9B Links about secession in the United States. Following the link are a couple of paragraphs from the article to give you sense of whole. Some are written from a blue perspective and some are from a red perspective.
“There are too many complicating factors, we are told, too many issues to determine and things to divvy up: land, water, contiguity, coastal access, commingled and cross-border assets, natural resources and mineral rights, the currency and debt, and, finally, the military. And, of course, the federal government would do everything in its power to prevent, or halt, a breakup. As a political matter, no one in charge of a large territory with a big population, robust economy and vast trove of resources ever wants to let any part of it go. Losing any part of America would lessen our elites’ power and wealth, both at home and abroad, and they know it.”
“The most obvious trigger for blue secession would be if some rightist figure were to seize power—stage a coup, refuse to leave office after losing an election, extend his term beyond the constitutional limit or something along those lines. Even if something like that were attempted, the blues would almost certainly quickly run the usurper out of power: Coups are dangerous, difficult and uncertain, and in the present moment, blues control virtually every powerful institution in the country. But if somehow they could not stop a red seizure of power, there’s no way the blue states would want to stay in that union.”
“In the months after the election of Donald Trump, there was a mini-political movement in California to get the Golden State to secede from the Union.
“It didn’t get off the ground, though during a recent trip to Northern California, many of the people I met were still so angry and distraught over the Trump presidency that it seemed that if he were to win re-election, secession would be much more seriously pursued. A big majority of Californians don’t want to be governed by Donald Trump, and many liberal leaders and media talking heads openly compare President Trump to Adolf Hitler.
“What if we arrived at a point where a solid majority of Californians truly wanted independence (and perhaps states like Washington and Oregon sought to join them)? Should they have the moral and constitutional right to do so? Would the other states ever impose military control over Californians to keep them in the Union?”
“With my progressive social media friends posting articles about the need to take away the right to vote from racist MAGA Hat wearers and my conservative friends posting memes about “Libtards” and the inevitability of a civil war, for the first time in my life I’m wondering if our country can stay together, or if it’s not time for what Gwyneth Paltrow famously called the dissolution of her marriage to Coldplay frontman Chris Martin: Conscious Uncoupling.
“While Americans were once separated primarily by race, ethnic origin or even class, today we’re mostly separated by beliefs and those like-minded people tend to cluster in certain geographic regions. So, why not accept those differences and redefine our North American borders a bit to reflect that? The results could give us all a lot of peace, both on and off of social media.”
This link does not have a narrative but consists of many maps depicting present realities and future possibilities. Very interesting visuals.
(The above linkis a Facebook page on secession.)
“Nine years ago I published a piece that asserted, “Voters around the country are concluding it’s better to be red than dead,” applying almost the exact opposite meaning to an old phrase referring to communism. New Census Bureau figures appear to confirm my prediction — mostly.
“My point was that many voters were, and are, increasingly fed up with the high taxes, heavy regulations and increasing social wokeness that have come to characterize most blue states — i.e., those dominated by liberal politicians and policies.”
“As my colleagues Jim Geraghty and John Fund have amply documented, liberal secession talk is in the air. The “Calexit” movement claims that it’s deployed up to 8,000 volunteers in California to try to put the question of secession on the 2018 ballot. Jim also reports on secession talk in Vermont, Oregon, and Washington. But there’s one bit of commentary that he pointed to that I liked. Well, at least a little. It’s this multi-thousand word blast of overheated rhetoric in The New Republic. The writer, novelist Kevin Baker is basically over the red states. Paraphrasing his piece, I’d say he thinks of places like Mississippi and Tennessee as backwards, mooching, intolerant hives of scum and villainy.
So he wants out. Well, not really “out.” What he’d like to see is an America where blue states are free to be as just and free and prosperous as they can be, while the red states wallow in their poverty and bigotry. Here’s Baker:
“So here’s my modest proposal:
“You go your way, we go ours.”
“Let’s face it, guys: We’re done.
“For more than 80 years now, we—the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way—have shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations, white and black alike.
“All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.”
“Thirty-five percent of Texas Republicans want to secede from the United States. After November’s election, eight red states filed petitions on the White House’s YouGov Web site calling for a split, and judging from the popularity of Chuck Thompson’s Better Off Without ‘Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession (which calls for an “amicable divorce” from the former states of the Confederacy) a fair number of progressives would be happy to let them go.
“AlterNet Talk of secession is, of course, pretty silly. But national boundaries have historically been impermanent, and it does lead to an interesting thought experiment: just how would one approach the task of dividing up the world’s leading superpower? It’s easy to write a screed about how out of touch with Real America those socialist coastal elites are, or how backward the South’s cousin-marrying bumpkins can be, but I’m not sure either side of that squabble has paused to consider the details.”
“This proposal is different from secession because it is simply a shift in borders that does not affect the balance of power in the US Senate. It does not create a new state or increase the number of states.
“Borders between states have been relocated or redefined many times in US history. If a deal were made that two state legislatures pass, a border change would almost certainly become a reality. According to a peer-reviewed law journal, “Prior to 1921, 36 s between states were put into effect with the consent of Congress; virtually all of these settled boundaries between contiguous states.” See link: http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?&article=1544&context=penn_law_review
The most recent example was land transferred from Minnesota to North Dakota in 1961. www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1961/0/Session+Law/Chapter/236/pdf
“The craziness of our politics makes one wonder what’s round the bend. After the “resistance,” the pussy hats, the nonstop crises and the permanent impeachment, what might be the next shoe to drop? The answer: a breakup of the country, as I argue in my new book, “American Secession.”
“Americans have never been more divided, and we’re ripe for secession. The bitterness, the gridlock, the growing tolerance of violence invite us to think that we’d be happier were we two different countries. In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of law, we are already two nations.”
“Last week congressman Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, created controversy by posting an image on social media that asked whether red states or blue states would win in a second U.S. civil war (the clear implication is that the red states would). Understandably, King received a lot of criticism for this, for contributing to a political ecosphere that is already steeped in heated rhetoric, in which real political violence has been on the increase. King has since deleted the image. However, with anxieties and polarization growing, talk of a possible second civil war in the U.S. is still relatively rare, but I can’t recall another period in my lifetime where I’ve heard it with such regularity. Even Stanford’s Niall Ferguson has written about this.
“Others have opined on King’s glibly pondering civil war as a sitting member of Congress, the fact that he overlooked the fact that his own state is “blue” in the image, his transphobia, or his timing (the post came just a day after a white supremacist killed 50 people in New Zealand mosques). I’d like to focus on the idea of “winning” a civil war.”
“In the wake of the Trumpocalypse, many in the deepest blue cores have turned on those parts of America that supported the president’s election, developing oikophobia—an irrational fear of their fellow citizens.
“The rage against red America is so strong that The New York Time’s predictably progressive Nick Kristoff says his calls to understand red voters were “my most unpopular idea.” The essential logic—as laid out in a particularly acerbic piece in The New Republic—is that Trump’s America is not only socially deplorable, but economically moronic as well. The kind-hearted blue staters have sent their industries to the abodes of the unwashed, and taken in their poor, only to see them end up “more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.”
Another Facebook site.
“While division between both political parties has been accepted as a norm for decades, we have witnessed a level of intensity in 2017 that has dwarfed anything remotely similar in recent American history. While it appears to be boiling over, perhaps many are ready to set aside their differences in a way reminiscent of the Declaration of Independence.
“Over Labor Day Weekend, a nationwide poll of 800 likely voters, conducted by John Zogby Strategies asked, among other questions, which view is closer to their own on the topic of secession; Statement A: If a majority of residents within a given state prefer to have the final say over their destiny without the control of Washington D.C. then let them have it – it is their right. Statement B: If residents within a given state were to take such a drastic measure and secede from the United States, the federal government would be justified in sending in the military to prevent secession from taking place.
“While nearly 1/3 of the public (32%) agree that the federal government should intervene to stop any state movement for secession, nearly four in ten (39%) agree that each state has the ultimate say over their destiny and that secession is a right. Just shy of three in ten were not sure (29%).”
“BOSTON (Reuters) – The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
“Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.”