We hear about Texas and other “red states” discussing the idea of secession to form their own republic, or multiple republics. We seldom here about a “blue” or “purple” state considering the same. But what about Michigan? And why or why not?
For centuries, boundaries have shifted, and sovereignties have evolved based on the cultural, economic, and political needs of people. One might assume that America’s map has been set in stone for nearly two centuries, yet a review of history reveals numerous precedents for territories changing hands, either through secession or annexation. From the tension-ridden years before the American Revolution to Texas’s absorption into the Union, the United States itself has been shaped by movements that challenged the status quo. Today, the idea of the State of Michigan peacefully seceding from the United States and joining Canada can, at first blush, seem outlandish. Yet, if we borrow from historical events—such as the slave states’ attempts at secession leading into the Civil War or the Republic of Texas’s annexation in 1845—it appears that the foundation for significant territorial realignments is not alien to American history.
Decades before the American Revolution, British colonists considered (or were threatened with) realignments of territorial claims as the British and French vied for dominance over North America. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), alliances on this continent were a living, shifting mosaic. Some colonies drew closer to one another to combat shared threats, while others saw possible benefits in forging entirely new paths. Political union under the Crown was not as seamless as textbooks sometimes suggest. In this period, certain border regions (including present-day Michigan, then part of New France and, later, British territory after the French defeat) were administered by shifting empires.
Although we typically characterize the colonial struggle as Americans vs. British, the notion that one could separate from a distant power was already brewing. The colonists’ final break with Britain in 1776 was, in the broadest sense, a successful act of secession: 13 colonies seeking independence from the established authority. In that sense, the idea that a political entity can willingly leave one nation in favor of forming or joining another is integral to the United States’ own origin story.
Fast-forward to the 19th century: The most notorious example of secession in U.S. history is, of course, the withdrawal of 11 Southern slaveholding states to form the Confederacy in 1860 and 1861. While this secession was primarily driven by attempts to preserve the institution of slavery and broader disputes over states’ rights, it shows that secessionist sentiment was not limited to pre-Revolutionary times. Instead, the Civil War era reinforced two key points: Secession reflects a profound sense of political, cultural, or economic divergence; and, the federal government’s determination to keep states in the Union can be immense—often culminating in armed conflict.
Despite the eventual defeat of the Confederacy and the legal assertion that states could not unilaterally secede, the very fact that a large bloc of states attempted it underlines the enduring idea of states’ “self-determination”—even if that attempt led to conflict.
If the Confederacy demonstrates the unsuccessful path of secession, the Republic of Texas illustrates the successful path of annexation. Having won its independence from Mexico in 1836, Texas functioned as a sovereign republic until 1845, when it was annexed by the United States. The impetus for that move was largely strategic and economic: The United States wanted to expand its influence to the Southwest (especially slave-owning Southern states that wanted to expand slavery); and, Texas, meanwhile, sought the economic security and military protection that joining the Union promised.
This historical episode demonstrates a two-step movement: first, divorcing from a larger power (Mexico), and second, merging with another (the United States). While very different in circumstances, a hypothetical Michigan secession and subsequent annexation to Canada could—at least in broad strokes—follow a similar two-phase process.
So, why Michigan? Easy, our geographic adjacency to Canada, especially through the Great Lakes and the Detroit–Windsor border, already fosters deep cross-border relationships. Family connections, binational trade, and shared environmental interests (particularly concerning the Great Lakes) are powerful unifiers. Detroit and Windsor share a long history of cultural exchanges in sports, entertainment, manufacturing, and tourism. Thus, the idea of formally aligning with Canada might appeal to some Michigan residents who see closer cultural, economic, or social affinity with their neighbor to the north.
The Great Lakes are a crucial resource for both Canada and Michigan. Coordinating environmental policies could be easier if they are within a single national framework. Parts of Michigan rely heavily on the Canadian market. Canada is already one of Michigan’s largest trade partners—annexation could, in theory, simplify commerce and jointly manage cross-border industries, from automotive manufacturing to agriculture. From the shared French influence of the Upper Peninsula to cross-border festivals, Detroit–Windsor’s cultural blending suggests that Michigan’s identity is part-American, part-Canadian.
Historically, secession has rarely been recognized without conflict or controversy, especially since the end of our secession from England through an eight-year war. Jumping ahead, the Civil War taught us that unilaterally leaving the Union is not straightforward, and, legally, the Supreme Court has considered the Union “indestructible.” But annexation can be negotiated. As with Texas joining the United States, a deliberate and diplomatic process could pave the way, if both countries and the Michigan population favor the outcome. International support matters as well. When Texas became a U.S. state, external powers (notably Great Britain and France) were also watching the balance of power in North America. Canada, the United States, and the global community must be involved in an open, law-abiding process.
So, what would a path to Michigan’s secession and annexation look like? While a real-life attempt would require surmounting massive political, legal, and constitutional barriers, below is a hypothetical step-by-step outline of how Michigan might pursue peaceful secession and annexation to Canada:
1. Grassroots Movement and Referendum: A significant group of Michigan residents would first need to organize a grassroots movement calling for a referendum on the question of secession. This referendum (similar to those seen in various independence movements worldwide) would be placed on the state ballot to measure popular support. Should the majority vote in favor, the state legislature would be spurred to action.
2. Formal Petition to the State Government: Michigan’s legislature would draft a resolution recognizing the referendum outcome. The governor, backed by the state legislature, then formally petitions the U.S. Congress to allow a negotiated separation.
3. Negotiation with Federal Authorities: In an ideal peaceful process, the U.S. federal government and Michigan’s state leadership would sit down and negotiate terms of separation. Of course, constitutional questions remain—under Texas v. White (1869), unilateral secession is prohibited. Thus, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution might be necessary, or a congressional act explicitly authorizing separation. Lacking this step, civil war may be likely. Still, there are many economic and legal matters (federal property, shared debt, social security or other entitlements, military bases and federal military equipment) that would have to be hammered out, presumably with funding or settlement from both sides.
4. Dialogue with Canada: Simultaneously, Michigan’s delegates would begin discussions with the Canadian government to establish terms for annexation. Canada’s federal parliament would have to consider allowing Michigan to join as a province (or territory), requiring a constitutional amendment or legislation on Canada’s side (since an entirely new province would need to be formally recognized).
5. Bilateral Agreements and International Oversight: A transitional period would commence, where Michigan reorganizes under Canadian law. Details about currency, healthcare, trade, and border controls (including plying the Great Lakes) must be ironed out. During all of this, one or more international bodies (like the United Nations or even NATO) might be asked to observe or authenticate the process, ensuring it remains peaceful and democratic.
6. Ratification: The final agreements would go back to both the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament for ratification. Upon passage, Michigan would formally leave the United States, and the official annexation date would be set for it to become part of Canada.
Though the legal and political obstacles to Michigan’s secession and annexation to Canada would be formidable, it is not an unprecedented kind of transformation within North American history. The United States was born of secession, and Texas expanded it through annexation. While the Civil War’s lessons warn of the difficulties and potential conflict of a unilateral break, the prospect of a democratically affirmed, peacefully negotiated realignment remains in the realm of possibility—albeit an improbable one.
History teaches us that borders can shift when compelled by the will of the people, economic pressures, or cultural ties. They can also shift as a result of regional or international war, something that should be considered given the fact that we are currently in another Fourth Turning which history the past 500 years shows, will likely end in some type of conflict very soon. Should a compelling majority in Michigan ever deem that its future is best served alongside our neighbors to the north, the precedents, however challenging, exist as a roadmap. The notion of self-determination—integral to the creation of the U.S. in the first place—would, in this hypothetical scenario, simply extend to a new iteration: from the Straits of Mackinac to the Six, forging another bold chapter in North America’s evolving story.
Note:
If you are wondering about it, the phrase “From the Straits of Mackinac to the Six” is a way of capturing the geographical and cultural scope of Michigan’s hypothetical journey from the United States to Canada. Here’s what it means in context:
The Straits of Mackinac connect two of the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) and separate Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from its Lower Peninsula. The iconic Mackinac Bridge, often referred to as the “Mighty Mac,” spans this waterway and is a defining symbol of the state’s geography. The phrase evokes a distinctly Michigander image—a starting point firmly planted in the heart of Michigan’s identity.
“The Six” (or “The 6”) is a popular nickname for Toronto, Canada’s most populous city. The moniker is often credited to Toronto-born musician Drake, referencing the shared digits of the area codes (416 and 647) and the city’s original six boroughs. “The Six” has come to represent a hip, modern, and culturally rich side of Canada—essentially a vibrant, metropolitan hub.
Put together, “From the Straits of Mackinac to the Six” implies a figurative journey linking Michigan’s homeland traditions and natural beauty (symbolized by the Straits of Mackinac) to the dynamic Canadian destination (symbolized by Toronto). It underscores the idea of crossing a border—geographically, politically, and culturally—to forge a new path.
