If the red states and blue states separated into two countries, what would result?

[Gracie]

Where is the Green America? Red and Blue are not my colors.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well since the red states pretty much only exist because of blue state money I assume the south would become a 3rd world country.

The north would probably not be affected much.

The blue states have the most people. The red states produce the food. You do the math.

That and oil.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Blue States would remain blue, and within 50 years, the "Red States" would once again split.

Marxism is a plague.

It cannot be cured by amputation, it can only only be cured by readying and reinforcing the existing bodily defenses to physically overwhelm the foreign invasion.

 

[Katzndogz]

All of this nonsense about unity refuses to recognize reality. There is no unity. The people are already separated. Families no longer are on speaking terms and that only if they know who their family members are.

To make our disunity even more pronounced, we are multiculted into totally separate peoples who don't even speak the same language.

The nation is going to fracture into component parts. It won't be a war. We will just be fed up with putting up with one another.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you aware the last time states were no longer interested in a union, we ended up with a blood bath of Federal northern aggression?

That 'bloodbath' ended slavery in America. Or are you suggesting that the North should have done nothing to abolish it? Secession by the Southern States was based mostly on a flawed premise: the preservation of slavery, which was contrary to the Republican form of our government. In my mind, there was an obligation to restore liberty to all Americans, not give it to one and not the other. So inasmuch, slavery needed to be stopped. If that involved bloodshed, so be it.

You're moving the goal posts. The premise was based on states rights, not slavery. Lincoln didnt give a fuck about slavery. He gave a fuck about "saving the union" which is what we are talking about here. Not slavery. Stay on task

The 'union' is forced and therefore, not a union at all.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Tell me how it isnt forced. It is coerced and well known that no state will ever be permitted to secede from the 'union'.

So, if you do secede, you lose all of your constitutional rights. I find it odd when people cry and whine about their Constitutional rights, but beg to secede from the Union. Forgive me, but I see that as trying to have it both ways. Secession is madness. You destroy what the founders fought and died to create, a Union. For people who invoke the names of our founders quite often, you guys really do want to destroy what they created.

To fracture this country in part would expose those citizens of the seceded states to an environment where their rights and liberties are uncertain and indeterminate. Just what would you do once you seceded? Nobody seems to think about that. You would break up families, bonds between friends, show the world that America as a people are no longer united among themselves.

"...We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-Preamble to The United States Constitution

The Constitution never intended America to dissolve, as is made clear here. For a certain group of states to secede from the greater union is an act of selfishness, not an act to preserve personal liberties of American citizens:

"When the Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

"The Supreme Court has repudiated emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will."

United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756)

"The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

-Lane Cnty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869)

"The Constitution assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so."

White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1871)

"Interposition is . . . based on the proposition that the United States is a compact of states, any one of which may interpose its sovereignty against the enforcement within its borders of any decision of the Supreme Court or act of Congress, irrespective of the fact that the constitutionality of the act has been established by decision of the Supreme Court. . . . In essence, the doctrine denies the constitutional obligation of the states to respect those decisions of the Supreme Court with which they do not agree. The doctrine may have had some validity under the Articles of Confederation. On their failure, however, ‘in Order to form a more perfect Union,’ the people, not the states, of this country ordained and established the Constitution. Thus the keystone of the interposition thesis, that the United States is a compact of states, was disavowed in the Preamble to the Constitution."

-Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916, 922–23 (E.D. La. 1960)

When this country was founded, when the Constitution was established, it was done so by the people. All of them. We are not 'states,' we are a union of people.

Also, read Federalist #10. James Madison warned of behavior like this as 'violence of faction' and that a bigger Republic was more suited to handle this issue than smaller ones, i.e. States. Secession amounts to factionalism, not patriotism. I argue that secession would end the republican form of government and instill a more democratic form, i.e smaller amounts of people electing delegates for the majority of people in the seceded states.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."

Moreover, Jon Jay wrote that a union was more effective in handling foreign threats, in Federalist #2.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

This again, has nothing to do with whether or not the union is one of force. Most of all, that bullshit about this constitutional republic being based from ALL the people. If that were true they all would have signed it. I bunch of elitist men at the time wrote and declared the constitution at the convention. Everyone else read about it in the paper or by word of mouth. You know, the people busy being productive instead of rent seeking.

 

[deltex1]

Well since the red states pretty much only exist because of blue state money I assume the south would become a 3rd world country.

The north would probably not be affected much.

Don't worry old fool...we'll send you MREs and diapers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Everyone in the red states would be working for $3 an hour and benefits slashed to zero. That's a start.

I doubt that, as the dollar wouldn't be the currency anymore and if those states were smart, would back their currency on something other than the credit limit designated by the people's productivity and the governments ability to confiscate it.

 

[g5000]

If I were to base my guess on what would happen in Red America on my interactions with the right wing rubes on this forum, I would have to conclude that country would quickly devolve into a new Nazi state.

However, I refuse to believe that the tards on this forum are a representative cross section of Red America.

In fact, only tards would even entertain the idea of breaking up the USA.

 

[g5000]

As for Blue America, it would become just like Europe in pretty short order.

For those who are chortling over Blue America not having much agriculture, you have to be kidding or dumber than even I thought.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The 'union' is forced and therefore, not a union at all.

Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. The majority of America disagrees, thusly only remote numbers of people favor what you propose, or assert. A union of people has more power than a union of states.

Most of all, that bullshit about this constitutional republic being based from ALL the people. If that were true they all would have signed it

That is a pretty naive statement sir.

It was "We the people" not "We the States" or "We the Government." You do realize that they didn't have room on a single sheet of paper for the 2.8 million people who were living then right? The states through the people ratified the constitution.

Do you forget by what process the Constitution was ratified? In state conventions, by "deputies of the people" (as was quoted in the Delaware Convention).

Everyone else read about it in the paper or by word of mouth.

And? What if they had social media back then? All the amenities of modern technology? Do you think the Constitution would have been ratified in its original form?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The premise was based on states rights, not slavery.

That is moving the goalposts. Basically it was about states rights to enforce slavery. So, you would rather have had states today continue enslaving innocent people all for the sake of states rights? Forgive me if I don't sympathize with you on such a disturbing notion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're are still failing miserably to make the case that the union is not a coercive one. There is an easy explanation for that. You can't, because it is.

No state is permitted to secede. Period. The federal government will intervene. That's force, dude. You can spin it anyway you want about public opinion, or what the fuck ever. It doesn't change what it is.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The amazing thing about this hypothetical to me is how the progressives react.

They still think that once they shed the capitalists and the producers that somehow some way the blue states will be just fine with all of their government handouts and regulations.

It's never worked through human history yet they still think that this time is going to be different.

This time is the one that will work. The socialist society is going to work so much better it can displace the capitalist individual society if we just try it one more time. It's never worked before. But this time it will because we are the US.

Socialism just hasn't had the greatest nation ever earned and based upon capitalism and individuals take on the task of becoming just like every other failure of a socialist system.

This time dammit it will work. If only we can do the exact same thing every socialist state has ever done but get a different result.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The premise was based on states rights, not slavery.

That is moving the goalposts. Basically it was about states rights to enforce slavery. So, you would rather have had states today continue enslaving innocent people all for the sake of states rights? Forgive me if I don't sympathize with you on such a disturbing notion.

No that is responding to you moving the goal posts by correcting your ignorance. Lincoln gave zero fucks about slavery. Zero. And if you think slavery would still be around today you're even more stupid than I thought. Technology has made that barbaric practice obsolete. It was already going away. We just so happen to be the only country in the world that had to shed 600K peoples blood over it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No that is responding to you moving the goal posts by correcting your ignorance. Lincoln gave zero fucks about slavery. Zero

Calling me ignorant does nothing for your argument. So, what if he did nothing? Whether he gave a damn or not, his inaction would insure that there would be slavery today. We all abhor slavery, but people such as yourself would rather value states rights over the individual liberties of American citizens, i.e. maintaining slavery.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No that is responding to you moving the goal posts by correcting your ignorance. Lincoln gave zero fucks about slavery. Zero

Calling me ignorant does nothing for your argument. So, what if he did nothing? Whether he gave a damn or not, his inaction would insure that there would be slavery today. We all abhor slavery, but people such as yourself would rather value states rights over the individual liberties of American citizens, i.e. maintaining slavery.

So you're moving on now from trying to argue that the union isn't forced? That's good.
Re-read my last post now that you've officially moved the goal posts over to the slavery debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you're moving on now from trying to argue that the union isn't forced?

No. Because it isn't. There are only a select few on this thread, like you, who are complaining about a 'forced union.'

Re-read my last post now that you've officially moved the goal posts over to the slavery debate.

Read this post to understand how I never did anything of the sort.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The premise was based on states rights, not slavery.

That is moving the goalposts. Basically it was about states rights to enforce slavery. So, you would rather have had states today continue enslaving innocent people all for the sake of states rights? Forgive me if I don't sympathize with you on such a disturbing notion.

You really still believe the civil war was over slavery? That was the simpleton version of history for dumb people. Nobody went to the battle field to free a slave or keep one. It was over federal regulation and force. Nobody on either side give a fuck about slaves and neither side would have fought to the death for slaves free or not.

The civil war was fought for state rights versus federal power of control and look who won. Look at what we have today because the North won. An all powerful federal government and even a president that can bypass law with an executive action.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So you're moving on now from trying to argue that the union isn't forced?

No. Because it isn't. There are only a select few on this thread, like you, who are complaining about a 'forced union.'

Re-read my last post now that you've officially moved the goal posts over to the slavery debate.

Read this post to understand how I never did anything of the sort.

How can a union not be forced without one side attacking the other for wanting to leave? The very definition of force would be assembling an army to attack those not wanting to be in your union to force them to do so right?