Eventually, though, if this process continued, you would get to a situation where states would have to resort to nice pastel colors like lavender, forest green and powder blue. This would calm down political passions and we would be able to live in harmony. 
Once things are so intertwined as they are now I do not believe a separation can happen easily. I think it’ll be a logistical nightmare for Scotland to split away from the UK. Yes they have their own legal system, parliament etc but that’s no different from U.S. States which also have those things of their own. Deciding issues like control of North Sea Oil Fields, control of major Royal Navy / British Army bases on Scottish territory and etc just won’t be easy.
But that being said, there is nothing about the size/economic situation of any of the States that would actually prevent them from being independent countries.
Take Mississippi, the State that almost always wins the cake in “worst” ranking in almost every category of economic, educational etc categories. This “failed state” of just under 3m has a GDP per capita of $32,000. On par with “hell holes” like…Israel, Spain, and Italy.
Now, because Mississippi has developed as part of a country instead of a country of its own, it lacks the governing structure and built up infrastructure to do things that countries like Israel do. But even our poorest State certainly isn’t “too poor” to be a country. It lacks the sort of framework he’d need to be a successful country without an extremely long transition period (that’s true even of huge States like Texas and California and very wealthy ones like Connecticut and Maryland), but too poor or etc…no.
That’s one of the things that make America so strong. What an empire! Our provinces are vast, rich, mighty kingdoms by global standards! But separately . . . not so strong, perhaps. Like Europe – until very recently and tentatively in its history, never acting as a unit, and often at war with itself.
A somewhat different twist on this topic are counties that want to break away. As the article notes, their chance of success is pretty low.
Also, money can be exchanged for goods and services
If their chance of success were high, eventually we’d have an America like in Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash, where every gated community is an independent country.
And cotton. The South still grows a lot, right?
That’s OK, we’ve got polyester tree farms up here in the North.
Damned Yankees.
I’m going to posit that, given the example of the Civil War, the states don’t try to secede unilaterally but call a Constitutional Convention under Article V; and that the requisite 3/4 supermajority (38 states) is there to approve an amendment allowing secession.
Now at this point a crisis arises: the amendment of secession passed fair and square by the legal rules. Do the Unionists allow it, or do they say “Fuck Article V” and refuse to recognize it? If so, the Constitution becomes a dead letter and we pretty much reenact the Roman Civil Wars. Probable end result is similar to Rome: a perpetually reelected president who rules supposedly as the Senate’s champion, in practice a dictator for life (which isn’t necessarily a long time). “Star Spangled Banner” is replaced as our national anthem by “Banana Republic”.
But the OP posits that the secession is successful. OK, let’s say that there’s enough support on both sides for a national divorce. Before secession could get the necessary supermajority, the terms would have to be acceptable to enough people; so the details would have to be hammered out at the Constitutional Convention. At this point I have no idea. I suppose that some agreement on splitting assets and debts would have to be hammered out. Border agreements, the fate of people living on the wrong (for them) side of the line, rights of way between enclaves, etc…
Assuming the eventual result roughly corresponded to the Red/Blue political split, I suspect that each side would polarize away from the compromise middle. The Blue states would probably enact a European-style social welfare system, while the Red states would strongly limit their national government from going down the same road the US government did; they would sharply limit the power of their Supreme Court to enact radical interpretations of their Constitution (or give the legislature the ability to override the court) and socially revert to a pre-Great Society (or pre-New Deal, or even pre-Civil War) form of government.
They don’t need a constitutional convention which would get bogged down over a hundred different issues, they just need a constitutional amendment regarding secession.
I suggested a Constitutional Convention for a couple of reasons: First, a Constitutional Convention completely bypasses the Federal government. It is called by the states and ratified by the states. It’s essentially the last legal remnant of the idea that the Federal government is the creation of the states. Secondly, given the enormous issues attendant to secession, a forum for hashing out “a hundred different issues” is exactly what is needed.
There won’t be any more issues to hammer out than there would be for an amendment. But a convention will throw in guns, abortion, immigration rights, school prayer and who knows how many other God questions, and anything else the some group wants changed, which is probably everything.
And not a single item on the list will ever be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
That is indefensible even as a hypothetical.
I can just imagine the impotent grandstanding by Tom Cruz, *et al. *
If enough states could agree on one thing- secession- then couldn’t they deal with all the other issues when they set up their new prospective governments?
You cannot restrict a constitutional convention to one issue. It exists to rewrite the constitution, not amend it.
That’s exactly why there is a lesser process called “amending.”
Yeah, there don’t seem to be any states where a majority actually seek secession.
We could move the inhabitants of Guam stateside, and let those folks who want to leave live there.