater Idaho is only really returning to
this older idea.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
I don't know, Idaho I has such a nice, clean
vertical line there, nice there, It's like a beautiful little chimney.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
What are the factors that could impact whether or not
these secession movements continue to gain momentum throughout history. And
I guess follow up question that question is obviously a
historic more sort of long term. But in the states
that we talked about, are there any serious contenders in
the next five to ten twenty years.
Speaker 5 (40:36):
I would say California and Texas seem like the most
likely contenders. They're the biggest states, you know, by land,
at least in the lower forty eight. I think they
can make the most plausible case about going it alone,
even though, as I said before, I think that's both
cases are kind of dubious. I've always said, honestly, I
think the most likely way that this happens is not
just on a clear blue day California holds a vote
(40:56):
to secede and then the federal government ever either lets
them or not. I see it as happening in the
context of some much larger kind of national crisis where
you know, say the twenty twenty election never really got resolved,
and you have two people pretending to be president and
then the country just cracks, you know, the constitution just
kind of falls apart, and in that context, states, you know,
pick up the pieces and do different things. I think
(41:19):
it's more likely than a Brexit style referendum that provokes
a crisis. We're knitted together in so much more complicated
in thorough ways than we were in eighteen fifty or
in eighteen sixty one or something like that. Anybody who
tells you that they know exactly how this would work
out and that it would be great, and that you know,
seniors would still get their Social Security checks or something,
which is something that somebody, a secessionist from Texas told
(41:40):
me on the Doctor Phil Show last year, and I
was just like.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
No, Well, Richard, thank you so much for being here
to help us learn about the modern day secession movement.
Thanks guys, and thanks to our listeners for checking out
this joint episode of Here we Go Again and snaffu ed.
This was really fun. I'm glad we did it.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Likewise, I think we may have hatched something here.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
Let's continue to grow the hatch Are they called hatchlings?
Speaker 4 (42:03):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (42:03):
I think in podcast linger it's called a hatchling.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
Yeah, the hatchlings. Well, great by everyone, see you next week.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
Snafu is a production of iHeart Podcasts and Snapfo Media,
a partnership between Film Nation Entertainment and Pacific Electric Picture Company.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Our post production studio is Gilded Audio.
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Our executive producers are me Ed Helms, Mike Falbo, Glenn Basner,
Andy Kim Whitney, Donaldson, and Dylan Fagan. This episode was
produced by Alyssa Martino and Tory Smith. Our video editor
is Jared Smith. Technical direction and engineering from Nick Dooley.
Our creative executive is Brett Harris. Logo and branding by
(42:42):
The Collected Works. Legal review from Dan Welsh, Meghan Halson
and Caroline Johnson. Special thanks to Isaac Dunham, Adam Horn,
Lane Klein, and everyone at iHeart Podcasts, but especially Will Pearson,
Kerry Lieberman, Nikki Etoor, Nathan O'towski and Alex Corral. While
I have you, don't forget to pick up a copy
(43:04):
of my book, Snaffoo, The Definitive Guide to History's Greatest
screw Ups.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
It's available now from any book retailer. Just go to.
Speaker 1 (43:12):
Snaffoo dashbook dot com.
Speaker 3 (43:15):
Thanks for listening, and see you next week.
Host
Ed Helms
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.