The Declaration of the Need for Separation

[originalpckelly]

In the course of human events differences arise amongst people of a nation. When those differences are irreconcilable they become a source of dis-harmony and dis-union. Factions also arise amongst people and they too are a source of dis-harmony and dis-union. When factions arise citing irreconcilable differences those factions are themselves irreconcilable. The nation in which those factions reside will not be at peace with itself unless one of the factions is incredibly small. However, when the factions are significant or equal in size, they must be separated mutually that they may enjoy life, liberty and may pursue happiness.

Such a situation of irreconcilable factions equal in size exists in these United States of America. Dis-harmony exists as well, and dis-union will eventually occur. When dis-union occurs the Constitution requires it be resolved in order to form a more perfect union. A single union is no longer possible. The factions must be separated into unions of their own with an amendment to the United States Constitution. The drastic nature of this action requires an explanation of the irreconcilable differences.

They cannot agree upon the time at which life starts.

They cannot agree about the importance of religion and it's place in society.

They cannot agree upon the rights of this free people.

They have abused the method of impeachment and advocated it in cases wherein the seriousness of the charges was in doubt.

They cannot meet and discuss in a civil manner.

Individuals from either faction have threatened violence against one another.

They have become so unified that the separation of powers between the political branches is in doubt.

They have abused the oversight functions of the Legislative upon the Executive; whether that abuse be overuse or under use.

They have resorted to petty parliamentary procedure to gain advantage over one another.

They have repeatedly accused each other of being "unpatriotic" when clearly both sides were loyal to this nation.

They have used the instruments of government to deny the profound needs of one another.

When differences number so highly and are so profound separation is required. It is the only solution to the problems of this nation. No longer will it be acceptable for either faction to gain power and use that power to deny the needs of the other. The Constitution demands that a more perfect union be formed; a more perfect union will be one that is amicably separated.

[Selatius]

1. At any other period of time, I would've dismissed this outright, but...

I'm afraid your document holds much importance that it wouldn't have in more peaceful times.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." An example could be Roe v. Wade being overturned, and still more examples could be societal views over everything from gay marriage to stem cell research and the role of science in our schools.

Alone, each of these things may not amount to much, but if one adds them together, then one has serious societal issues that are, in many cases, irreconcilable. The nation no longer sees the same way on the same issues anymore. We are not a culturally homogenous nation, and it can be argued we never were, and perhaps that's why we may appear less stable than, say, Spain or France any other European nation that's bound by a common language, a common history, and even common struggles. Perhaps the Civil War was a symptom of our instability, of our unresolved issues.

The Civil War still remains America's most bloody war ever fought. Over a million souls were lost in that war, and hundreds of thousands more were scarred for the rest of their lives. It was a confluence of economic as well as social issues that led to that dark chapter of US history.

We have social issues now that we face as a nation.

Will we once again add economic issues to the mix? If Roe v. Wade is overturned and several states ban abortion, will that not add an economic burden on states that still do have legalized abortion? Would not people in states where abortion is banned go to states where it is still legal? How much money would be spent on these "out of staters"? Why doesn't the same question also apply to intelligent homosexuals who may decide to seek refuge in more tolerant states and deprive more conservative states of intellectual talent and capital? Would this not be an economic issue as well? What about the role of science? What would happen if several states subjugated science funding to religion, while other states did not? Would this not also create an economic disparity as a result of the suppression of scientific endeavors in the name of politics and religion?

If all of these are taken into consideration and if all of these elements converge, is it not possible that such a combination could very well prove the tipping point towards another civil war on American soil? Not just over social issues but also over, ultimately, money and, thus, power?

I have never heard of wars fought over abortion, or gay marriage, or creation vs. evolution science, but I have heard of wars fought over money and power.

[originalpckelly]

13. Maybe we can resolve our differences...

I am teetering between resolvability and the lack thereof. At times I see something that makes me think people can't live together. I think that a better solution would be the divestment of power away from the Federal government. I keep wondering if this would just delay a problem or solve it? It may be inevitable. I, in my earlier thinking, believed that this investment of power at the Federal level is actually the source of the problem. That one just can't get the people of our country to agree on things because we have 300 million people. History is looking back at us and saying they were stupid or they were right. I, like everyone els,e just don't know how things will turn out. All I am trying to do is preserve law and order. Order must be maintained in America, it is a fundamental part of our lives.

[MadHound]

2. This would be a huge disaster

First off, how would you split up both the assets and the debt? How would you finance the new countries, seperate they aren't very much. Then there is the matter of Balkanization. Split off the blue states, and then the red states squabble amongst themselves, finally breaking into war. Then those states break off and become seperate. Same thing happens on the blue state side. Then somebody decides to conquer somebody else. Nukes get tossed, and war stalks this continent.

Sorry, not a good idea.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Split up the assets and debt based on who caused them - if the Repugs

want to have their own Theocracy, assign them the portion of the debt during their reign.

Since the Progressives are not the one's anxious to go to war every time you turn around, we keep the nukes.

[Clark2008]

4. Furthermore, there are NOT "blue" and "red" states.

There are red rural areas and blue urban areas in EVERY state. There's no continuity of land. You can't very well make every city part of one nation and every rural area part of another.

The issue is NOT blue vs. red states: it's urban vs. rural. There just happens to be fewer cities in the South and mid-West, thus making most of those states "red" in the Electoral College "winner-take-all" model.

[Tesha]

5. Splitting the assets and the debt...

> First off, how would you split up both the assets and the debt?

Simple, do it the Republican way: Give "us" all the assets
and give "them" all the debt! ;-)

Or just do it based on each State's representation in the
House, Senate, Electoral college, Presidency, and the
Supreme Court. The Republicans have always liked that
arrangement of power before; why would they complain now?

Tesha

[Tesha]

6. Red states balkanizing...

> Split off the blue states, and then the red states squabble
> amongst themselves, finally breaking into war.

As long as the Red States of America don't go nuclear or
bio, why would that be *MY* problem?

Tesha

[originalpckelly]

7. I understand completely

I am not attempting to be radical, I am attempting to prevent violence, and thusly tyranny. Debt could be apportioned to the population of the states broken off. Each person would have to carry the approx 30,000 we owe each, when the new nation was formed the debt could be nationalized. The assets would be divided along with the territory. Non-territorial assets would apportion based upon the percentage of population in each new country. On that matter of Balkanization I think that it is inevitable that people have difference of opinion. I think that for a while this would occur. I think however the differences would be about reconcilable things. There unfortunately would have to be a mass migration of people from states wherein it was settled that certain a culture or nation would have jurisdiction, and those people did not wish to be apart of that jurisdiction. People would have to weigh their happiness with the economics of the matter. They may have to be a relocation board.

This appears at first to be very radical, but it will in the long run prevent great loss. Stability has been declining, I had been preparing a document similar to this one which actually was less radical and called for a second President or even a executive council, but I saw a silly little thing that convinced me this has to happen. Bob Beckel was talking on Hannity and Colmes (don't rib me now) and he was talking about how he had suffered death threats. Then I think it was Sean said it was apart of the business and that Beckel wasn't special. I realized they were both right to some degree. There are always a bunch of nuts out there that will go crazy and stalk someone, but I have a feeling both Hannity and Beckell had received more threats than non-partisan figures. I started think about terrorism and how we got to al-Qaeda and 9/11. I realized that even though most of the population is just having fun scoring points on the other side, that there are those crazies out there who make death threats. What would America be like if those people started carrying out terrorist attacks? It would be far worse than al-Qaeda; why? Think about it, with al-Qaeda people, if they don't live in a big city, don't need to worry much about terrorism. Liberal Kansas isn't going to get hit by terrorists, they make think so, but it ain't happenin'. However, domestic terrorism could happen anywhere at any time. People couldn't live their lives fearing terrorism all the time.

The people would try to give up more and more freedoms to protect themselves from the domestic terrorists, and this would eventually lead to someone taking over this country and making it a dictatorship. (Many think this is happening now with threat from al-Qaeda, it is certain to happen if this scenario is to come true.) The violence doesn't even have to go beyond a couple of nuts each year, just a few, that is the problem. I don't really think that most normal people want war or terrorism so they would be shocked away by this violence, but that wouldn't change enough of the radicals.
Of course this may not happen and the violence could escalate much in the way it did after Bleeding Kansas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas ). Really bad.

Or we could resolve the issues. I think that this is impossible because they are yes and no kinds of things. Either you have abortion or you don't. Now, there are people in either party who share mixed beliefs, but there is historical precedent for these mixed beliefs having little impact.

Look at the American Revolution from Britain. I mean, really, if you look at some the issues it was just a bunch of old white men who were pissed off because they had to pay taxes. Some of the concerns were very valid however.

We can look at the cultural divide today (which is the primary issue) and compare that to the divide between the USA and Britain. The first Americans were religious extremists. They were, don't go there with me. They made the British look like party-boys. They were only the first and soon followed more "normal" kinds of people and the society in America turned away from extremism and as it did so, it also diverged from that of Britain. Americans developed their own lives, their own accent, own language in some senses, own food, and their own political ideologies. Britain tried to repress them and in fact didn't take them seriously (when Ben Franklin went to Britain he was treated as a country bumpkin.) This drove America away from Britain. There was a sort of culture war. There were some people in the colonies that supported Britain, but the vast majority of people eventually turned against them.

This is much like the cultural divergence in America today. I personally believe cultural divergence is one of the unresolved issues of the Civil War. Just look at the debate over the Confederate flag as an example. There are people who believe it represents their culture, and there are people who believe it represents slavery. Look at all the silly conservative talk shows about the "war on Christmas." The thing is that it really doesn't matter if there is a war on Christmas, if people think there is one it is a part of their culture. To some degree people are more secular these days that is if they live in big cities. This is the divide. Urban vs. Rural. A lot of people hate country music if they live in the city and don't take it seriously; country folks love it and are offended when people insult it. This is just like Ben Franklin when he went to Britain. Cultural devaluation is a catalyst for cultural divergence. Simply put, if you don't like something you don't listen to it, or read it, or in general participate in it. This has been happening for a while in America.

The real and recent problem is political instability. Look at Bill Clinton's impeachment. Look at the 2000 election. Look at how conservatives are lock step on 99% of the issues. Now, Democrats are also becoming lock step. The factions have divided and are radicalizing as we speak. That brings me back to the Beckel Hannity & Colmes bit. These people were being completely calm, but they were completely outraged at each other. If the calm people feel that way, what about the nuts? I just am very worried about this. Screw al-Qaeda, we may have a freakin' Civil War. You know how awful that would be? Iraq in America people. The horror (I don't mean that at comically.) I just wish we would back away from this radicalism, but it isn't just that simple. Dr. King, a man of peace, said people should be judged upon their character not their skin color. I take that to mean that people should judge each other because of their ideals, not because of stupid irrelevant differences. This isn't about that though. These are ideas we are talking about not just arbitrary physical differences. If there is only one thing in this world worth fighting for, it is what we believe in. Obviously Dr. King was non-violent, but he was dealing with a resolvable problem. If we remain in the same political system the only way this is to be resolved is through domination. This has been happening and will continue to happen. Domination may start with a D but it is not democratic. People, when they have chosen destinies far apart, must separate to get where they are going. We must separate, or face perpetual tyranny and unhappiness.


Hopefully the mere publicizing of this will cool people down. The core unresolved issues will still remain, I guess we would just be kicking the can down the road.

[MadHound]

11. Sorry, but I still find it to be a very foolish and dangerous notion

Let's say that we split along the red state/blue state divide(though I have huge problems with that sort of shorthand labeling, we're all purple states if you actually start looking into the voting records). First off, are you going to condemn millions of people like myself, a liberal in a red state, to living under a reign of oppression? Are you going to embrace the vipers of neo-cons to the bosom of your new blue country? Both are inhumane and foolish ideas. So then what? You have millions of people immigrating to the new nation of their choice. Gee, thanks for throwing me into dire poverty. Relocation costs, loss of my home, loss of money upon sale of the home, splitting of families, shattering careers, skyrocketing unemployment, my God, you would have an instant underclass in both new countries.

Then there is the matter of resources. The vast majority of the food resources in this country are in red states. Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, the blue states food supply would be limited. The red state nation actually might fare a bit better, because they would be getting all of the major domestic oil sources(including Alaska), along with the food and mineral wealth. Even the old Achille's heel of major manufacturing would go to them, because what is left of the manufacturing and other industrial sectors has moved to the red states in order to pay lower wages. The old industrial belts of the Rust Belt and the Northeast are gone now, vanishing memories. Sure, they could be revived, but it would take years, years without industry, now what a handicap that is.

In fact about the only thing the blue state nation would have on the red states is that they are the center of finance in this country. But really, that is a handicap that can be overcome in short order.

Thus, you would have two incomplete nations, hostile to each other, now staring at each other over these new borders. In fact, if you aren't going to consign California to the red nation, it seems that the new blue nation would have the fatal flaw of having its major food producer and economic engine split off from the rest of the country, a vast continent away. Damn prices would rise just to the transportation costs.

And quite frankly, how soon before tempers flared, and shots were fired. There is, as you say, so much enemity on both sides of this cultural divide, that the wound would not be allowed to heal, and the two new countries would be involved in a war. I would give it ten years max before latent hatreds, prejudices and greed would throw this continent into the fire of war. And it would be a brutal war, probably complete with nukes. It is a war that would destroy both participants, and bring about the complete collapse of order on these shores.

Sorry, but this is just a horrible idea. Yes, I believe that if we continue down the path we're on now, sooner or later there is going to be a Civil War again in this country. I've been predicting a new Civil War in the '20s if matters aren't resolved somehow. But it can be prevented. We were brought to this crossroads by demagogues and hate. Yet those factors can be countered if we put our mind to it. Many many neo-cons are already repudiating Bushco and his works. If we work on it, if we come to some serious compromises, it we reign in the monopolistic media and get corporate money out of our government, we can prevent Civil War. But it is going to take a lot of hard work by all of us. However the goal is worth it. Are you willing to do your part, or do you just want to take the seemingly easy way out? Think hard about it, for it you look closely at what you propose, you will find that the easy way out will lead to complete and utter ruin. Think about it.

[Selatius]

12. Actually, it is likely the west coast would be independent of the east coa

Hypothetically speaking, it wouldn't make sense to have California in the same boat as Massachusetts as far as one government is concerned. It would make more sense to have a government representing blue states in the Northeast and a government representing states on the west coast from California to Washington. The rest, as implied, would be for the red states to decide over: The South and the Midwest.

As far as farmable land goes, the same situation confronts many other industrialized nations today. The prime example is Japan, and it is the second largest economy on the planet today. They import their food from the rest of the world.

I would see the situation as little different than the dissolution of the Roman Empire. The government had grown so corrupt that the nation was no longer being maintained. It's borders were being invaded and were no longer being defended and were open for anybody to cross over. It's armies were squandered in pointless power struggles for the thrown and for greed. It's treasury was looted, and it's peoples were left to fend for themselves as tax dollars flowed into the pockets of politicians and generals and profiteers instead of into social programs to help people. One by one, the provinces of the empire broke away or were abandoned, and they became the several nations of Europe today.

That is how Rome ended, and I feel that is how the US will end. I would add the caveat that if possible, states should be allowed to peacefully secede from the Union if they wish to leave the Union. Peaceful transition, if it must come, must be the first choice. Violence should be the solution only if all peaceful remedies fail. I'd rather lose Texas and California without a single shot being fired than lose a 1,000,000 people on a battlefield over their secession.

I fear though it might end up turning violent like the partitioning of India after independence. Millions were uprooted and forced to move because they were on the "wrong side" of the border between Hindus and Muslims, or it might turn into a Cold War-like situation with the partitioning of Germany at war's end. High tension would be the order of the day.

The future history of the US could be a history of several nations, and it will have some parallels to the history of our European neighbors. We no longer look at Europe as a monolithic entity anymore but as a home for several independent states born out of the darkness of the fall of the Old Empire. To be frank, it is a bloody history, but few things in history are anything but bloody.

[originalpckelly]

8. This is also what I am talking about....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x801882

[originalpckelly]

9. By The Way

If people want to add more problems and irreconcilable differences, do so. Just post them. I mean it might at least be helpful to know what ideas separate our people so we might overcome those separations, if we stay together.

[Crowdance]

10. Partition of India is a good historical lesson here.

Though I admire your post for its eloquence, I hear in your proposal an echo of the Partition of India. That political decision caused up to a million deaths, massive and enduring political and economic disruption and did not solve the problem of sectarian violence on the Indian subcontinent. Today, Pakistan and India live in a delicate tension, which threatens to break into nuclear war at any time.

Partition of the U.S. would result in similar long-term destruction of the continent's wealth and strength, and I expect we would similarly see the evolution of two armed nations, guns and missiles pointed at each other, ready to explode in massive destruction under the slimmest of pretexts.

Besides, who could, in good conscience, abandon the innocent to the depravations of a purely Red nation-state? Not I.