Nations can split without war. Look at Czechoslovakia. It wouldn’t work well in this case because one side is irrational and highly aggressive; even if we split peacefully, we’d be in a new Cold War with our neighbor pretty soon complete with nukes pointed at each other. And probably with a greater chance that the theocrats would at some point just scream “Praise Jesus, the End Times have come!” and launch them.
Right back atcha. Merely saying “it didn’t work before” isn’t learning from history.
An excellent, cogent, and well reasoned rejoinder to the problems that have been raised with regard to your plan to split the country. I’m convinced, let’s get started, we can probably paper it up before quitting time.
Scary!
“Slovakia” does sound rather ominous, true.
This is important. A split in the US without guaranteeing cross border travel and immigration is not going to go over well. The US thrives on workers being able to travel wherever they want in the country in search of work or whatever they want. Families are spread across thousands of miles and depend on the ability to make quick visits without having to get a New York Tourist Visa (you got a problem with that?) and a New Jersey Transit Visa (it costs a lot of money to even apply and half the applicants are rejected due to poor background checks) or hope the border authorities don’t turn them away for looking too shabby to be a tourist.
As this seems to be more “cosmic” than “less than cosmic,” I’m moving the thread to Great Debates.
Please be cognizant from here on out of the forum rules for GD.
In perhaps the ultimate irony, the liberal, technocratic majority in the ESA will recognize the wisdom of building an impassable border fence immediately after the mutually agreed secession. 
Where would he have sued them? The Imaginary Court of Appeals for International Wrongs in the 1800s? 
Not to mention the no-grease fuckover that this plan would give to the housing market. Left-leaning (or at least non-rabidly religious), often relocated, well-off professionals in red state cities would experience a massive loss of assets as they panic sell their houses in previously expensive urban neighborhoods and upscale suburbs. Then a glut of highly educated/skilled refugees enter the blue states seeking far more good jobs than are available, driving down wages for white collar work. The loss of tax revenue in red states would further disadvantage the most vulnerable, completing the grand screwover cycle.
Please build a whole lot more low-income housing in presumably Blue Oregon, because I may as well go back to the food service industry somewhere pretty and tree-covered, and lots of folks are coming with me.
There are uncountable reasons this is a terrible idea that will never happen, but this one jumps out. You would never be able to do this.
It’s already been split 50 ways.
Exactly. When in the history of the world has a spouse ever left a note on the kitchen table saying, “I can’t be with you any longer. I’m leaving you, and I’m taking the bills with me.”
Once again someone posts something that I was going to say but didn’t, only in a pithier fashion.
Their relucatance to take on the debt would also be ironic considering that, with the exception of Texas, they are the cause of the debt. Considering this, it might be worthwhile to take on more than our* share of the debt because we would be able to make it up later through our better industry, whereas the breakoff states would continue to lag behind. But this of course doesn’t stop the fact that there’d be gun-waving demonstrations talking about how they’re not gonna take on any debt that the government used to prop up the high tax liberal states (despite the fact that they’re factually wrong about that.)
*I’m near the I-4 corridor in Florida. North of it might just join the split. Not sure about the rest. Miami, at least, would never go for it.
May as well make up a short list of states that would be welcome to join Canada. I guess we could take Maine, Vermont, Washington, and possibly Wisconsin and Minnesota off your hands.
You’ll get Wisconsin when you pry it out of my very cold, dead hands.
Take Minnesota instead.
Now you sound like a Confederate apologist.
Did you even look at the map that I linked–that showed urban spots of blue in red states–& definite reddish areas even in California?
The demographic shift will eventually turn Texas blue, unless the Republicans change their ways. But that demographic shift is away from a white majority; your plan would ensure your country would remain whiter…
So, you want to get rid of Texas, the US mid-west (including the bread basket/corn belt region), Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, etc…basically splitting your new fantasy nation in two (or are you proposing 3 new nations?) and retaining the rust belt plus the booming economy in California? And you want to do this because you are miffed about gun ownership (what are you going to do with the western states, since they would want to retain their guns as well?? Or are Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah also going to the new theocracy state too?) and think that by splitting the country you will have a better chance of getting it? 
The problems with this (starting from the fact that that the majority of citizens in all of those states don’t WANT to split with the union) are just too numerous to go through, but the biggest one I can see is that your new fantasy nation wouldn’t be economically viable. They would have to import food from the states you kicked out, and would have major issues with other resources (you just gave away most of them).
You are dreaming. But, let’s say that indeed all the rich folks go to this new nation of Redaria and take their wealth with them…what are you going to do for capital in that case? The good workers and peasants will just pony it up? Especially when you are saddled with the rust belt AND California, it should be interesting how you think this will be viable. You gave away basically the majority of our natural resources and some of the most productive farm land, plus places where we have a lot of industry that is actually productive, and you kept all of the places where manufacturing was once strong but today is pretty weak…all because you are miffed about gun ownership (and you don’t realize that in a lot of the states you are retaining you are going to have a lot of folks who will still fight you on your fantasy of more stringent gun control).
Nitpick: our most productive farmland is in California.
This is preposterous. If the CSA had been a separate country, how would he have sued them and why would they have agreed to pay or accept US soldiers?
There is no war coming.
And the posters who point out that your proposal is almost totally ignorant of U.S. demographics are right. The basic divide between Democrats and Republicans is not on a state level. It is largely urban vs. rural.
Other than Oklahoma (which had every Congressional district vote for Romney), all other states have a combination of red and blue counties. Central Valley California, plus San Diego and Orange County might want to go in one direction while San Francisco and LA go in another.