CDZ A new War Between the States?

[jwoodie]

I imagine that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War. For the sake of discussion, would there be any way to split the U.S. into separate countries?

A simple division along Red State/Blue State lines reminds me of the India partition which resulted in an unworkable East and West Pakistan separated by thousands of miles. Would an American partition of its East and Left Coasts prove similarly unworkable?

Perhaps they could join with Canada and form a contiguous Socialist Workers paradise?

 

[Pogo]

The problem with this pretext is "red states" and "blue states" do not exist. Every state has diversity in its population and it would be impossible that they didn't.

"Red" and blue states" exist only in the abstract concept of the Electoral College and the retarded way it's set up. If that EC were representationally set up they would all be purple states, some more red and some more blue. But there's no such thing as a monolith state.

 

[MindWars]

I imagine that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War. For the sake of discussion, would there be any way to split the U.S. into separate countries?

A simple division along Red State/Blue State lines reminds me of the India partition which resulted in an unworkable East and West Pakistan separated by thousands of miles. Would an American partition of its East and Left Coasts prove similarly unworkable?

Perhaps they could join with Canada and form a contiguous Socialist Workers paradise?

Yeah, it's called " no borders". A country who has no borders has no country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I imagine that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War. For the sake of discussion, would there be any way to split the U.S. into separate countries?

A simple division along Red State/Blue State lines reminds me of the India partition which resulted in an unworkable East and West Pakistan separated by thousands of miles. Would an American partition of its East and Left Coasts prove similarly unworkable?

Perhaps they could join with Canada and form a contiguous Socialist Workers paradise?

Nonsense.

Obviously you weren’t around during the late 60s, early 70s – Vietnam and Watergate were considerably more divisive and explosive.

 

[jwoodie]

The problem with this pretext is "red states" and "blue states" do not exist. Every state has diversity in its population and it would be impossible that they didn't.

"Red" and blue states" exist only in the abstract concept of the Electoral College and the retarded way it's set up. If that EC were representationally set up they would all be purple states, some more red and some more blue. But there's no such thing as a monolith state.

So do you dispute my assertion that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War?

Or do you just reflexively post oppositional remarks on subjects you don't understand?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem with this pretext is "red states" and "blue states" do not exist. Every state has diversity in its population and it would be impossible that they didn't.

"Red" and blue states" exist only in the abstract concept of the Electoral College and the retarded way it's set up. If that EC were representationally set up they would all be purple states, some more red and some more blue. But there's no such thing as a monolith state.

Another problem is that the ridiculous notion of ‘dividing up’ the states is un-Constitutional.

However difficult it might be for some to believe, there are liberals who live in places such as Alabama and South Carolina who have no desire to lose their American citizenship, have their rights and protected liberties taken from them, and be relegated to exist in an oppressive, authoritarian conservative hellhole.

 

[Circe]

So do you dispute my assertion that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War?

I don't dispute it. Leaving aside the Seven Years War, the fight with the Dutch, etc. before the colonial rebellion we call the Revolutionary War (post hoc, since the word "revolutionary" was invented by the French to refer to their own troubles several years later) that 1775--1783 war was a bad one; then the Civil War 1861--1864, if you don't count the 1860 secessions, which I do; then in the 20th century there were two bad spots, one during the Great Depression (Hooverville, march on Washington by the destitute, etc.) and the protests and terrorism during the Vietnam War. But the 20th century nevertheless didn't see a national collapse like the two previous centuries.

Oh, sure, this is much worse than the 20th century, which doesn't necessarily mean the country will blow up. In 1848 there were serious uprisings all over Europe and a lot of changes happened in autocratic regimes --- but it settled down and blew over, to the surprise of a lot of people. So you never know till afterward.

 

[jwoodie]

Obviously you weren’t around during the late 60s, early 70s – Vietnam and Watergate were considerably more divisive and explosive.

Obviously you are prone to make inaccurate assessments. I graduated from UCLA in 1969 and was promptly drafted. As to the Vietnam War, the former was still supported by a large majority of voters until 1973, when the last American troops left. Watergate was a separate issue (almost comical by today's standards) which forced Nixon to resign. Neither of these involved the hatred of other Americans that now exists in our country.

 

[Circe]

I imagine that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War. For the sake of discussion, would there be any way to split the U.S. into separate countries?

Are you kidding? People have been imagining this way-too-large nation splitting up for YEARS. The earlier sci-fi writers like S.M. Stirling and Turtledove split it, the former into about six countries. A Russian scholar got some press a few years ago publishing a map that showed his idea for how we'll split up. (I thought S.M. Stirling's plan made a lot more sense: the Russian didn't really have a feel for the ethnicities.) Nowadays the popular prepper novels put out by hundreds of new authors are also splitting America up.

It was always too big. It's a wonder of the world it's stayed intact this long. It can't much longer, IMO --- too heterogeneous, it's falling apart from simple lack of unity. While we were homogeneous, we were okay. Like, 1959, the last year we were united.

 

[jwoodie]

Another problem is that the ridiculous notion of ‘dividing up’ the states is un-Constitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

 

[Pogo]

The problem with this pretext is "red states" and "blue states" do not exist. Every state has diversity in its population and it would be impossible that they didn't.

"Red" and blue states" exist only in the abstract concept of the Electoral College and the retarded way it's set up. If that EC were representationally set up they would all be purple states, some more red and some more blue. But there's no such thing as a monolith state.

So do you dispute my assertion that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War?

Or do you just reflexively post oppositional remarks on subjects you don't understand?

It would appear I understand it better than you do, would it not?
You have no counterargument.

 

[jwoodie]

So do you dispute my assertion that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War?

I don't dispute it. Leaving aside the Seven Years War, the fight with the Dutch, etc. before the colonial rebellion we call the Revolutionary War (post hoc, since the word "revolutionary" was invented by the French to refer to their own troubles several years later) that 1775--1783 war was a bad one; then the Civil War 1861--1864, if you don't count the 1860 secessions, which I do; then in the 20th century there were two bad spots, one during the Great Depression (Hooverville, march on Washington by the destitute, etc.) and the protests and terrorism during the Vietnam War. But the 20th century nevertheless didn't see a national collapse like the two previous centuries.

Oh, sure, this is much worse than the 20th century, which doesn't necessarily mean the country will blow up. In 1848 there were serious uprisings all over Europe and a lot of changes happened in autocratic regimes --- but it settled down and blew over, to the surprise of a lot of people. So you never know till afterward.

.
Did you misread my post? I said that it exceeds anything our country (USA) has experienced since the Civil War (1860).

 

[Circe]

A simple division along Red State/Blue State lines reminds me of the India partition which resulted in an unworkable East and West Pakistan separated by thousands of miles. Would an American partition of its East and Left Coasts prove similarly unworkable?

No, of course that's not workable. Your point about it being tried once with East and West Pakistan is a good reference. I doubt anyone would try; if the Flyover Country (not a bad new name, if you think about it!) separated the Left and East Coasts, they'd quickly form separate countries; maybe several. Absolutely every sci-fi writer gives California it's own nation, and apparently a lot of Californians now agree. So that leaves Washinton, Oregon, and Idaho as another nation. The East Coast is hardly likely to go off together: the only question I have is whether Maryland would go with the North or the South. (The South! The South! We didn't get to last time so now it's our TURN!) So that's five countries already, and most people who think of this sort of thing assume that the Michigan/Illinois/Minnesota/Ohio/Indiana states would separate from the Southwest. Texas might well go off on its own, I would in fact expect that, so now we're up to seven nations.

It would happen incredibly fast: it would have to, or people would stop it. That's why national collapse is always so fast.

Wouldn't be too good for our social security savings...…….……………….. That's the main thing I worry about. Well, that and war.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There aren't geographical divisions. The divisions are block by block, house by house.

 

[Circe]

So do you dispute my assertion that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War?

I don't dispute it. Leaving aside the Seven Years War, the fight with the Dutch, etc. before the colonial rebellion we call the Revolutionary War (post hoc, since the word "revolutionary" was invented by the French to refer to their own troubles several years later) that 1775--1783 war was a bad one; then the Civil War 1861--1864, if you don't count the 1860 secessions, which I do; then in the 20th century there were two bad spots, one during the Great Depression (Hooverville, march on Washington by the destitute, etc.) and the protests and terrorism during the Vietnam War. But the 20th century nevertheless didn't see a national collapse like the two previous centuries.

Oh, sure, this is much worse than the 20th century, which doesn't necessarily mean the country will blow up. In 1848 there were serious uprisings all over Europe and a lot of changes happened in autocratic regimes --- but it settled down and blew over, to the surprise of a lot of people. So you never know till afterward.

.
Did you misread my post? I said that it exceeds anything our country (USA) has experienced since the Civil War (1860).

I said I didn't dispute it. [??] I also think this is the most dangerous time since the American Civil War.

 

[Circe]

There aren't geographical divisions. The divisions are block by block, house by house.

There were the last two times, too: Tories vs. Patriots, Anarchists vs. supporters of the South. People move, or shut up, or wait for things to settle down. And people die; time passes, things change.

I think this country is VERY regionalized right now, more than in a long time. It would be relatively easy to split up, catastrophically. It would be extremely interesting.

 

[jwoodie]

I posted this hypothetical in the CDZ in the hope that it might result in some interesting dialogue. Unfortunately this topic, like so many others in today's political environment, arouses such emotions that productive conversation has become almost nonexistent. Which, ironically, proves my original point.

 

[percysunshine]

Reality check time;

Article 4 Section 3;

"Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html

 

[Circe]

Reality check time;

Article 4 Section 3;

"Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."


https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A4Sec3.html

Reality check: South Carolina didn't care about any of that nonsense when it seceded the day after Lincoln won the election: neither did the six other states that followed before Lincoln's Inauguration.

Ask the Soviet Union if it broke apart by legal means in 1991. Or whether Ireland got its independence "legally."

Nations never form and reform legally: people would stop it. They just do it very, very quickly, and often violently.

 

[Pogo]

I imagine that the current level of political vitriol and animosity exceeds anything our country has experienced since the Civil War. For the sake of discussion, would there be any way to split the U.S. into separate countries?

Are you kidding? People have been imagining this way-too-large nation splitting up for YEARS. The earlier sci-fi writers like S.M. Stirling and Turtledove split it, the former into about six countries. A Russian scholar got some press a few years ago publishing a map that showed his idea for how we'll split up. (I thought S.M. Stirling's plan made a lot more sense: the Russian didn't really have a feel for the ethnicities.) Nowadays the popular prepper novels put out by hundreds of new authors are also splitting America up.

It was always too big. It's a wonder of the world it's stayed intact this long. It can't much longer, IMO --- too heterogeneous, it's falling apart from simple lack of unity. While we were homogeneous, we were okay. Like, 1959, the last year we were united.

I'd like to know more about those if you have a link. There was a book suggesting there already exist nine "nations" within the country based on sociocultural/historical backgrounds: The Nine Nations of North America (another writer later expanded that to eleven). That would seem far more a real set of entity differences than the abstract concept of a "red" or "blue" state.

I'll disagree that we were "united" as such in 1959 though. At that time I was travelling between the North and the Deep South and the contrasts were readily obvious --- far more than they are today. IMHO.