Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Should we just go ahead and split the country?

Asked by JLeslie (46157 points ) September 30th, 2011

My question is regarding the United States.

Should we get several states together, maybe a few out west and a few in the deep south, and let them be their own country. Or, if not their own country, have them exempt from paying federal income tax, and offer them nothing in terms of federal support? I guess they would not be able to vote in national elections. Not sure how that would work? Anyway, The idea is sort of a right wing Republican/Libertarian mindset? Maybe even a Christian focused religion in everything. It might be an interesting experiment.

What do you think about the idea? How would it work? Would it have to be two distinct countries? Would it diminish the US power in the world? Would there have to be a war to have it happen, or could it be done by vote?

Discuss.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

84 Answers

YoBob's avatar

Hmm… I think we tried that in the 1800’s. Alas Lincoln decided that keeping the South from leaving the union was worth sending troops to die for.

OTOH, the whole “Republic of Texas” concept does have its merits.

amujinx's avatar

Are you suggesting something like this?

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx Well, I was not really thinking a serious theocracy. I think most Americans, most Christians, aren’t looking for that, but certainly there is a percentage who want it, or think they want it.

amujinx's avatar

@JLeslie I know it says Jesusland, but the point of the map was to satirize the divisions in Republican vs. Democrat voting, and to mock the Republicans. Ignoring the names, I meant do you mean separating the country based on voter trends, like on the map?

That was my serious side of the question, I will admit I was being a little tongue in cheek about the Jesusland vs. United States of Liberty & Education thing too.

john65pennington's avatar

Does this give new meaning to “separation of church and state”?

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx Your map means most of the country is red, while I think that map and the electoral map is very deceptive in some ways. A state that is 51% red, looks 100% on maps like that. I don’t think all of those red states in your map, even if you are being tongue and cheek, would want to leave the fold of the US federal government. And, I am not talking about kicking states out, but letting the, go if they want it. Kind of like Canada saying if Quebec votes to separate they will let the provonce go.

It could be a neat 5 year expiremnt with just one or two states, but the prolem is I think it would have profound affect on property taxes possibly, not sire about that part of it. Like I live in TN, and would want to try to get out if the experiment took hold, but then I need to sell my house. Hopefully people would want to move here to avoid taxes.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

It is my understanding most states which consistently vote Republican take much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. I imagine their economies would collapse and they would immediately ask to rejoin.

tedd's avatar

I’m gonna go ahead and call that a stupid plan…. lol

amujinx's avatar

Taxation would be an issue if this happened. Federal taxes would disappear, but the new federal taxes would have to be higher if the new country wanted to continue giving its citizens the same benefits that the US gives citizens now (for the most part, there are a few states that wouldn’t have too big a taxation change).

There is also the issue of tariffs that would affect the tax rate. If a state seceded without the US’s approval, the US would probably tariff the hell out of them. How many states are truly self sustaining without help from other states? This is especially a valid question if the state that secedes is landlocked with no other borders than the US.

An event like that would weaken the US at least a little no matter what state, just because it would set a precedent. The only states I could envision really pulling it off would be Alaska or Texas (although an immediate Texas neighbor could pull it off if it sided with Texas too). Since both have oil, both have a bargaining chip that could help regulate their economy enough that they could probably survive through a US trade embargo or US tariffs. Over all though, I would say that it would be more strife for those involved than would be worth it unless something extremely divisive occurs in the US.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx You wrote Taxation would be an issue if this happened. Federal taxes would disappear, but the new federal taxes would have to be higher if the new country wanted to continue giving its citizens the same benefits that the US gives citizens now (for the most part, there are a few states that wouldn’t have too big a taxation change). which country is the new country you speak of that would have higher federal taxes?

amujinx's avatar

@JLeslie The theoretical state that separated from the US. Since it would now be it’s own country, the state taxes would become federal taxes.

jaytkay's avatar

It could be a good idea. Conservatives have been trying to drag normal people back to the Dark Ages for a few decades, we should let them go and enjoy themselves.

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx I see. That would be ironic. I don’t think those states would be thinking that same way. They would be much more fend for yourself oriented I would assume.

rojo's avatar

If a state left, could it then apply for foreign aid? Would whatever remained of the US want to maintain a military presence in said state, you know, just to safeguard the free world?

wundayatta's avatar

I don’t know if you looked at the other map on the link @amujinx provided, but that demonstrates how problematic this idea of separating us state by state would be. The states are not nearly as homogeneous as electoral voting would suggest. Surprisingly large portions of the middle of the country are blue and purple (a mixture of dem and rep). Most of the Western coastal states are reddish purple except for thin strips on the ocean.

We can’t effectively split the country unless we engage in ethnic cleansing. By “ethnic,” I mean political party, of course. It’s a metaphor, people.

It’s an idea that is dead on arrival (hate that cliche, but it is appropriate here). It solves nothing; advantages noone. I’m not sure it even has a point. Not even as a jump-off point for a discussion.

Blackberry's avatar

Impossible, but of course it would be a good idea.

amujinx's avatar

@JLeslie In a better financial situation then we are currently in, less government support could work to keep taxes down. Under current financial stresses though, and the unrest that is already occurring from OccupyWallStreet and its various sister movements, cutting government support probably wouldn’t fly with the citizens of any state that choose to secede.

@rojo If another country will accept that they are an independent nation, they could apply for aid from them (a much more likely scenario with support from the UN). A new country asking for aid would have to deal with many more hoops to go through and trouble receiving said aid if they are landlocked within the US though.The US would probably want to keep a military prescience there, but that would depend on the US/former state’s relationship on how that would go.

@wundayatta I agree, it’s not a plausible situation when you factor in how divided the people are in even a small area, but I think it’s an interesting discussion if you ignore that a bit and act in a much more “samethink” mentality for the citizens of each state. Think of it like the future prediction in the Foundation series by Asimov; the future can be predicted by how citizens as a collective think, but the future can’t be predicted based on one person’s thought processes.

wonderingwhy's avatar

Hmmm… I’d vote for a Palestinian state but that’s because I feel it would better ease the way towards integration over the next few centuries, particularly if you tie them together economically from the start. Sort of an integration through division approach. I guess I could see that same approach applied in the USA but I think there are better avenues open to us that would accomplish the some of the same goals (providing a greater sense of control, empowerment, and “I can support this” rather than “I can’t support that” attitude to citizens). You could have more clearly categorical division between states but still maintain the union. You could rework tax collection and division to make a certain amount of funding less unilateral. You could do more to disentangle the fed from the states in daily matters. It would create greater divides between states but doing so might let people see federal/national programs (such as NASA, EPA, DOD) as less of a threat to their beliefs (i.e. what they support). Basically give’em more of what they want to tone down the opposition to projects with national/international designs.

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx But, that is exactly what the right wing fraction of the Republican party is asking for. To cut taxes and cut support of social services.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, well let’s say we split it into North and South. Let’s say that China decides to attack the North US. Can we expect help from the South? Obviously yes, because the South doesn’t want China camped out in their front yard but…that’s the kind of thing I think of when I think of a divided nation. Would there be aggressive factors on either side trying to annex the other side so they can take advantage of their industry or whatever?

amujinx's avatar

@JLeslie I know it is. The French aristocrats thought the plight of the poor was over exaggerated too. If the Republicans get what they want, I think they will find this out. Taking away from those who are barely scraping by won’t work. Desperate people will do desperate things.

I’m not in anyway saying continuing welfare is the correct answer either. There needs to be a real discussion and plan on how to combat poverty in this country. This is something neither Democrats or Republicans seem to want to address though.

This is straying a bit off-topic, so in a vain attempt to return:
@Dutchess_III I would say it depends on how the division occurs. If it is through a civil war, then obviously yes. If it is through voting, probably not. It’s hard to answer this question without that information. I would like to think that if the nation divided, it would be through peaceful means, but don’t think it would be the more probable way.

JLeslie's avatar

@amujinx I see now what you are saying. I made a bad assumption, misinterpreted what you were trying to get at.

Regarding your answer to @Dutchess_III that is another thing I wonder let’s say a state wants to secede, should the fed be willing to have a bloody battle? Is it worth it? Or, just let them go? Or, there might be bloodshed within the state, the residents of the state who don’t want to secede.

amujinx's avatar

@JLeslie It’s no issue to ask me to clarify. I think a lot faster than I can type, so my points often gets a little muddied. I’m glad you got my where I was going now though. :)

rojo's avatar

We could end up like Europe with a bunch of semi-autonomous countries trying very hard to get along while coming out on top. Speaking of which, would we end up with a common monetary system or would some country/states revert to the gold standard?

JLeslie's avatar

I wonder if the countries of the EU pay taxes into the EU?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Alex talks about secession all the time ( how is that word even spelled?!) and my answer is always the same ‘though I know that a lot of people there have vastly different things they want, supposedly, there are still people living there that, if we abandon them, would suffer even worse.”

JLeslie's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yeah, I think about that too. I guess maybe we could help them move out? They would be like refugees I guess”

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@JLeslie Do you have the money? And how would this even be accomplished?

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

:O It would never work.

JLeslie's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Oh, I realize it would be extremely costly. I have no idea how it would work. When you think about it, evem today those disadvantaged are kind of getting screwed in those communities, yet they choose to stay. I realize some of them have little choice, the very poor, but I talk to minorities here on Memphis, who have the money to move, and they stay. they don’t want to leave their families, or they don’t realize how different it can be, or feel attached to the cities they live in, not sure. So, even if they had the option of moving, with money given to them to help them move, they still might not leave. Maybe. A portion of them.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@JLeslie Well, this is the kind of thing where we can’t just tell people ‘it’s better here’ just cause you think it’s better here. People vote against their interests all the time. Look at the Tea Party.

JLeslie's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Exactly. We would have to let things happen, and maybe clean up some mess later. If we saw human rights issues. Maybe the set up could be anyone from either country could always move to the other? Similar to the EU now. Or, a set up like Puerto Rico and Guam? What if the Republicans wind up proving their way is better? I highly doubt it, but I would hope everyone did well, both countries.

woodcutter's avatar

That’s just one blowhard’s way of scraping for votes from the hicks by proclaiming that would be a good plan.

JLeslie's avatar

@woodcutter Who are you talking about?

woodcutter's avatar

@JLeslie Rick Perry comes to mind right now although anyone who thinks that would work is pandering to the lowest common denominator.

JLeslie's avatar

@woodcutter Ok, but the question was asked by me, a liberal, I don’t consider myself a hick, and I am pretty sure @Simone_De_Beauvoir‘s husband (oh, @Simone_De_Beauvoir I just realized I am not sure if he is your boyfriend, husband, how should I refer to him?) is not a hick or a Republican either.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@JLeslie Yes, he’s legally my husband. Yes, I despise the term ‘cause of the connotations. I say partner. :) Thanks for asking. I also dislike the word ‘hick’ as we’re using it.

woodcutter's avatar

@JLeslie Yes I’m aware you asked the question but I can’t see from it you support the idea. Do you? Support succession?
Remember I don’t care if I use a term that some don’t like…the way it’s used. I’m politically very incorrect, so…I get to do that.

JLeslie's avatar

@woodcutter Support would be too strong a word, but I do wonder why we did not just let the south go back in the days of the civil war. I do feel having a large country with a large popuation is advantageous on the world seen, and I love as a citizen having such a large country to live in. Mountains, prairies, oceans, cities, varied communities, varied climates, all too choose from. I feel grateful. But, the political fighting has become ridiculous at this point. The lies believed are incredible. I just think if they want to secede, I would be inclined to let them go. But, I would prefer to have some sort of agreement where citizens would have dual citizenship of some sort. Just the states who secede would not answer, be helped, or pay into the US federal government. I live in the midsouth now, and some of the atitudes are depressing. We have enjoyed ourselves while living here, but it is not really a perfect fit, mainly due to politics and racism, or even more accurately the socio-economic divide among racist lines, and the religiousity. Of course, each community and state has its own atmosphere, so we can always choose a community more like what we prefer, even with all 50 states intact.

wilma's avatar

@JLeslie where are you seeing a big push for succession of the south? I have not seen that except a few scattered mutterings by mostly fringe folks.
I know that Texas has had some push for this in the past, but I thought that was just a very small movement as well.
I don’t hear anything about this up here, but I don’t pay much attention to wingnuts on either side.

JLeslie's avatar

@wilma No big push. Just in my head mostly. Living here and listening to right wingers all too often. Just yesterday I got into a conversation with a black Republican on facebook who was trying to tell memthe Republicans are the party that will free the blacks, that they did during civil rights, and the Democrats purposely keep minorities down, enslave them with social programs. <sigh> Of course the Republicans did push through civil rights legistlation, but that is when the south was all racist, segregationalist, Democrats. The Republican party today is full of those former southern Democrats and their children. He had me watch a video explaining the history, which I had not disputed, and of course it did not go up to the point where the Dixicrats defected. The commentaries on the film, I would say 75% of the black peolle had Rev. Before their name. Yeah, well socially many blacks are more in line with the Republicans. It was a huge piece of propoganda.

He just got me thinking again, why do we even bother, just let the right wingers do what they want and live in whatever they create. Again, I would wish them well, prosperity, seriously. And, I am not talking all Republicans, I would guess 50% of the party would never consider succeeding, and they are moderate or left on several issues.

Anyway, I told him where I agreed with him, and it was like he never heard me, I too want minoirities to be inspired, to get off the cucleof the public dole. He just wants to believe all Democrats don’t see the truth. Whatever. He does not live in the south. I think he should come down here for a few years, and then see how he feels. Make sure he really knows who he is aligned with. All of us out of staters just can’t believe how it is here. Don’t get me wrong it is not all bad or anything. We have met some great friends, my husbands job has been incredible, but there is underlying thing.

phaedryx's avatar

I don’t think there is a good way to divide it geographically. For all of the talk of red state/blue state I think it’s closer to rural vs. urban.

Take for example: Utah. Obviously a red state, right? Take a look at how the congressional districts are divided: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=UT

Notice how each district takes a slice of Salt Lake City? That’s because it takes, for example, all of southern and eastern Utah to counter-balance the Democrats living in the east side of Salt Lake. Even then District 2 has a Democrat as a representative.

Salt Lake City has had a Democrat as mayor for the past 20 years or so.

woodcutter's avatar

Just like countries are connected financially, globally the US is too. Everyone wants their earmarks from a huge federal govt and the gravy train would stop for all and that alone is something no one has guts to do. With the way this country has become so polarized the regions would be radically different to the point there would probably be mass exodus with people moving to areas that suited them, much like the Iraqis dividing and moving into their respective enclaves. There would be probably be wars fighting over resources, natural and human. I could see a huge brain drain in the south. The south would maybe either let the Mexicans come in so they could get their cheap labor they crave, (sound familiar?) or completely block them from passing through their “country” to get to the other side. Whether we like it or not we are all connected to each other for keeps.

JLeslie's avatar

@phaedryx That’s why I don’t like the electoral map. The country is really about communities, not states. IL is bible belt and red in the southern part ofthe state, and then you have liberal blue Chicago. The red and blue state map is very deceptive.

TexasDude's avatar

@phaedryx you there, get out of here with your level-headness and facts!~

wilma's avatar

So why do people keep going back to the red and blue state map?
Is it just about the electoral votes?
I don’t remember when everything started turning either red or blue , but I don’t recall it being this way years ago. I think they talked about states being more one party than the other, but I don’t remember them being coded red or blue.

JLeslie's avatar

@wilma I think, but check me, the first time the red and blue map was used was for Reagan, and blue was Republican, and the media said the country turned blue like the Pacific Ocean for the Governor of California. Then there was some push back about the colors, because Dems are sometimes accused of being socialist or communists, so they thought not good to make red mean Democrat, and switched it. That’s the story I heard.

wilma's avatar

@JLeslie that could be right.
I mean correct. ;)

phaedryx's avatar

An interesting wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide

An interesting map of voting by county (from the 2008 presidential election): http://i.imgur.com/fbZA0.jpg

JLeslie's avatar

@phaedryx Thanks for those links! Still tricky though is why some communities are blue or red. Like in Memphis, a blue city, for the first time I realized there were Dems in large numbers who are socially conservative, many of whom are black, and that is why Memphis votes the way it does. I have said before I have more in common with a northern Republican than a southern Democrat. Most of my friends are socially liberal and fiscally moderate or conservative. About half of us are Dems the other half Republicans. I had not even realized there were people fiscally liberal and socially conservative until I moved here. And, then that vote in FL, where Obama won, but they voted against gay marriage. The media blamed that on getting out the black vote in that state.

augustlan's avatar

It’s an interesting thought experiment. Since each state is divided between red and blue communities, though, the only way it could feasibly work (theoretically) is to carve out an arbitrary piece of land (or maybe an artificial island?) to serve as the “far right country”, and allow individual people to secede from the US. They can declare citizenship there and move right on in.

Ideally, this place would have no services or amenities already in place that were initially provided by the federal government. A true “start from scratch” situation. It would be interesting to see how such a place would develop over time (which is kind of what I was getting at in this question).

I honestly wouldn’t mind such a situation, and would bear no ill will towards the people of the new country.

filmfann's avatar

Well, we are the UNITED States.
Kinda means we should stay united, even if some of the states are full of assholes.

JLeslie's avatar

@augustlan Yeah, I asked this one a long time ago. I think it would be an interesting experiment also. I am sincere when I say they prosper and do well. This is one of the benefits of having states have a certain amount of independence, because they can try out new ideas, and then whatever works other states can adopt the method. And, also we can have various different types of lifestyles and communities around the country. But, it seems like possibly we would be more accepting if the variety of ideas were actually different countries like Europe, the EU, because so many people have so much of their identity wrapped up in being American it is hard to listen or watch Americans saying or doing something we adamently disagree with. Just thinking out loud about the psychology of it all. At the same time we have Pennsylvania Deutsch, Amish, and I think most people are just fine with them having a very different lifestyle and being very different than the majority of the popuation. But, they do not try to have everyone live there way, maybe that is why it is different.

filmfann's avatar

Hey, can we build a fence to keep the Texicans from taking our jobs?

ETpro's avatar

I;m not actually for splitting the union. It’s what has kept us strong for so long. It is sad to seee a few on the far right risk destroying everything America has ever stood for in a quest for some government free zone of Christian theocracy where ideology trups empirical facts. It sure is tempting to let them go of an emulate Somalia and see how wonderful life gets for them.

King_Pariah's avatar

Well if it’s gonna be divided up, does that mean as a centrist I get my own country?

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro I wonder if push came to shove if they really want, or will wind up with, a theocracy.

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie There can be no question that some really want an American, Christian version of the Taliban The Dominionists certainly want it. But as to honestly wanting to live in a nation with no government or taxes, you don’t see long lines waiting for the next flight to Mogadishu, Somalia. There dream world is already there waithing for them, but they aren’t going. So one has to wonder if all the rethoric is nothing more than that. Cheap talk and ranting—rage against the machine.

woodcutter's avatar

Rage against the machine. That was good. Or substitute rage with tantrum.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro Does it have to be like Somalia? If it is a smaller community can’t it be like a kibbutz?

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie Huh? The Red States in the US are far greater in population and in land area than all of Somalia. Somalia as 9.5 million people and 632K square km of land area. The us population is 320 million and its land area is 9.6 million square km.

Comparing either of them them to a kibbutz is like comparing Mount Everest to a mole hill. And even kibbutzes have a council that decides things in the commin interest, do they not?

I do not know of any large nation-state that has ever been successful with no governance of any kind. Our friends in the Tea Party Right don’t even attempt to provide examples of models they would like to emulate. Their ideology is so supreme in their own minds that no proof of concept is needed. They are right because they are RIGHT, and if their medicine makes you sicker, you just aren’t taking enough.

rojo's avatar

@filmfann As a Texan, I can appreciate your point, particularly when we take the jobs and bring them, along with the necessary people, and bring them back to Texas with us. Perry “created” over a million jobs here in Texas but our unemployment rate remained steady and is now rising.

JLeslie's avatar

@ETpro Most of the red states are not talking about total anarchy, they talk more in terms of theocracy and minimal government. I was thinking they still would have their own governemnt, state government, just no longer belong to the Union.

GabrielsLamb's avatar

*Didn’t they try that once already?

JLeslie's avatar

@GabrielsLamb They tried, but the north fought to keep them. Some thought, think we should have let them go.

GabrielsLamb's avatar

I always find division and seperation to be both necessary at times, and completely stupid at others.

I think however, that being said, everyone needs their prospective place to go to to lick their wounds for just dealing with society at large and in general!

JLeslie's avatar

@GabrielsLamb I would never describe it like that. I don’t feel like I need to lick my wounds. I am disgusted and tired by the vitriol and lying, and I can’t stand the religious stuff in the far right, and that Republicans now cave to that pressure in their party all too often.

Ron_C's avatar

We can thank Lincoln for the strong federal government under which we labor. A confederacy would allow those narrow-minded states like Texas, to go their own way but still be part of a contiguous country. The east would have the freedom to provide legal and health solutions without trying to convince the more backward states.

50 thousand Americans died so that we could be led into numerous wars that we could have ignored if we were a confederacy. The civil war had little do to slavery and much to do with limiting the central government.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ron_C Are you saying the “north” should stop trying for federal policies and just create laws and systems in their own states, and the hell with the rest? That maybe the north should embrace more state’s rights and stop beating their heads against the wall?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Ron_C I disagree that the civil war had little to do with slavery. Without slaves the South’s economy would fall into ruins. It was actually in the entire nation’s economic interest to maintain slavery, because much of our economic strength came from the South…but slavery is morally WRONG. Ending slavery was the platform that Lincoln ran on. States started seceding within hours after his election.

Ron_C's avatar

Now that we have a federal government, it must live up to its responsibilities and set the standards for the states. @JLeslie

@Dutchess_III
This is one of my most controversial theories. It seems to me that if Lincoln lost, the bond between the states would be much looser. That lack would have probably kept use out of the Spanish American war and out of WW1. Europe wouldn’t have been so arrogant and wouldn’t have punished Germany as severely as they did. Without the resentment and economic failure caused by the war reparations, Hitler would never have come to power.
If Hitler never happened, WW2 wouldn’t have happened and we probably wouldn’t have had a war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. By the way slavery was on the way out and probably would have lasted a few more years. The slaves would have been released with little animosity. So in a way you could say that Lincoln is the cause of our present day problems.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’d have to research REAL hard to verify all of that @Ron_C! But I refought the civil war on another social site (Inquire) for about a week (someone was claiming that it was tariffs that started the war. My research showed that had to have been secondary, as the tariffs had been in place for over 50 years at that point.) I wasn’t working and had nothing else to do, and everything I found pointed to the Southern states seceding because of the platform of anti-slavery that Lincoln ran on. However, before he was elected, Lincoln compromised, and promised that he would not interfere with the South regarding slavery. He’d leave it as it was, at least for a while, and start working on peaceful ways of getting rid of the institution. But the states seceding changed his mind. It was an aggressive thing to do, so he figured it opened the door to go after slavery aggressively.

Without researching, I’d just guess that we’d have had other wars anyway. Seems to be the nature of things among us homo sapiens. Aggressive suckers, aren’t we.

Ron_C's avatar

@Dutchess_III If you look at Canada’s history you should see that it is very hard to get a confederacy to go to war. It takes something like WW2. Canada didn’t go to Vietnam, Australia did but it was in the minority om the United Kingdom.

GracieT's avatar

What if we don’t agree with our state on most issues but can’t afford to move? Also, how would we handle immigration?

JLeslie's avatar

@GracieT There would have to be a transition time. I wondered about that too. How would it affect housing prices for instances? Would we have a mutual agreement between the new countries where people could still live in the other state/countries? Or, if the country split would it have to be done in a rather hostile manner, where people choose definite sides and there is not cooperation. Would there be mass exodus from some states?

GracieT's avatar

@JLeslie, inquiring minds and all that! I can’t help but think many people would love to leave, but may be unable to leave. I also think that the split would be acrimonious. Hopefully we would be able to rise above petty fighting, but I’m not holding my breath.

JLeslie's avatar

@GracieT Love to leave which state? Which set up? Leave the United States? Or, leave one of the southern states likely to break away?

GracieT's avatar

For an example of the people wanting to leave the state, one of my good friends is progressive, but her town mostly leans conservative. I know other people who feel the same way. Most of us feep like the best way to work is from the inside, but in situations like mine- Ohio governor very conservative, my husband and I are liberal. If it happens we can move, but I have friends who are staunch progressives that cannot afford to leave. It is an interesting prospect, but we need to (at least I do!) investigate the idea and the implications further.

JLeslie's avatar

@GracieT So you think Ohio would split off? Be one of the states choosing to not participate with the federal government anymore?

GracieT's avatar

Don’t know. Other people seem to have more faith in my state than I do. Who would make the rules/laws for the new places?

JLeslie's avatar

@GracieT There are already state laws. New laws would be developed over time to take place of the old role of the federal government. Pretty much states have their own laws, or fall back on whatever the law is at the federal level if the state itself has not specified one on a matter. So, they would just have to actually write out the new laws or the same old federal law, or have no law for some things. Or, maybe the seceding states would get together and form their own very weak central government.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther