Fortress Dixie: The Foreign Policy of a Free South

Generally, when a discussion of a Free and Independent Dixie emerges, there is an inevitable series of comments or questions related to foreign affairs and defense. Some objections to a Free South pertain to perceived threats to the South after it leaves the Union. Communist China or Russia will be in our backyard in minutes… Other objections are related to the commercial or diplomatic capacity of a Free South in a global environment. The South would lose the leverage it currently enjoys in the international community… Meanwhile, other objections are related to the counterterrorism or fears of Islamist extremism. We would be sitting ducks for Islamist extremists… The fact is that none of these fears are well-reasoned. The South would be well within its ability to defend itself and through a consistent foreign policy posture, there is far more that would be gained by the Southern people through independence than lost. Let us explore what the foreign policy of a Free South would look like.

First, we need to understand why this is important for Southern Nationalists. We cannot begin thinking of ourselves as a free people if we do not begin to think of the very real global implications of a Free and Independent Dixie. Independence movements are national in orientation, but they immediately attract both international attention and intervention. Any mature nationalist movement must transcend parochial concepts at some point. It is perfectly understandable that the focus of the movement is currently hyper-local and regionalized. This is an effort to redirect our political and social realities. Foreign policy, however, needs to be considered as the “next step.” What will a Free South do in an increasingly smaller and more dangerous world while sharing a border with definitively hostile neighbors to our north, south, and west? The reason that my show, Dixie on the Rocks, often focuses on international relations is because I want Southern Nationalists to begin thinking of themselves as an independent people who are well engaged and can articulate a coherent understanding of the world around them. The world will view the South through one of two lenses: the one they are given by Hollywood/Washington, D.C. – or – the one we give them ourselves. I prefer the latter.

Foreign policies are generally an outgrowth of a national perspective and domestic idealism. The Swedes, for example, generally favor a pacifist global position and prefer to work within international institutions because that is a reflection of a natural inclination of Swedes to embrace negotiations before hostilities. The Swedes can fight, they simply prefer not to do so. Likewise, the Irish have embraced a neutral stance that tends to favor impoverished countries – especially impoverished former British colonies – over wealthy countries when engaging in diplomatic overtures. This is a reflection of their historical construct. By contrast, British engagement favors some level of continued control, albeit in a more nuanced manner in the 21^st Century. When the sun never set on the Union Jack, the British diplomatic posture was more aggressive. Today, the United Kingdom uses a combination of monetary policy, financial resources, and a crafty application of intelligence assets to get their way. Ironically, American foreign policy appears to be an historical outlier, but that depends on “which” United States.

The vast majority of Americans are against interventionism for its own sake. Generally, they have to be motivated to support military aggression – such as terror attacks, depictions of mass atrocities, etc. They are naturally inclined to be isolationists. This was the primary foreign policy throughout American history until 1945, when a new strategic paradigm shifted American policy: the Cold War. Since that time, the United States has grown increasingly more aggressive in its military adventurism overseas. This is not a reflection of the will of the people, but of a small few who have redefined security in an ever-expansive way.

Before I delve further, it is important to note that foreign policy on the North American continent was set largely by New England at a very early stage and it has dominated that ideological policy space for quite some time. The two exceptions to American military policy being driven by Southern interests were prior to the War Between the States, in the early 19^th Century: The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. The former was driven by a realization that a young country could not survive as long as the most powerful navy in the world at that time (Great Britain) could impress sailors and commerce without a response. This was a fundamental attack on sovereignty. New Englanders did everything they could to support the British during the War of 1812. The latter, meanwhile, was the result of a botched attempt by Mexico to reclaim Texas after diplomatic overtures to mollify a border dispute between Texas and Mexico failed.

One of the many stories that emerged from the Mexican-American War was the actions of a radical Whig Illinois Representative, Abraham Lincoln, who issued “The Spot Resolution,” effectively calling Tennessee-born President James Polk and the citizens of Texas, war-mongering liars. The other being the outright hatred propelled upon the South and especially Southerners by Yankee anti-war factions who sought to stop the potential westward expansion of slavery. Yankee detractors included Massachusetts-born, former-President-turned-Congressman, John Quincy Adams, Henry David Thoreau, and the socialist New England Workingmen’s Association. Hardened secessionist sympathies were formed in the 1840s and they were far deeper than shallow economic arguments over tariffs – another outgrowth of foreign policy differences. But I digress.

Cumulatively, the South has played a very little role in the trajectory of American foreign policy since 1865. There is an often-cited exception of the Spanish-American War, specifically as it pertains to the annexation of Puerto Rico and the expulsion of Spain from Cuba – events that led to broader maritime integrity for American Gulf states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and especially Florida. Regardless, even that war was a Yankee driven endeavor. Florida-Spanish relations were very strong well into the late 19^th Century. Throughout the War Between the States, Florida became both the breadbasket and the de facto treasury of the Confederacy largely because it continued to trade with Spain throughout the war, defying Yankee naval blockades with Spanish assistance. In the early 1890s, trade between Spain, Spanish colonies, and Florida was so strong that Spanish gold coins were found in general commercial circulation in Tampa, Jacksonville, and Pensacola. Yet, it was Northern (future) Rear Admiral, Alfred Thayer Mahan, who wrote The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660 – 1783 (1890), that opened American foreign policy makers to the concept of controlling Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) to advance trade and military power.

Controlling the Straits of Florida (the waterways between Cuba and the Florida Keys) became a priority for men like (then) Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt. Thus, the Spanish-American War, which also led to a more expansive American position in the Pacific, was about Yankee power, not Southern security. In fact, the South itself realized the purpose of the war with Spain, resulting in very little support among Southerners. Reports of brutal interaction between American troops stationed in Tampa and Floridians were widespread. To ameliorate those feelings of anti-Yankee imperialism and hostility, the U.S. government partnered with a group called the Daughters of the Confederacy to begin building monuments commemorating the Southern dead and Confederate heroes – part of a widespread attempt to reinvest the South in the Union’s military objectives. The first such monument was erected in St. Augustine, Florida, the first permanent European settlement in the United States with a large Spanish Menorcan population that fought for the Confederacy.

Ironically, despite an ever-increasing contribution to the United States military throughout the 20^th and 21^st Centuries, the South played a very little role in the direction of the military. While it is true – many Southern men ascended to the highest ranks of the U.S. military – only seven Southern-born generals have ever reached the highest rank of Commanding General of the U.S. Army, five of whom were born to Yankee career soldiers serving in the South at the time of their birth. In other words, only two Southerners of approximately thirty-five Commanders of the Army are of Southern lineage, despite a military that is comprised of nearly 50% Southern enlisted. The U.S. Navy has had twelve of forty-five, but nine of them were born to career naval officers serving in Hampton Roads (i.e., not Southerners). In other words, we send a lot of our young men to fight and die for an empire, but we have little say in the bellicose affairs of the empire, itself.

Cumulatively, we have never seen a truly Southern foreign policy enacted, beyond the haphazard and fatally incoherent foreign policy of the interwar years between 1861-1865. At that time, the South chose a form of economic diplomacy (“King Cotton”) and subsequently lost foreign recognition for a number of reasons, not least of which was a combination of the issue of slavery (Britain) and Papal pressure (France). But, what would one look like today?

As stated earlier, foreign policies are generally a reflection of the people’s national identity. I see no reason to doubt that would be the case with a Free South, as well. In effect, I believe the South would take on a foreign policy similar to that of Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or Japan, whereby economic might and a firmed national identity (the Christian South) would coalesce into a policy that was overtly neutral, but quietly sought to direct affairs through a myriad of mechanisms that are outwardly far less threatening.

To be sure, the South would enjoy a powerful military for the sake of defense, and it would likely immediately eliminate politically correct policies that serve to weaken the current United States military today. Imagine a Special Operations Community on rhetorical steroids – one that can be used but will rarely find cause to be used. Couple that with a robust state National Guard system, one in which some form of service would likely be compelled as members of a militia or volunteer emergency services.

Economically, the South would use its vast resources to ensure it had a seat at larger energy producing bodies, such as OPEC. Given its unique independent nature, Dixie would likely join such bodies as an independent observer, but not as a participant bound to the collective decisions of the body itself. Likewise, United Nations membership would be a hotly contested debate within the South, and it would be hard to see a Free South voting for entry into such an international organization. More likely, the South would participate in United Nations conferences, again as an observer, mostly to ensure that the body does not attempt to harm the South through some form of newly contrived global regulations.

Alliances would form quickly, and it would be hard to ignore the provocative recognition that would come from countries such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Both realize that the Southern citizenry would effectively give them the side-eye throughout any diplomatic overtures – especially the Communist Chinese. Still, any diplomatic recognition of a Free South would be rightly interpreted as a means to weaken the remaining United States. Undoubtedly, the American government would seek security assurances through NATO membership, navigation rights, and a continued presence of military installations on Southern soil. The latter would have to be unacceptable for a Free South. However, I can envision a South that housed sporadic air or naval bases for foreign allies, not unlike the British naval base at Kings Bay, Georgia. Still, a decidedly anti-interventionist posture would be the general mantra of the South. In effect, “If it does not affect the South, why are we dying over there?”

Financially, the South would take off like a rocket ship. Untethered to the deleterious economic policies of the United States, Southern economic capacity would finally become unchained. We would no longer have the same restrictions on natural resource production, labor relations, infrastructure building, or even investment – foreign or domestic. Florida, for example, is already the 15^th largest economy in the world on its own. Texas would be the 9^th largest economy in the world. A Gulf State Confederacy of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, would become the 4^th largest economy in the world – and the only economy with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a fully funded retirement pension program. Every other economy in the world relies on future generations to subsidize current retirees. Texas ($336 billion) and Florida ($235 billion) alone enjoy $571 billion in fully funded and invested pension programs – unlike states like Illinois, California, or New York, all of which rely on external bond sales to fudge the numbers (Illinois perpetually flirting with junk bond status). The United States government pension program (Social Security) runs an approximate $22 billion deficit at present and will reach a $3.3 trillion deficit by 2034 without reform. In essence, Social Security as we know it will end in 2027 – the key financial inflection point of unsustainability. Such a financial power as a Free South would play a central role in global affairs – possibly bailing out the spendthrift North with high yield guarantees.

Regional subsidies to unproductive citizens would collapse – as evidenced by the various current state policies pertaining to block grants. Again, looking at Florida, that state refused to engage in the Covid Relief additional unemployment subsidies provided by the Trump and Biden Administrations – despite attempts by both administrations to strongarm Governor DeSantis into expanded closures with promises of more subsidies for the state (which Florida rejected). One of the key reasons Florida bled black residents in 2021 and 2022 was due to the fact that the top Florida unemployment allocation was $275 weekly, whereas the minimum allocation for an unemployed Georgia resident was the federal allocation of $600. An unemployed black Georgia resident could earn as much as $1000 a week ($600 federal; $400 state), with the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, i.e., food stamps) paying for food, Section-8 subsidized housing paying for his rent, and Medicaid paying his medical bills. In other words, an unmarried black couple could earn $104,000 annually from 2020 – 2023, and have their home, food, and medical expenses paid by the state of Georgia and the federal government. By contrast, in Florida, there is a mandatory cessation of benefits at thirteen weeks, capped at $275 per week per home, with the lowest SNAP allocations in the country. It would be reasonable to assume that other Southern states would impose similar restrictions without American federal subsidies. That would cause a collapse and subsequent exodus of the welfare state toward more amenable, leftwing Northern locations. Globally, such an exodus would begin to result in the formation of a de facto White Christian ethno-state, even if that was not the stated intention of a Free South.

Finally, it is highly likely that the South would effectively become “Fortress Dixie.” Foreign policy would be subtle and less inclined toward interventionism. It would be Christian as it pertained to the exportation of theologically driven ideas. It would lever its economic and resource might, while using its defenses to keep intruders out of its affairs. Soft power (the ability to wield cultural influence) would be more Hallmark Channel pre-2020 than Cardi B and Brokeback Mountain. It would likely be more inward looking. A domestic predisposition toward a more rigorous law and order approach would ultimately result in something that looked like 1930s Germany, 1970s Japan, or 2010s Singapore – clean streets, harsh consequences for criminality, social penalties for any breach of social decorum, far less droopy pants, etc. The Free South would be in far fewer wars and yet, when necessary, capable of rendering an epic strike. Southern foreign policy would be a combination of economic leverage, Christian morality, gender sanity, and military muscularity – without the baggage of Yankee interventionism.