Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

Do you think America is headed in the direction of the states becoming sovereign nations?

Asked by Demosthenes (14561points) October 27th, 2022

i.e. “The Great American Divorce” being taken to its logical end? Do you think the United States will finally break apart again as it did in 1861? Is the U.S. too large (in more ways than geography) for its own good?

If the U.S. did break apart again, I doubt there would be another war fought to keep it together.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

Dutchess_III's avatar

I doubt it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Not going to happen, Red states like West Virginia take in more money for welfare and other Federal programs than the send to Washington DC.
I think for every $1.00 they receive from DC they only pay $0.65 !

Demosthenes's avatar

To be clear, I’m not just talking about 50 states, 50 nations, but maybe another large break like the Confederacy. I think increasing federalism is a trend we’re seeing (though even then I’m not sure how widespread it really is; there is a lot of talk of “national bans” from the same people who wanted issues like abortion to be left up to the states).

KNOWITALL's avatar

I doubt it. The Right is extremely patriotic so it would take something radical to split us off willingly.

When it was ‘left to the states’, we wrongly assumed we’d get to vote on it ourselves, not live in a dictatorship. Frfr

I think we’re good for now, the BLM rioting in neighborhoods almost got it popped off but we got through it.

Entropy's avatar

I actually think the opposite is happening. The central govt is taking more and more power. Things that used to be the domain of the states has become increasingly something the Feds do…and even direct states how they must act in various matters. The ‘50 state laboratories’ that was once talked about doesn’t really exist anymore except on a handful of unimportant issues.

Demosthenes's avatar

@KNOWITALL Yes, that is interesting. “Trigger laws” really defeat the idea of it being left up to the people of a state. Kansas voted on it and didn’t vote the way many predicted they would. It would be interesting if every state had a chance for the people to say whether they wanted an abortion ban (or various other issues, like the legalization of marijuana).

janbb's avatar

No, both parties want Federal control of certain issues, it’s just different issues that they want to control. The Right wants to ban abortion nationally and permit open carry nationally and possibly ban same sex marriage, the Democrats would like stricter gun laws and voting rights laws nationally and the restoration of abortion rights.

A two country solution could be great but it ain’t gonna happen. Nor do I think we’ll have a civil war – just isolated acts of extreme violence.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Demosthenes Pretty messed up we are voting on pot but not abortion. It’s very disappointing.
I can almost guarantee Eric Schmidt will not be re-elected.

kritiper's avatar

Basically, we are that already. All different, all united.

JLeslie's avatar

Where are you going to split the country, or which states will actually break off and be their own country state? Red states have a lot of blue people and blue states have a lot of red people.

It wood be a disaster probably if some states actually seceded from the union. Although, if the deep red states wanted to, I can’t see trying to keep them like during the civil war. I think a lot of people would be thinking: fine, fend for yourselves. I would be one of them, but I would want the US to allow the state back in if they changed their mind within a certain time frame.

I hope if states do break away there would be a period where people in that state could leave, could move to another state, and stay in the US.

The economic chaos is hard to comprehend. Housing would be drastically affected, I think more people would flee the state than run towards that state.

Maybe if it was a large break, like three or four states breaking away, or a state as big as TX, then maybe some people would move to that state or region. It’s hard to imagine a blue state would break away, I guess it could happen, but it is the right that obsesses about rejection central government.

It would prove that many of these people who talk about being proud to be an American, with US flags on everything, and accusing others of not being Americans, really were not America first, they are state first or fantasy first. I really doubt any state could get the vote to do it, because I think most Republicans and Democrats are patriotic to the US.

Breaking up the US we will lose power.

seawulf575's avatar

The original design of this nation is that the states are sovereign, working cooperatively with each other. The central government was only supposed to be for dealing with things that needed centralized decisions: foreign affairs, maintaining a military, being an arbiter for issues dealing with interstate rules. It is the building of a “one-government” model with all the states subservient to the overbearing federal government that is the thing that has changed the country.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Preamble to the Confederate Constitution !

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 What about protecting the civil rights of each citizen? That all men are created equal? You don’t think the central government has a responsibility or interest in protecting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every American?

Demosthenes's avatar

@JLeslie To your first question in your first post, I think a lot of the discourse is around the so-called “great sort”, where people are simply moving to places that are more like-minded. We’re seeing blue states and red states becoming more blue and red and pushing people out who don’t agree with the state’s political climate. I’m not saying this “split” will actually happen, but I’m seeing more rhetoric around it. The federal government to many just appears bungling and ineffective. With the SCOTUS relegating more decisions to the states, I think we’re seeing an overall increase in state power.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Sure, to a point. That is what the SCOTUS is all about…interpreting the Constitution and the rights of citizens. It is the watchdog that is supposed to keep the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government from violating those rules. But the Constitution itself speaks to the sovereignty of the states. And don’t interpret the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anything other than what that says….a right. It isn’t a guarantee that all your desires are going to be granted nor is it saying that the federal government has the final say on all things because they could possibly be looked at as those rights.

JLeslie's avatar

@Demosthenes Is that happening? I know a lot of Republicans left California the last few years, but are Democrats leaving too? What about the migration state to state in other parts of the country? Did you see statistics on that? I’d be interested in them, because I’ve been wondering about this very thing.

@seawulf575 So, when the SCOTUS rules same sex marriage is a civil right Republicans should be ok with it? I know you’re not a Republican, I’m just asking as an example.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie From the aspect that LGBTQ should have the same rights as everyone else, yes. From the aspect that it’s marriage, no. My opinion on that is that the government (federal or state) shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage. So the SCOTUS should not have any say on it just as the legislative or executive branches shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 The government should have nothing to do with a civil marriage contract? All people should just deal with property, inheritance, children, etc, on their own? The government intervienes on those things in part to protect the most vulnerable, which is exactly what our government is supposed to do, protect those who need the most protection.

No marriage by the state (or country if the state didn’t handle it). Just have people marry in places of worship or make their own promises to each other. That’s how you would prefer it?

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Yep. Think of all the things you are describing. They are all creations of the governmental power over you. You can own property without being married. You can leave inheritance if the government doesn’t tell you how.

If you marry someone, don’t you want to share your life with them? Why should it take the government to tell you how it has to be? That brings us back into same-sex marriage. If two people of the same sex want to share their lives together, who am I to tell them they can or can’t? Why is the government so vital in them deciding they want to live their lives together?

But on the same note, you’d have to do away with the different tax rates for married folks. It would only be looking at either individual taxes or household taxes.

Every time we include the government (any level) in our lives, it creates ripple effects that make our lives far more cluttered and confusing.

Answer this question




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

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther