For Virginia, the Mother of States and Statesmen, things are looking bleak.  Even during the darkest moments of the War between the States, Virginians had the Army of Northern Virginia, led by the remarkable General Lee, along with Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and others, to give them hope that their difficulties would give way to better times.  Together they were, to use a Greek term, an elpidophoros, a hope-bearer.

Today, there is a new army of northern Virginia, led by very different kinds of people.  Rather than the Christian gentlemen typical of the South, the new leaders are a trans-friendly female governor, a female Muslim lieutenant governor, and a black man attorney general so morally disfigured he has declared his desire to see violence visited upon his political opponents and their children.  And the army they lead is a horde of Yankeefied invaders that infests the bureaucracy of the federal government and has settled into the once-splendid northern part of the State.  Together they are the opposite of General Lee and his army:  They are an elpidoktonos, hope-killer.

The victory of those three Leftists in Virginia’s 2025 elections is dispiriting in itself.  However, the depression is magnified when one realizes that, as we have seen in many recent elections, all of these Leftist candidates won their races by winning only a minority of the State’s counties (typically, the heavily urban counties).

Abigail Spanberger defeated Winsome Earle-Sears in the popular vote 57.2% to 42.6%.  However, the former won only 49 counties out of 133.  Thus, Ms Spanberger was declared governor despite winning only a little better than one-third of the State’s counties, 36.8%, to Ms Earle-Sears’s 63.2%.  The elections for lieutenant governor and attorney general had similarly disproportionate results.

We repeat what we have said after conducting similar analyses of previous elections:  This is an injustice to the conservative rural counties that make up the great bulk of Virginia, suppressing their voting power in favor of the urban counties, and it must be remedied.

There are two options for red county Virginians.  They can fight to amend their State constitution to include a concurrent majority rule for State-wide elections, meaning that a State-wide candidate can only be considered duly elected if he wins both the majority of the popular vote and the majority of counties (the same would apply for State-wide ballot measures like constitutional amendments).  Given the ideological make-up of the Virginia government, that does not seem likely to succeed.

The second option is one that red counties in other States are currently exploring – seceding from their respective States that are dominated by blue urban counties:

‘Welcome to the Greater Idaho Movement. Unlike fleeting political movements, this one is gaining momentum with constitutional pathways to success. In Eastern Oregon, counties are voting to secede from Portland’s Antifa influence, aiming to join the neighboring red state of Idaho. Thirteen counties have passed measures requiring local officials to initiate the secession process, although two counties face obstruction from clerks blocking signature gathering—a blatant abuse of democracy. The push for secession stems from political alienation. In the 2022 gubernatorial election, despite the map being predominantly red, the Democratic candidate won. The Republican candidate lost despite winning 80 percent of counties, highlighting the political disenfranchisement felt by over 80 percent of Oregon’s regions.

‘ . . . This movement is part of a larger trend across the nation. In Illinois, 27 counties have passed pro-secessionist referendums, and some lawmakers propose separating Chicago from the rest of the state. Maryland counties are eying a union with West Virginia, and San Bernardino County in California is exploring secession from the state. Independence referendums tend to draw out voters in droves, often voting for separation. This sentiment is evident in Oregon and could spread to other states where rural populations clash with urban centers. These movements embody the Founding Fathers’ vision of redrawing boundaries to reflect traditional rural values’ (“Oregon’s Bold Move: Redrawing Borders for Freedom,’ turleytalks.com).

There is a section in the federal constitution for managing situations like this:

‘Is this constitutional? Absolutely. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution allows states to form from existing states with legislative and congressional consent. There are historical precedents: Kentucky’s separation from Virginia, Maine’s from Massachusetts, and West Virginia from Virginia’ (Ibid.).

Turning back to the red counties of Virginia, we must ask if this option of secession is realistic.  If it is to go through the normal channels, receiving permission from the federal legislature and the State legislatures involved, then, no, it will be doomed to failure, as Ms Spanberger and her fellow-travelers in Richmond and in the federal government wouldn’t hesitate to veto the request for independence.

What option is left to them?  The folks at Turley Talks have the answer:

‘The question isn’t whether state borders should change but whether we still value consent, representation, and self-governance’ (Ibid.).

In other words, secession is the correct course of action, but the conservative counties would have to bypass the current governing authorities.  But there is strong precedent for their doing so.

One of the foundational principles underlying the union of the States (prior to Lincoln’s centralizing revolution, at any rate) is that a community is free to leave a political union that has become abusive or for other weighty reasons, even if the governing power objects.  Virginia was once the leader of implementing this principle.  She was the first colony to secede in June of 1776.  She was the State who issued the call for a constitutional convention in 1787, which led to all the States eventually seceding from the union created by the Articles of Confederation and forming a new one under the Philadelphia charter.

Now Virginia’s red counties are once again faced with a difficult trial, emanating from the anti-West, anti-Christian Leftists in Richmond, more reminiscent of the existential threats of 1776 and 1861 than the more placid, philosophical debates of 1787.  They stand in the shadow of extraordinary men – Washington, Mason, Jefferson, Henry, and the rest – yet they are men who are of the same lineage as themselves, men of Virginia.  If they wish to retain and revive what is left of their Southern Christian culture, they will have to muster the courage of their ancestors, call a convention of their own, and declare themselves a new State (South Virginia, perhaps).

Such an act will be met with howls of denunciation from the usual circles.  They must ignore them.  They must push onward to new Statehood.  If they do not, their culture, their families, their livelihoods, most anything worthwhile, will be destroyed by the Leftists in the blue counties.

These are not normal times, and the choices before them are likewise unusual, much more stark.  Life or death; a future or obliteration.  The red counties of Virginia must choose which they want.

Ordinary political processes aren’t likely to extricate the red counties of Virginia, or any other State, from the morass of blue urban county governance.  Secession and new Statehood offer much better possibilities (just ask the folks in the new city of St George in Louisiana, which recently seceded from Baton Rouge).  They ought to give it a try, and conservatives, traditionalists, revivalists, etc., in other red States and counties and in the federal government should help them in any way they can.