CDZ A new War Between the States?

[night_son]

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?

No. No division will be acceptable. We Americans are divided by many ideologies, cultures, skin colors and religions, and yet we all occupy the same neighborhoods in cities, counties and small towns across the nation. Any geographical division would require mass relocation of many different social groups--some similar to the Trail of Tears or possibly the Bataan death march. Myself, I'd rather see our nation end before seeing he divided.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually SC broke away a month and a half after the election, for what it's worth, after much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Certainly Ireland got its independence through bitter struggle, although I see where last week Rump sent it back to the UK. He apparently doesn't know any better. That must have gone over bigly.

 

[Circe]

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.

You are Xelor, aren't you! You sound exactly like him. I haven't seen Xelor since he posted a lot of obscene cartoons in the CDZ and I left for awhile, not caring for all that. You seem primed to quarrel, even if there is no reason to do so. He always did that, too.

 

[Circe]

No. No division will be acceptable. We Americans are divided by many ideologies, cultures, skin colors and religions, and yet we all occupy the same neighborhoods in cities, counties and small towns across the nation. Any geographical division would require mass relocation of many different social groups--some similar to the Trail of Tears or possibly the Bataan death march. Myself, I'd rather see our nation end before seeing he divided.

Whose side would you fight on?

 

[night_son]

No. No division will be acceptable. We Americans are divided by many ideologies, cultures, skin colors and religions, and yet we all occupy the same neighborhoods in cities, counties and small towns across the nation. Any geographical division would require mass relocation of many different social groups--some similar to the Trail of Tears or possibly the Bataan death march. Myself, I'd rather see our nation end before seeing he divided.

Whose side would you fight on?

The American one.

 

[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

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.

So this is the 'ignore the Constitution' theory?

Might work...probably will not. Too much money is involved. Even doing it Constitutionally is a streach, given the money flow and assumed liability problems. The accounting nightmares alone will kill the idea.

 

[Circe]

No. No division will be acceptable. We Americans are divided by many ideologies, cultures, skin colors and religions, and yet we all occupy the same neighborhoods in cities, counties and small towns across the nation. Any geographical division would require mass relocation of many different social groups--some similar to the Trail of Tears or possibly the Bataan death march. Myself, I'd rather see our nation end before seeing he divided.

Whose side would you fight on?

The American one.

"The Union forever.

Hurrah, boys, hurrah
Down with the traitor,
Up with the star"

Okay. ​

 

[Circe]

So this is the 'ignore the Constitution' theory?

Might work...probably will not. Too much money is involved. Even doing it Constitutionally is a streach, given the money flow and assumed liability problems. The accounting nightmares alone will kill the idea.

I don't think reforming nations is EVER done legally or "constitutionally." Can you think of an example?

Let's see --- the recent effort to split Scotland from Britain might count --- except as usual it didn't happen.

Catalonia from Spain? Didn't happen..... Germany reformed from East and West Germanies despite that big wall when a lot of people suddenly ran across a bridge in a bordering country and thousands followed them, running as fast as they could go.

Anybody? there have been an unending rapid procession of reformed nations, but surely never peacefully or "legally."

 

[percysunshine]

So this is the 'ignore the Constitution' theory?

Might work...probably will not. Too much money is involved. Even doing it Constitutionally is a streach, given the money flow and assumed liability problems. The accounting nightmares alone will kill the idea.

I don't think reforming nations is EVER done legally or "constitutionally." Can you think of an example?

Let's see --- the recent effort to split Scotland from Britain might count --- except as usual it didn't happen.

Catalonia from Spain? Didn't happen..... Germany reformed from East and West Germanies despite that big wall when a lot of people suddenly ran across a bridge in a bordering country and thousands followed them, running as fast as they could go.

Anybody? there have been an unending rapid procession of reformed nations, but surely never peacefully or "legally."

Time out...I thought we were reforming California. Why should Texas care about any of this stuff?

 

[Circe]

Time out...I thought we were reforming California. Why should Texas care about any of this stuff?

No, the thread topic is splitting the United States into separate nations. Has nothing to do with California, except that most people thinking about this stuff (including a lot of Californians) expect in such a case California would form a nation of its own, one of the largest in the world. Texas, same deal --- and they have practice, having already done it once, and seceded a second time. That's why I expect that Texas would go off on its own if the nation splits catastrophically, like the Soviet Union did a few years ago.

 

[percysunshine]

Time out...I thought we were reforming California. Why should Texas care about any of this stuff?

No, the thread topic is splitting the United States into separate nations. Has nothing to do with California, except that most people thinking about this stuff (including a lot of Californians) expect in such a case California would form a nation of its own, one of the largest in the world. Texas, same deal --- and they have practice, having already done it once, and seceded a second time. That's why I expect that Texas would go off on its own if the nation splits catastrophically, like the Soviet Union did a few years ago.

My mistake.

 

[jwoodie]

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

OF COURSE the States and Congress would have to agree. What did you think I had in mind: Division by Executive Fiat?

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Good point, but that was during a period of "States Rights," when greater state autonomy was tolerated. Nowadays, political groups want to force their particular views on the entire country, and are willing attack those who disagree. Shades of 1860...

 

[oldsoul]

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.

How so? I did not experience them. Please explain.

 

[candycorn]

No civil war.
No split.

Suggesting such a thing ignores the logistical challenges that would be involved.

 

[oldsoul]

No civil war.
No split.

Suggesting such a thing ignores the logistical challenges that would be involved.

See, I knew, if I just waited long enough, there would be something we could agree on.

 

[Mac1958]

There probably was a time in which it would have been far easier for us to just grow up, get over ourselves, and get along like normal adults.

Win some, lose some. Give and take. Live it let live. Let it go. Clean your own house. That kinda thing.

Today, yeah, maybe something like this should be considered.
.

 

[Pogo]

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.

A common misidentification in analogizing the Civil War is the idea that "the South" was some kind of monolith at the time. Far from it. The "Confederacy" was already dealing with its own internal divisions --- West Virginia seceded from its own seceded state because of it, East Tennesee would have done the same thing were it not for too many Confederate troops preventing it; pockets of Union strongholds persisted in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and elsewhere; "bushwhackers" who favored no side at all simply defended their home territory against either occupying army; desertion and draft-dodging were rampant; and the non-wealthy, particularly in Appalachia, saw the entire exercise as a push by the indolent aristocratic rich planter class, which they viewed in complete contempt, to fatten themselves up at the expense of the little guy.

So while there was a Civil War going on between "North" and "South" there was another one going on between "south" and "south".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Wags Wearing Wigs

The inadequacy of your Sacred Scripture, the Constitution, is what caused the Civil War, just as the Bible itself caused the Protestant Revolt and not some Satanic takeover of the Vatican.

 

[jwoodie]

A common misidentification in analogizing the Civil War is the idea that "the South" was some kind of monolith at the time. Far from it. The "Confederacy" was already dealing with its own internal divisions --- West Virginia seceded from its own seceded state because of it, East Tennesee would have done the same thing were it not for too many Confederate troops preventing it; pockets of Union strongholds persisted in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and elsewhere; "bushwhackers" who favored no side at all simply defended their home territory against either occupying army; desertion and draft-dodging were rampant; and the non-wealthy, particularly in Appalachia, saw the entire exercise as a push by the indolent aristocratic rich planter class, which they viewed in complete contempt, to fatten themselves up at the expense of the little guy.

So what is your point? Despite a lack of unanimity within any given state, the Confederate States of America was formed and the Civil War was fought. How does this preclude another breakup?

Actually, the most likely scenario for a revolt might be a refusal to accept massive tax hikes to bail out bankrupt states like CA, IL, NJ, etc. (if the Dems return to power).