It’s not “hostile territory”, it would be more like the relationship between US and Canada, or the internal borders in the UK, except probably with even fewer restrictions. There’s no way the US and the seceded states would cut economic ties to each other. There would be free flowing goods and travel in any realistic scenario.
I could see a negotiated split into two or more countries, but surely a part of any such agreement would be free movement of citizens into the country they want to be a part of.
Telling some people, “No, you’re stuck in Trumpville/SocialistHellHole!” is the one thing that I think would guarantee violence.
I don’t understand how you are asking for predictions that rely on very particular circumstances of the political situation and the culture and psychology of the people involved (“would group X go to war in situation Y”) while ignoring the huge departure from current reality that would be necessary for situation Y to ever arise.
What sort of tremendous change in the laws and attitudes of Americans would be necessary for “secession” to become a real thing? How could anyone possibly predict all of the ripple effects of that tremendous change down to how it would affect a specific military strategy? What even are the possible answers to such a question?
When I see posts like this, I’m reminded of a certain XKCD comic. “We’re grown-ups now, and it’s our turn to decide what that means.”
Sure, 160 years ago, they decided this means no one, ever, is allowed to secede from the US. But we are under no obligation to agree with that conclusion, or be bound by it. At least for now, the US is still a democracy, and if a majority of its citizens decided to say “Fuck Abe Lincoln and his legacy” and let Texas, or whoever, secede, then that’s what’s going to happen. And a hundred years from now, people will be free to say “Fuck Biden and his legacy, we’re going to war to take back Texas” if they want to.
Everything else is just details.
Yeah, there are quite a few parallels between this hypothetical scenario and the Brexit situation currently being discussed in the Irish unification thread. However, even if Texas wanted to rejoin, the blue states could just veto it. What is Texas going to do, start a war for unification? How ironic that would be in the context of the Civil War.
After more rumination, I am in complete agreement with you on this particular detail.
We’re seeing it right now, as we live. Hell, right here in this thread, a lot of Americans are actively thinking about what secession would mean, and as has been pointed out, there are actual movements in some states to start down this very route. Will they succeed? Who knows? Will they try? At this point, I’d probably put the odds on that at around 20% over the next 4 years or so, which is much higher than I’d have given even ten years ago. So, not probable, but not so unlikely as to be ridiculous to think about, and maybe tentatively plan for.
No one could, but then, no one can possibly predict “all of the ripple effects” of any change, even routine ones. If I’d have told you in October 2020 that Biden winning the election would lead to a mob storming the Capitol Building, you’d most likely have laughed that off as nonsense, but here we are, with that being actual history now.
That’s just how life works, and not knowing the outcomes beforehand has never stopped the human race from trying something anyways.
Sessesionitis?
Drawing straight lines through populations?
I thought the Yes Prime Minister diaries covered that rather well
(Series 1 Episode 6)
Of course, with the wind of change and all that, independence was inevitable. But we should have partitioned the island as we did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland. This was our invariable practice when we gave independence to the colonies, and I cant think why we varied it. It always worked.
It has been argued by some people that the policy of partition always led to Civil War. It certainly did in India and Cyprus and Palestine and Ireland. This was no bad thing for Britain. It kept them busy and instead of fighting us they fought each other. This meant that it was no longer necessary to have a policy about them.
Yes, it does seem iniquitous. I was mainly thinking about the military asset as one of strategic importance while the debt is more of a financial situation. I struggle to find a situation where you could have a peaceful split and yet let all of the strategic nuclear defense, for example, just transfer to the new nation. I can’t even fathom a situation in which you let any of the critical defense infrastructure just transfer. Some bases and land? Sure. Maybe even some old jets and tanks and humvees. But F-35s? B-2? Hell no.
Ultimately the actual chain of events matters. I’m don’t see any situation in which current red states move for separation if they hold the Presidency. This seems obvious, but I suppose we can debate it. So if their is a Democratic President, he will be CinC. So all strategic assets will be moved ASAP.
I suppose it’s possible that the debt somehow doesn’t transfer at all (i.e. it remains US sovereign debt and the new nation has no requirements to pay for it). But if that’s true then I imagine all future SS and Medicare obligations will be similarly wiped away. It’s unclear to me if that’s a net win for the new nation or not.
Ultimately this is all pretty impossible. The Civil War happened because states had the ability to raise large armies, and did so quickly. They were able to control strategic assets before the federal government even really got moving. The current US has an enormous standing army with equipment light-years beyond what any state militia could obtain.
The only path I see is one where the Dems use their large majorities in urban areas to control the Presidency for like 20 years. They use it plus a 50/51 seat Senate majority (with the fillibuster removed or neutered) to put in large parts of their agenda that are unacceptable to the “red states”. Large movements develop within those states to withdraw their support from the federal government and go their own way. New separatist parties form that have that as their explicit policy. Negotiations for separation follow.
I agree with the premise that there are not really Red and Blue states, but Red and Blue regions within states. Most states are not 80/20, but 60/40 or 55/45.
If you read Fall; or, Dodge in Hell by Neal Stephenson, he does a pretty good job of describing two nations intertwined. America and Ameristan. America is the cities, interstates, and college towns. Ameristan is everywhere in between.
Exactly. I’m watching maybe 40% of our nation cleave themselves further every week from what I’ve always considered “America.” They believe a different reality and seem to want completely different things. The prospect of reconciliation seems, if not impossible, then at best a long, painful, uncertain grind.
And then I think, why bother? If they want to split up, I wouldn’t stand in their way.
I will just link xkcd and suggest you take a look at the text that appears when you hover the mouse over the picture (I guess that has got a name which I ignore, I mean the text that starts: “There are more Trump voters in California than in Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than New York, more Trump voters in New York than Ohio…”). Based on that it seems to me from abroad that secession would not work.
The states do not have control over nuclear weapons or delivery systems, and there is zero expectation that successionst states would be permitted to have access to command & control systems or possession of actual nuclear weapons, especially if there were any indication they would threaten to use them against the rest of the United States.
Stranger
As has been described by many posters, it’s the secession, not the reconciliation which is going to kill you.
For there to be an amicable split, the US will absolutely have to maintain control of their military assets - including things like army bases and missile silos. They are not going to hand over their military might to the seceding regions.
This isn’t exactly a death knell to the idea - this wouldn’t be the first foreign country the US kept military bases in. However it does put a pretty firm kibosh on the idea that the seceded state would start a war with the US. I mean, they could try, but it would be a very short war.
I also very strongly suspect that Conservatopia would suffer a rather rapid decline without the federal welfare that red states usually get. (And am I right in thinking that farm subsidies are federal too? Yeah - it would be a really rapid decline.) Not that their leaders are likely to care. So I imagine that you would see a series of civil wars as different kleptocratic governments formed and were toppled. The US might step in just to put an end to it.
Quoth XKCD: There are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than New York, more Trump voters in New York than Ohio, more Biden voters in Ohio than Massachusetts, more Trump in Massachusetts than Mississippi, and more Biden voters in Mississippi than Vermont.
I find that a powerful statement that sticks a big fat thumb in the eye of everyone who thinks in terms of blue state/red state culture. States do very much matter in the context of national elections because of the peculiar institution of the Electoral College, full stop. But in terms of our national political divide and voters in general they are almost an irrelevancy.
Austin did not vote for Trump. Dallas did not vote for Trump. Houston did not vote for Trump. San Antonio did not vote for Trump. Trump won Texas by 52% to 47%. The world is almost never a black and white place.
ETA: Well, good and ninja’ed by Pardel-Lux, buy I’m not deleting after writing all of that out 
.
And yet Texas is lifting all COVID restrictions while the virus wages, abortion is becoming increasingly difficult to secure and the state is rewriting history to erase slavery. Not to mention that red state America carried out a terrorist attack on America’s seat of power earlier this year. Reality disagrees with your premise.
Red and blue America are two distinct cultures, we don’t share the same values or even realities.
The tyranny of the majority is a thing and I’ll walk my comment back a tad. You’re quite right that a state can have a generalized culture shaped by state law. But I still think sub-regions have far more influence. Rural voters in Texas would feel at home in Modoc county CA, an SF voter in Austin (I know a couple of CA transplants there).
But that’s nonsense. Right-wing whackjobs from multiple states carried out a terrorist attack on America’s seat of power, including multiple residents of CA. Get me the list of red state legislatures that voted to storm the White House.
Do the 47% of voters in Texas that voted for Biden share your reality or Trump’s?
I don’t think anyone disagrees on that point.
The issue is geographical contiguity (contiguousness?) of those cultures. Or more specifically, the lack thereof.
The Governor of Texas is lifting all COVID restrictions. The Governor currently has a 44% approval rating on COVID performance. Draw what conclusions you will.
Right. 47% of Texas voters may have voted blue, but the state is being run as if it were 90% – and its actions are impacting the other 49 states. Is it so far-fetched to imagine that 53% ruling block deciding it wants the Texas Republic back?
Kind of, yes. But what is even more unlikely is that they could make it stick.
Never say never of course - people have done stupider things. CalExit was trending four years ago. Every bit as dumb IMHO.