Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you openly seditious IRL, or are you just flexing your muscles? There's a degree of irony to your proposing this days after the sesquecentennial anniversary of Antietam. I think that collectively the southern states are a depressing pull on the US, but I think with better educational opportunities there's no reason why they should be.

I'm genuinely curious, because we cannot go on the way we are. Neither side is willing to compromise on any number of issues, and perhaps shouldn't have to. I was not linking this with Antietam at all. Just had too many "straw that broke the camel's back" instances lately." I would actually say that the northern states are heading us toward a terrible spot, but with a non-socialism regime they too could be straightened out.

Such as?

Now why would I go on about those details here? Conservative concerns are met with derision and nastiness so I will leave my statement as-is. Let's get back to the original question. Although some of you have already answered in very clear detail and I appreciate you for it, regardless of where you stand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you openly seditious IRL, or are you just flexing your muscles? There's a degree of irony to your proposing this days after the sesquecentennial anniversary of Antietam. I think that collectively the southern states are a depressing pull on the US, but I think with better educational opportunities there's no reason why they should be.

I'm genuinely curious, because we cannot go on the way we are. Neither side is willing to compromise on any number of issues, and perhaps shouldn't have to. I was not linking this with Antietam at all. Just had too many "straw that broke the camel's back" instances lately." I would actually say that the northern states are heading us toward a terrible spot, but with a non-socialism regime they too could be straightened out.

Such as?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you openly seditious IRL, or are you just flexing your muscles? There's a degree of irony to your proposing this days after the sesquecentennial anniversary of Antietam. I think that collectively the southern states are a depressing pull on the US, but I think with better educational opportunities there's no reason why they should be.

I'm genuinely curious, because we cannot go on the way we are. Neither side is willing to compromise on any number of issues, and perhaps shouldn't have to. I was not linking this with Antietam at all. Just had too many "straw that broke the camel's back" instances lately." I would actually say that the northern states are heading us toward a terrible spot, but with a non-socialism regime they too could be straightened out.

The press makes too much of "red state" and "blue state". A red state is probably 40+% Democrat, and a Blue state is probably 40+% Republican, except for Utah and a few outliers. So in reality there will be two separate countries, each of which will have a 40% minority who feels that they are unserved.

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you openly seditious IRL, or are you just flexing your muscles? There's a degree of irony to your proposing this days after the sesquecentennial anniversary of Antietam. I think that collectively the southern states are a depressing pull on the US, but I think with better educational opportunities there's no reason why they should be.

I'm genuinely curious, because we cannot go on the way we are. Neither side is willing to compromise on any number of issues, and perhaps shouldn't have to. I was not linking this with Antietam at all. Just had too many "straw that broke the camel's back" instances lately." I would actually say that the northern states are heading us toward a terrible spot, but with a non-socialism regime they too could be straightened out.

Freeman wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I don't want the Southern states on this side of the Mississippi. And I'll take part of CA too. Keep Alaska.

all the good states are North. Yay!

Only two problems with this: 1. Cajun food. We must have a good source, and it is hard to find one this far north. Maybe we could keep New Orleans, at least. 2. Disney World. I'd give up most of Florida, but if my wife doesn't get her Disney World vacations, it wouldn't be pretty.

So get passports. I'm all in on this idea. As long as they take Texas, too.

OP, are you openly seditious IRL, or are you just flexing your muscles? There's a degree of irony to your proposing this days after the sesquecentennial anniversary of Antietam. I think that collectively the southern states are a depressing pull on the US, but I think with better educational opportunities there's no reason why they should be.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. I don't want the Southern states on this side of the Mississippi. And I'll take part of CA too. Keep Alaska.

all the good states are North. Yay!

Only two problems with this: 1. Cajun food. We must have a good source, and it is hard to find one this far north. Maybe we could keep New Orleans, at least. 2. Disney World. I'd give up most of Florida, but if my wife doesn't get her Disney World vacations, it wouldn't be pretty.

Anonymous wrote:Let's get creative and try something new. Like east vs west?
Maybe alaska will want to join russia?

Nope. I don't want the Southern states on this side of the Mississippi. And I'll take part of CA too. Keep Alaska.

all the good states are North. Yay!

Let's get creative and try something new. Like east vs west?
Maybe alaska will want to join russia?

Anonymous wrote:I think the toughest part would not be the constitutional process. The balance sheet for the South is the problem. The southern states would go almost immediately into default because they can't cover their expenditures with revenue, even if the new southern nation kept the current Federal tax schedule. They are net dependents on northern revenue.

That's actually why I said the outcome would be the same as before, or at least one of the reasons. In the Civil War, the North also had an overwhelming advantage in manufacturing capability. That may not be present today, but that could easily be offset by the ability to purchase any needed assets. Regardless, it is really only an exercise in intellectual curiosity, since only the extreme anti-American fringe would actually support it.

I think it's a GREAT idea. The Blue North, the Red South. Let me know how that works out for ya.

I think the toughest part would not be the constitutional process. The balance sheet for the South is the problem. The southern states would go almost immediately into default because they can't cover their expenditures with revenue, even if the new southern nation kept the current Federal tax schedule. They are net dependents on northern revenue.

First, you would need to amend the Constitution and specify some means of leaving the country for a state or whatever. Of course, that would require ratification of 3/4s of the states first, which I don't ever see happening. Without that, any attempt to leave the union would be basically unconstitutional with no legal justification and would likely result in another civil war. I think the outcome would likely be the same as well, based on past history.

Huh? What do you mean?

It needs to be done. If you simply wouldn't be interested in this or think it's ridiculous, you're free to skip this. What I want to know is, how would we start the process?