Proposed Plan for Peaceful Partition

A Proposed Plan for Peaceful Partition - In Outline Form by J. Parnell McCarter

I have been asked to elaborate upon what I am advising as a path for the USA and its constituents out of our current societal morass and consistent with the principles I advocate at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/. That website already has such a plan, but let me elaborate upon it in outline form in this article. It should be kept in mind that the alternative scenario that may await the USA should peaceful partition not be pursued, may well look like what is described in Thomas Chittum’s book Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America (see http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_II:_The_Coming_Breakup_of_America). But even if the USA does pursue a course of civil war, in the end such war must be resolved, and I hope that my plan might offer some guidance of how it may be resolved by the then warring factions.

Thus, I would propose the following plan for peaceful partition:

I would advise that the representatives of the current US federal government declare all foreign US territories (like Puerto Rico and Guam), along with all Indian Reservations in the USA, to be free and independent sovereign nations, with their variety of welfare and other US federal government subsidies to be phased out.
I would advise that the representatives of the current US federal government dissolve the current multicultural nation of the USA, with its flawed secularist constitution, and to partition it into 3 main Christian ethnic homeland nations (along with various smaller nations):

Confederation of Anglo American States (“Anglo America”)
Confederation of African American States (“African America”)
Confederation of Hispanic American States (“Hispanic America”)

The current Republican and Democratic parties have done us the favor of already gerrymandering the US House districts by racial people. Those US House districts whose representatives are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus), with a few possible exceptions, could form the newly formed Confederation of African American States. Those US House districts whose representatives are members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Hispanic_Caucus), with a few possible exceptions, could form the newly formed Confederation of Hispanic American States. Most of the rest (with certain exceptions to be briefly described later) of the nation could form the Confederation of Anglo American States. The First Congress of each of these newly formed Confederations could consist of the currently elected members of the US House of Representatives, from which they each could elect a Prime Minister and in due time each could write and adopt its own constitution. I would urge that the constitution of all 3 be explicitly Christian and as Biblical as possible. Ideally they would reference the Westminster Standards as outlining the principal doctrines of the Bible.
The three Confederations could write and adopt a Treaty, binding upon all three, allowing for tariff-free commerce and free transportation among each other, so as not unduly to impede commercial enterprise and friendly relations among each other. The Treaty could also spell out that the former US federal government debt be absorbed by the 3 Confederations proportionate to the wealth of each of the 3 newly formed Confederations. The Treaty could also provide a provision allowing a window of time of all US citizens at the time of dissolution of the US federal government to voluntarily and without any coercion relocate their residence and citizenship into another Confederation, for those who so chose to. The Treaty could also spell out the procedures for further peaceful partitions from the three existing confederations, should future conditions warrant such. Finally, the Treaty could guarantee that within each Confederation there would be no differentiation of civil or voting rights on the basis of race or ethnicity among the citizens of each, according to Biblical norms of justice. This would help to ensure no one would be treated unjustly as defined by scriptural standards simply on the basis of race and ethnicity within any of the three main Confederations.
I would advise that the capital of the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States be established in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and that said civil government look principally to church officers from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and Netherlands Reformed Congregations for advice on how to form their government, laws, and constitution according to Biblical principles. Consequently, I would recommend that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland re-locate at least one of its ministers most capable for such a task to Grand Rapids, Michigan. The location of a national capital is of no small importance in framing the religious direction of a nation. (The Roman Catholics knew this, which is why they shrewdly made sure the capital of the US federal government was located in a parcel of Maryland not far from their newly established Jesuit college, now known as Georgetown University.)
I would advise that the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States adopt English as its official language and Protestant Christianity as its official religion, covenanting to serve the Lord Jesus Christ according to Biblical principles. In addition, I would advise that it declare itself constitutionally and by law a homeland for Anglo Americans. By 'Anglo American' (or sometimes abbreviated simply “Anglo”) I mean a Caucasian inhabitant of the USA of non-Latin extraction whose primary language is English and generally whose religion is Protestant Christian. While there would be minority citizens not fitting this definition of 'Anglo American' in the Confederation, they would agree to live peaceably and without bitterness in the Anglo homeland. An endless stream of whining and complaining at "white majority rule", or even worse rioting, would not be tolerated, but incessant whiners and complainers would be relieved from their misery by being shown the door so they could move to their own ethnic people's homeland. If there is a whole community of such incessant whiners and complainers, or even rioters, then a remedy should be considered of simply partitioning said community off from Anglo America.
I would advise at its inception that the Confederation of Anglo American States provide a 6-month window for all illegal immigrants to vacate Confederation territory or else face complete property confiscation and forcible deportation to their own home country. I would advise going forward strict enforcement of immigration law and discontinuation of allowing children of foreigners to become citizens simply because they were born in the nation. I would advise that immigration policy of the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States be based primarily upon jus sanguinis principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis), but with various and sundry exceptions. Provision should certainly be made to accept refugees of any race or ethnicity fleeing persecution for being Protestant Christian. Furthermore, assimilation into the Anglo population would be emphasized, and multiculturalism would be denounced, within the Confederation. Anti-miscegenation laws should be regarded as an impediment to assimilation of the citizens of the Confederation into one ethnic people over time.
I would advise that all affirmative action programs be declared illegal in the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States.
I would advise that the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States partition off certain miscellaneous ethnic enclaves within the Confederation, as seemed wise, practical and just. For instance, this could include certain Jewish American enclaves such as Kiryas Joel, New York and certain Arab American enclaves such as Dearborn, Michigan. Such would be autonomous or semiautonomous states, but with close ties and cooperation with the Confederation of Anglo American States.
As a gesture of kindness to the Confederation of African American States and to the Confederation of Hispanic American States, I would advise that the Confederation of Anglo American States voluntarily pay off all of the US federal government debt which had been allocated to the former two. But the former two should be made to understand that going forward they would be expected to stand on their own two feet and in no way live on the dole of the Confederation of Anglo American States, for the good of all parties concerned.
I would advise that the newly formed Confederation of Anglo American States avoid a centralized model with a large bureaucracy in the national capital, but instead embrace a decentralized model, more along the lines of the Old Swiss Confederacy. This is important due to the widely varying cultural and political philosophies within the Confederation, such as seen in the difference between the Northeast and the South of the current USA. This will allow each of the constituent states to form a style of government consistent with the cultural and political philosophy of that state, and hence remove unnecessary tension as each state jockeys to impose on all what it wants for itself.
I would advise that in the Confederation of Anglo American States issuance or sale of title to personal and real property, as well as securities in equity or debt instruments, be prohibited to foreign parties. A grace period of several years could be allowed for current foreign holders to sell any current holdings.
I would advise that the currency of the Confederation of Anglo American States be denominated only in gold and silver. Electronic money transfers would still be permissible, so long as fully backed by gold and/or silver. I would also advise that fractional-reserve banking be prohibited, and current banks be allowed a grace period to convert to a form not based in fractional-reserve banking. The entire Federal Reserve System would be dissolved.

Answering Objections

Objection #1: You are recommending a form of apartheid.

Response: In the article at http://www.puritans.net/articles/apartheid.htm, I have sought to explain why what I advocate is not a form of apartheid. Indeed, I would argue the current US empire is closer to a form of apartheid, with many Native Americans and African Americans relegated to impoverished Indian Reservations and black ghettos, that are effectively under white control. Studies show that the current US system actually leads such peoples to be worse off than if they were to have national independence. For instance, consider the study documented in the article at http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/baltimore-poverty/: “The researchers found many similarities—in all five cities, adolescents were exposed to unsanitary conditions, substance abuse and violence—but the differences between each area were especially compelling. Overall, teenagers in Baltimore and Johannesburg, despite being located in comparably wealthy countries, had far worse health outcomes and tended to perceive their communities more negatively.”

In contrast, what I am recommending recognizes the moral propriety of national aspirations of each people, irrespective of race or ethnicity. What is fundamentally different between Nigerians having sought national independence from the British Empire and African Americans (like Chokwe Lumumba) who seek national independence for African Americans from the US empire?

Objection #2: Your plan has been tried and failed for African Americans in places like Detroit.

Response: My plan has not been tried in the USA. Here is why:

1. Most importantly, so long as African American communities are part of the USA, they will be under the thumb of a secularist regime that does not allow them to establish Protestant Christianity as the official national religion for governance. Official Protestant Biblical Christianity, including in their schools, is of utmost importance to get out of their current quagmire. The Biblical gospel needs to infuse their social life, unlike the current situation.
2. Also, so long as African American communities are part of the USA, they will be dependent on the US welfare system, instead of being forced to stand on their own two feet. The US welfare system is terrible for keeping people in a sort of prison of immorality and irresponsibility. It is an analogous to parents who refuse to let their children leave the house, even as they grow older, but instead try to keep them home and in diapers.
3. Also, so long as African American communities are part of the USA, they will be subject to the US justice and prison system, which relegates many of their males to years in prison. It is a horrible way to deal with crime.

Objection #3: Your plan is racist.

Response: Let's be clear what the term "racist" has come to mean in modern America- a racist is anyone who does not support any of the following according to its now common use: multiculturalism, open borders, affirmative action, Dr. Martin Luther King as hero, rap music, hip hop music, or the like. I could add to that anyone who agrees with ethnic homeland nations (including for peoples not only primarily descended from Ham and Shem, but also from Japheth). So in discussing whether "racism" is Biblical or not, we should consider and discuss it in the way the term is being used by most people in modern America, especially those currently with worldly power in America. The term is *not* being used simply to mean those who hate people of other races, or those who believe people of other races should be treated unfairly.)

Given its thorough corruption, use of the term "racism" to evaluate people is a badge of paganism and should be regarded as such by all Biblical Christians. So whenever one hears a professing Christian use the term in this way simply remind them to correct their language or else you will have to regard them as having embraced to some degree a worldly philosophy alien to Biblical Christianity. This way over time we can shame the use of this term out of existence, at least among professing Christians. We'll let pagans keep using it as long as they like, and it will even help us identify them more readily.

Objection #4: Your plan is kinist.

Response: I have explained in depth at http://www.puritans.net/homelands/ why neither I nor my plan are kinist. This assertion is simply a slanderous falsehood.

Objection #5: Your plan is unjust.

Response: I think there is good reason to believe that Christian ethnic homeland nations are our eschatological destiny, based upon scriptural testimony. Old Testament Israel in its moral aspects is and will be the model for all nations of the world. What God has called clean, we ought not to call unclean. Furthermore, it should be noticed that this plan eschews all ethnic cleansing, and it includes provisions to ensure "no differentiation of civil or voting rights on the basis of race or ethnicity among the citizens of each."

Objection #6: Your plan will not help to address racial/ethnic tensions.

Response: There is significant historical evidence that it would help. Let's consider one specific modern example. Singapore is effectively an independent ethnic homeland nation for Chinese on the Malay peninsula region, whereas Malaysia is an independent ethnic homeland nation for Malays on the Malay peninsula region. For awhile they were one nation, but they broke up into these 2 ethnic homeland nations. Nevertheless, there are many ethnic Malays in Singapore and many ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. An ethnic homeland nation is not ethnically pure. What precipitated this national division? Because in Malaysia the majority of Malays want "affirmative action" programs for themselves, which effectively discriminate against ethnic Chinese there. Those ethnic Chinese on the Malay peninsula region who do not want to live in a nation with such "affirmative action" programs against them, can instead live in Singapore, where ethnic Chinese make up the ruling majority.

What is true in the case of the Malay peninsula also has proved true in far flung locations, including the former Czechoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia, etc. Division into ethnic homeland nations brought a modicum of peace, whereas there otherwise would have been more war.

Objection #7: This plan impedes free markets and free human migrations.

Response: The Bible does not approve or guarantee absolutely free markets and free human migrations. It recognizes the right of nations to establish hedges and engage in lawful wars to protect from movements and invasions of other peoples, so that a people can pass down their homeland from generation to generation.

Each people naturally forms an attachment to the homeland God has providentially provided to them. Consider the attachment of the Japanese people to Japan, the Egyptian people to Egypt, and the Armenian people to Armenia. Their cultural history is bound to their geographical setting, such as Mount Fuji for the Japanese, the Nile River for the Egyptians, and Mount Ararat for the Armenians. Displacement from these geographical settings in the name of free markets and free human migrations is cruel. An ethnic people is not Biblically obliged to forfeit their control of a given territory in the name of free markets and free human migrations. The various peoples that inhabit the modern USA are no different.