A red state-blue state divorce plan: Secessionists, here's how some of us want to divide the country

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune ^ | November 23, 2012 | Paul Vandevelder

[2ndDivisionVet]

We in the blue states hear from the talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC that many of you in the red states are so distressed about the outcome of the elections that you would like to secede from the Union. Now, it seems that at least six of you -- Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina -- have submitted enough signatures (25,000) on petitions to the White House website to merit a formal response, with more petitions on the way.

We wish you the best of luck with this. We feel your pain. If we can speak frankly, it's been coming for a long, long time. The question now is: What's next?

First, we're happy to report that most people here in Oregon, Washington and California think you're really on to something. This marriage has run its course. Too many niggling little things built up over time, driving us all crazy. So let's just stop. It's time to divvy up the china and draft a property settlement. In the spirit of fairness and goodwill, we propose the following as a starting point.

We'll keep the West Coast, Nevada and Hawaii, New York, the rest of the Northeast and all the other states that turned blue on election night. You guys get Texas, Mississippi, the rest of the Confederacy and all the other states that turned red on election night. Alaska can do whatever it wants. It does what it wants anyway.

One caveat here. We've been asked by the citizens of Austin, Texas, to give them sanctuary, so we'll keep Austin as a territorial protectorate, along with Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Samoa, and you can have Key West...

[x]

To this day, the Confederados proudly celebrate their heritage.

Kind of. But they speak Portuguese now and are well assimilated into the kind of country their ancestors would have hated.

[FourtySeven]

This is something I hadn’t considered before (national debt).

How would that be distributed in the secessionist plan? It seems to me that would be a huge (probably insurmountable) obstacle to the plan. How would the states decide which amount is “owed” by whom?

Could the seceding states wash themselves completely of the debt? If so, which one wouldn’t secede?

Would each state “owe” 1/50th? That wouldn’t be just to some of the midwestern states that can’t be said to have “created” an equal amount of the debt over the years.

I would think this issue would be the one to truly kill this idea. I don’t see a way around it that would be just.

[x]

Should Texas lead the way to the exits, I predict that at least half a dozen other states will follow in rapid succession, joining Texas in a new American Union.

How long before they get sick of being "under the maw" of Texas?

[Gluteus Maximus]

Why would they vote Democrat?

[gunner03]

Add King County in Washington to the list. We in the Conservative east side have no voice.

[Tau Food]

But they speak Portuguese now and are well assimilated into the kind of country their ancestors would have hated.

Oh, a lot of the Confederados would disagree with you about that. Check out A Faint Sound of Dixie.

As one Confederado says (in English) in that video, they are the only truly unreconstructed Southerners left in the world. They're the real thing.

[Chickensoup]

There will be no secession, there will be partitioning. I think that the best way to partition is to put all the libs on the west coast in California. There is enough room in CA. Particularly if the illegals were sent home. Oregon and Washington can plot their own course.

Reds take the rest of the country. Never let the other have both coasts.

[mom.mom]

I love this secession plan. Just think, The RED country would be so fabulous and the BLUE country would suck big time. So there would be all these liberals trying to sneak into the RED country. The BLUE country would implode and we could take it over.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Determining the debt share per state would be easy. We would simply use the congressional representation as guide. California would owe 55/435 of the total, Ohio would be responsible for 18/435, Texas’ share would be 32/435, and so on to lowly Wyoming which would owe only 1/435 of the outstanding US debt.

[FourtySeven]

That’s a good idea.

It’s definitely more just. What is one of the reasons for secession though? A growing sentiment that there are simply fundamental differences in terms of how the country is run, financially.

Consider the question: (posed to Texans for example) Who (or what kind of people) are more responsible for the debt, the people in Texas or say Massachusetts?

I’m sure the people in Texas (the ones who want to secede at least) would say “The type (liberal) of people in Mass are more responsible, that’s one of the reasons we are seceding! Why should we pay more of the national debt THEY incurred?”

So while your idea is more just, it still doesn’t effectively divide the debt in a way that makes sense, a way that justifies secession in the first place. At least IMO.

IOW, why secede if one of the reasons to secede is to make a clean and sudden break with not only liberal policies, but the negative effects of such policies? It just doesn’t seem to make sense if the half seceding are simply taking on the same results (the debt for example) if not policies that ostensibly they are leaving behind.

[Windflier]

A reunion would necessitate the concept that a vote follows property ownership, not citizenship.

I very much agree with changing our voting laws, so that only those who have an honest stake in the country, and who are contributing members, can vote.

As wonderful of an idea as it is, it's not in the Constitution. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. I personally believe that it was a terrible oversight by the Framers to not include that provision.

In a newly re-formed union, we should begin the reconciliation process with an improved basic charter. Two and one third centuries of experience have taught us much about the Constitution's strengths, and its weaknesses.

If a constitutional convention is to happen, I would not trust the blue states to be a part of it. I'd rather see it done by a confederation of red states during a period of time in which they're politically dis-unified from the blue states. After the blue states implode, and come begging for readmission to the real union, their first order of business would be to ratify and agree to the improved Constitution.

[Windflier]

" Should Texas lead the way to the exits, I predict that at least half a dozen other states will follow in rapid succession, joining Texas in a new American Union."

How long before they get sick of being "under the maw" of Texas?

You obviously don't know what Texas is about, if you think it would attempt to lord over the other secessionist states.

[who knows what evil?]

And the donkeys do need to call themselves what they really are, Bolsheviks/Communists.

For example...Harry Reid, C-Nevada. Charles Schumer, C-New York. Works for me. We need to reverse that color scheme, as well.

[who knows what evil?]

That’s what I am talking about...RED is the color of Communism, not blue.

[who knows what evil?]

Assuming New Hampshire chooses to side with the Commie States of America (not a sure thing IMO) the only place I could live is North Carolina.

You should consider Tennessee, especially the eastern portion.

As for Red Hampshire? They chose to side with the CPUSA on Election Day...Obama, Kuster, Hassan, Che-Porter...enough said.

[who knows what evil?]

You folks who've been procrastinating had better get a move on. As in, U-Haul.

L-rd knows we are working on it...

[x]

At least one of our worst presidents was a Texan, which leads me to think that maybe other states wouldn't be very happy in a new country organized around Texas. Maybe Texas wouldn't be altogether happy without some big project that people elsewhere wouldn't be too keen on.

But regardless of what Texas does or doesn't do, other states wouldn't want to be just an appendage of somebody else's new country, so unless Texas itself is split up into smaller states, I can't see Oklahoma or Kansas or Louisiana wanting to be the tail of a very large dog.

[x]

Just how to distribute the national debt would have to be settled before any dissolution of the union. Would it be apportioned on the basis of population, or tax income or expenditures? It's hard to say. Other matters like federal property, the military, national parks, social security, would have to be settled before any change was made in the status of a state or states.

Of course there are people who tell you that the states have only to assert their sovereignty and then negotiate as independent nations with the former union with the freedom to accept or reject any or every offer or plan made. Those people have learned nothing from history and perhaps never will. The same with people who tell you that one part of the country is too stupid or lazy or cowardly or weak to mount a resistance to any breakaway secession.

[BeauBo]

Some places seriously studying secession are Scotland, Flanders, Catalonia and the Basque (Quebec might be back at it again).

Dividing up the existing debt and obligations is the tough nut to crack. Will all the people in states that leave lose their Social security? They won’t vote for that. Must secessionists make a payment plan for their share of the National Debt?

Communism is all about taking other people’s stuff, so they will want an extortionate settlement.

It is not just a one shot deal. After separation, things will continue to change as different policies take effect.

The productive will try to migrate to where they can keep more of what they earn. The unproductive will want to migrate to where benefits are bigger. As the cash crunch worsens, barriers will go up - both legal and physical, to keep wealth and the productive from leaving. Additional States may want to change sides.

[onyx]

FR really needs your help!

Please Donate Today.

FReepathon Day 55