Then none was for a party—
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great;
Then lands were fairly portioned!
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.
Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the tribunes beard the high,
And the fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold;
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.
How Horatius Held the Bridge, Thomas Babington Macaulay,
I assume the poster of the map, go here to read about her, would be shocked to learn that the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are governed by conservative parties and might well wish to join the successor United States of America. In regard to the rest of the map of the former United States of America, Illinois belongs red except for Crook Cook county. Philadelphia and its suburbs go blue while we keep the rest of Pennsylvania. Most of Wisconsin would be red except for Dane and Milwaukee counties. Most California counties not along the coast would be red. Most Eastern counties in Washington and Oregon would be red. In exchange, we would allow blue hostages enclaves to exist within the new United States of America so long as it was clearly understood that they are pieces of foreign territory, with walls around them, although I am sure treaties as to trade could be worked out. Our immigration laws would of course be strict, with freedom to emigrate for two years after the Great Separation.
I doubt anything like this could be done peacefully, but if such a national divorce could be worked out without blood shed, and along county lines, how many Americans would give it a thumb’s up? Our poor country when such thoughts can be even entertained!
All of this shows how a power hungry atheistic Liberal minority can dominate—because the devil is on their side, and because the rest of us tend to be indifferent to God who would be happy to help if asked and obeyed.
“In regard to the rest of the map of the former United States of America, Illinois belongs red except for Crook Cook county. ”
.
Hey, Mi is red except Detroit area, Flint, and Midland/Bay/Saginaw.
.
Alas, once the Democrats gerrymander the State per that stupid citizen petition (paid for with out of state money), I might look into moving to Indiana.
Good point DJH. I guess the same would true in regard to Minnesota and Minneapolis-Saint Paul. I guess all three of the states should be blue enclaves only.
That was then, this is now.
The Roman Republic and polity didn’t die with Caesar’s assassination. It was killed over decades by incompetent, corrupt, “whatever-it-takes” usurpers. Just like what is happening to us, now.
Last night, Tucker Carlson had on a woman who penned a book providing irrefutable data, facts, statistics proving that the USA is the least racist nation on the planet. One shocking fact: in 1964 (LBJ Civil Rights Act, Great Society, War on Poverty – FYI poverty won) non-Hispanic whites were 78% of the American people, now we are 62% – that massive sea change was intentional.
It isn’t that they love black/brown people. They hate us.
If you don’t have a gun, sell your smart phone and buy one.
Actually, IL now has at least 6-8 blue counties in the Chicago suburbs plus some downstate university towns. That still leaves 90 or so in the red column….
Back in the day before he was a paid shill, David Brooks noted that Republicans tend to prosper in loci where ‘the self is small’. The Democratic Party prospers in urban enclaves, 1st tier cities most of all. It makes it challenging to carve up the country regionally. In Canada, the left tends to prosper in greater Toronto, greater Vancouver, Quebec, and the country’s most peripheral areas. We separate
How binary was the country during the Civil War? In the Revolution, there was a sizable population of tories mixed in the colonies. How universal was support for the Confederacy in the southern states? When we consider that a state is solidly red or blue with even 30-40% the other direction, a breakup would not be pretty.
Nearly every state’s largest cities would count as blue, and their outlying areas as red. Rural Massachusetts is a lot like rural West Virginia.
If a split ever had to be made, it would be situational. Like, if Canada was willing to redraw its map too, Quebec would go independent. Some in the Southern US might not want the conservative North. The Southwest might want to become a Spanish-speaking country.
The only way I can see the US breaking up is peacefully, and by accident. It goes like this. An Article 5 Convention. States roll in with their balanced budget and single-payer healthcare amendments, their pro-life and pro-choice amendments, their open borders and elimination of birthright citizenship. Someone eventually suggests a secession amendment – not requiring it, but establishing a procedure for it. Everyone’s frustrated and it gets approved. We end up with half a dozen regional nation-states with a NATO-type unified military and distribution of old federal debt by population.
The problem for the blues is outside of the coasts there is no area where they have enough geography to make viable nation states. Several city states, yes, nation states no. One problem we are experiencing is the dysfunction of our urban areas. How many cultural issues are cranked out in blue “states” to divert from this salient fact?
‘Along County lines’.
It this were possible, peacefully, we would see a very emaciated blue map for these gulag-lovers.
The problem for the blues is outside of the coasts there is no area where they have enough geography to make viable nation states. Several city states, yes, nation states no.
Singapore works just fine as a city-state. So would Hong Kong, if it weren’t under the CCP jackboot. About 40% of Israel’s population lives in an urban glob around Tel Aviv. You can posit a resolution where in 2/3 of the population of North America was in a truncated United States and the other 1/3 was in a menu of successor states: (1) Quebec, (2) New England / Maritimes, (3) Greater New York, (4) Greater Philadelphia, (5) Washington – Baltimore Corridor, (6) Greater Miami, (7) Los Angeles – San Diego – Las Vegas triangle (8) Bay Area / California Coast, (9) Portland – Seattle – Vancouver corridor, (10) Greater Chicago, (11) Greater Detroit, (12) Greater Toronto. Each successor would constitute or envelop a 1st tier city in toto and each would have a population at least that of New Zealand’s in 2005 (and a personal income flow at least as large). Each has a port. The most troublesome successor would be greater Detroit, because about 18% of the metropolis is composed of slum. NB, the homicide rate in the four counties around Detroit is no worse than Panama’s, and Panama is Latin America’s most affluent country and nearly the region’s most economically dynamic country. (Puerto Rico could be put on a path to sovereignty while Hawaii and the various insular dependencies could pick to whom to attach themselves)
Why would Chicago, or LA and SF, agree to become independent entities and give up their food resources?
For the same reason Franco’s brother in law gave when asked what caused the Spanish Civil War: We just couldn’t stand each other anymore.
Why would Chicago, or LA and SF, agree to become independent entities and give up their food resources?
They’re not growing food their now. What, you fancy the remaining states would impose some sort of embargo on them?
I’m saying that there are political units (Illinois and California) that currently exist, which the people of Chicago and LA/SF would want, and be able, to take with them if the Union should collapse. Maybe even have to take with them. Our union of states probably couldn’t splinter into anything but states.
m saying that there are political units (Illinois and California) that currently exist, which the people of Chicago and LA/SF would want, and be able,
Not if it came to a fight, and it would come to a fight.
If you don’t have a gun, sell your smart phone and buy one.
If you can find one to be had for the price of a smart phone.
They’re pretty worthless without ammunition, though. And I doubt even a new iPhone 12 is going to be worth much as far as ammunition rate of exchange is concerned.
I do not think Canada would take kindly to your suggestion. Although Canada has conservative/liberal splits, as well as English/French ethnic splits, the country as a whole takes pride in being it separate from the USA. Canada has an entirely different constitutional/political ethos, and it has long resented USA-assumptions that it should be part of the US.
Canadian Leftist infantile anti-Americanism has long been used by lame Canadian politicians to disguise their failings. That old act is wearing increasingly thin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmWog1hucg
It would be interesting to see how a “Red America” would make do without the wealth that “Blue Cities” generate and so generously share with everyone else. “Blue America” would be the land of culture, finance, education, compassion, tolerance and technology while “Red America” would be the country of corn fields and country music. “Blue America” would need tough immigration laws. “Red America,” not so much.
It would be interesting to see how a “Red America” would make do without the wealth that “Blue Cities” generate and so generously share with everyone else.
Yes, they so generously generate by… selling that which is produced in the “Red” areas.
Even manufacturing is usually outside of the blue areas, when you break it down– NIMBY, after all.
What the cities provide is a place to exchange the paperwork.
…how’s that distance working thing going?
It would be interesting to see how a “Red America” would make do without the wealth that “Blue Cities” generate and so generously share with everyone else.
I eagerly await their producing food ex mihilo and getting their energy from thin air. Interesting how the blue state paradises are places people flee from to red states. The one positive aspect of the Covid fiasco is that it has convinced many blue state businesses to decamp for redder pastures. As I indicated John, merely regurgitating Leftist talking points on this blog is insufficient for Troll status. Do better or your Troll status will be revoked by me. Be amusing and be factually correct. Be a challenge for me or begone.
Blue state businesses decamping to red states is just missionary progressivism if those businesses bring their blue state politics with them.
To say nothing of their their smug moral snobbery. Compassion and tolerance indeed!
A fair amount of evidence that the immigrants from blue states now tend to be conservatives. The businesses decamping indicate that blue state governance is a death wish for businesses. Note the new DA of Los Angeles who basically seeks to decriminalize property crimes. This is madness and it is having an impact on the willingness of people to stay in blue states.
They’re “conservative” relative to the progressivism of the blue states they’re fleeing.
In other words Democrats. At best liberal Republicans. They’re not political conservatives, not in how they vote.
https://www.city-journal.org/california-migration-politics
The evidence says otherwise Ernst.
I can link articles too.
https://pjmedia.com/election/victoria-taft/2020/12/01/just-as-we-feared-californias-economic-refugees-ruined-arizona-in-the-2020-election-n1182173
Look, if you’re fleeing California because you can’t stand the politics, that’s one thing. If you’re relocating because your employer moved your job because Texas has a better business climate, for your employer, you haven’t changed your politics.
I think you’ll find that anti-USAism (awful neologism!) goes back a lot further than modern Canadian “liberalism”—all the way back to the Loyalist refugees to Canada after the Revolution (speaking as the descendant of one of them).
Ah, the United Loyalists, or as some unkindly refer to them, United Losers, the minority of Tories who did not remain in the US or come back to the US. True, that element helped make up the polyglot that is Canada, and anti-US sentiment was fanned by the War of 1812. Anti-Americanism was for some a substitute for a Canadian nationalism that was lacking, Canada being divided between Quebec and the rest and having little in common other than both being not-Yankee. My Newfoundland ancestors had their own views on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m19rNaDKX5Q
Anti-Americanism since World War II on the Canadian scene has become a religion for the Canadian Left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yKzq3ueGr8
“How binary was the country during the Civil War? In the Revolution, there was a sizable population of tories mixed in the colonies. How universal was support for the Confederacy in the southern states?”
Considering that four slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri) stayed in the Union, the western third of Virginia joined the Union as West Virginia, and there were pockets of Union support in areas such as East Tennessee and western North Carolina, I would say there was certainly not universal support for secession among the slave states or among slave owners/supporters in general.
It would be interesting to see how a “Red America” would make do without the wealth that “Blue Cities” generate and so generously share with everyone else.
If you fancy businesses in New York, Boston, and San Francisco are philanthropic exercises ‘sharing’ with the rest of us, I’m vending bridges.
“Blue America” would be the land of culture, finance, education, compassion, tolerance and technology
You’re adept at persuading people you’re addled with steep conceits. I’ll let Baronelle Stutzman know how compassionate her tormentors are.
while “Red America” would be the country of corn fields and country music.
Why would you have something against either?
Canada has an entirely different constitutional/political ethos, and it has long resented USA-assumptions that it should be part of the US.
The notion that there are such ‘assumptions’ is a fantasy.
I think you’ll find that anti-USAism (awful neologism!) goes back a lot further than modern Canadian “liberalism”—all the way back to the Loyalist refugees to Canada after the Revolution (speaking as the descendant of one of them).
The settler population of the six remaining British colonies in North America summed to about 450,000 in 1806. The Canadian Encyclopaedia offers an estimate of 45,000 Loyalist settlers arriving in the remaining British colonies in 1783 / 84.
Except for Delaware, each of those states had substantial forces that served with the Confederacy. Missouri was home to a very bitter guerilla war that lasted for years after the Civil War. In the South there were pockets of Union sentiment. In the North I estimate the Copperheads were about twenty-twenty-five percent of the population and who believed that Lincoln was a tyrant and that the South had the right to secede. The divisions of the country in 1861-65 do not start and stop with the boundaries of the Confederacy.