The break up of the USA

[boogieeck]

Inspired by Khunanup, although I have had the thought before.

What could precipitate such as break up in a nation with at present no meaningful separatist movement, and if it did break up, into what would it break up?

Are the metropolitan, coastal, liberal cities on a constant diverging path form fly over red state America, or is it transient sustained only by the personality of President Trump?

To my mind the obvious candidates to leave the union are California and Texas, which are large enough to do so alone and already have clear identities. Getting a group of states to do so will be far harder than getting one. Getting a further one to then join them, such as Oregon or New Mexico might be plausible.

[The Bishop]

Trump has just exacerbated trends that have been visible since the 1980s if not earlier.

[boogieeck]

California leaving would be an epoch ending event. Oregon, Washington and Hawaii would join it (or in the latter case, go Independent)

The USA would no longer have need of a Pacific fleet. It would no longer look to China or Korea or Japan as either enemies or allies. As such, the only global power would cease to be global.

[mboy]

Ain't gonna happen. Silly separatist agitators are active the world over, but there is no equivalent of the EU to help tempt US states away from the Union. Secession in the USA is forever (rightly) tainted by the Civil War and the slaving Confederacy. The idea that California would want to inevitably associate itself with secession and the "bad guys" in the civil war is bonkers.

[curiousliberal]

Regional polarisation could eventually be enough. It's already debilitating institutions, and if these institutions were to be sufficiently degraded, they would eventually be deemed so illegitimate as to cause the breakdown of the rule of law (true for any country). A sufficient degree of election fraud, or the perception of such, might be enough in combination with a conviction that large parts of the incumbent government did not have a given region's interests at heart.

Assuming that this tipping point for the rule of law was reached, it would probably entail unrest and some degree of violence, especially if there was a call to exercise 2nd amendment rights. Secession of one part from another (assuming mutual animosity) would be one plausible way to end such a conflict swiftly and without much bloodshed. Cautious politicians not particularly enamoured with the concept of the polarised US could opt for this - the carnage of the civil war could actually tilt some in favour of this option.

[Merseymike]

The fact California could easily survive as an independent country may actually be the reason why it doesn't happen.
It's relatively easy to give more power to the states

[Deleted]

It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it?

[curiousliberal]

Apr 22, 2020 7:29:30 GMT Merseymike said:

The fact California could easily survive as an independent country may actually be the reason why it doesn't happen.
It's relatively easy to give more power to the states

But not necessarily to the advantage of the donor class, which is why Mitch McConnel is pushing for the opposite.

This wouldn't be enough to trigger a secession on its own, but moves like it - i.e. ones that are part of a power struggle that features blatant disregard for the institutions of the union and, on at least one side, a pride of place for the interests of the richest - could slowly erode its stability.

[mboy]

Apr 24, 2020 18:35:34 GMT @pr1berske said:

It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it?

Unilateral secession is. What kind of multi-lateral agreement might be legal is less clear.

Supreme Court ruling Texas v White is relevant:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[𝐍𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭]

Apr 24, 2020 18:35:34 GMT @pr1berske said:

It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it?

Was the Second Continental Congress adopting the Declaration of Independence universally regarded as constitutional at the time?

[𝐍𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭]

Apr 20, 2020 2:52:25 GMT boogieeck said:

Are the metropolitan, coastal, liberal cities on a constant diverging path form fly over red state America, or is it transient sustained only by the personality of President Trump?

It's not a new pattern. It's the same pattern that gave the Federalists a shrinking base over the 1796-1820 Presidential elections, which eventually saw the party system completely fall apart before the opposition finally reinvented itself as the Whigs by 1836 (and the early Whig programs – especially the magnificent jingoism of the 1840 campaign – should be particularly instructive for the Democratic Party in trying to escape the metropolitan elite problem). With the big caveat of Italian and Irish minorities having been heavily Democratic at the time, it was also the pattern in which Republicans would lose elections they thought they were winning at particular moments in the 20th century, starting with 1916, but very clearly appearing again in 1948 and 1960 – and we know what lessons Richard Nixon learnt there. Drawing Jesusland maps and raging against the latest idiot in the White House may be very funny, but it much more resembles Federalists being certain that they were right as they faded into insignificance than Richard Nixon turning things around for the GOP within the length of a political career.

[piperdave]

Apr 26, 2020 16:26:49 GMT 𝐍𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 said:

Apr 24, 2020 18:35:34 GMT @pr1berske said:

It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it?

Was the Second Continental Congress adopting the Declaration of Independence universally regarded as constitutional at the time?

The Congress was a meeting of delegates from each of the colonial legislatures to discuss common interests so in those terms, it was legitimate as it was a talking shop with no legal or political authority of its own.

Whether it was constitutional for the Congress to adopt the Declaration of Independence depends on whether you were the King or British Government who thought those colonials should do as they were told, an American who thought this was all an argument over the right to decide domestic taxation policy, or a radical proposing independence. The British response turned a lot of the second group into the third. The Revolutions podcast (series 2) on the American Revolution is well worth a listen for a quality narrative and commentary.

If you'd like some alternative history fiction, then Harry Turtledove has two offerings for you on this subject. There is the Disunited States of America for what would happen if the 1789 constitution was never adopted and the whole Union project unravelled shortly afterwards into several dozen independent republics. And then there is How Few Remain which supposes one key event in the Civil War happened differently and the Confederacy won, which follows through into the Great War trilogy, the American Empire trilogy; and Settling Accounts series all of which imagine a different 20th century with a lot of the big events unfolding in the Americas rather than or as well as in Europe. Some good lockdown reading if you need it!

[cibwr]

And of course there is the Decades of Darkness time line, where New England succeeds

www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/

[cibwr]

In the Decades of Darkness, the point of departure is the early death of President Thomas Jefferson while still in office in 1809. At this time in our history, the New England states were seething over the Embargo Act, a restriction on commerce which had been intended to stop American interests from being violated by Britain and France. The Embargo Act, however, mostly had the effect of bankrupting New England merchants. In our history (called our timeline or OTL for short), Jefferson finally conceded the repeal of the Embargo Act, which took the edge off the New England secessionist movement. While it would reappear later during the War of 1812, it never really recovered its momentum.

But in this alternate history, Jefferson dies and his successors keep up the Embargo Act for a while longer. This leads to the secession of New England, supported by the United Kingdom, and to a civil war where New England gains its independence. There is now a rump-United States where the slaveholding states hold the power, and a small but wealthy and heavily industrialised Republic of New England which follows its own path of development. The Decades of Darkness traces the history of these two nations, and the rest of the world, as it takes a very different path to the events of our history.

[alien8ted]

Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England.

[David]

May 7, 2020 14:45:47 GMT alien8ted said:

Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England.

They brought out a book based on a HOI mod? Why not!

[Adam in Stroud]

Jun 2, 2020 21:24:18 GMT David said:

May 7, 2020 14:45:47 GMT alien8ted said:

Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England.

They brought out a book based on a HOI mod? Why not!

When my lad leaves home in a year or so I will no longer be able to understand this sort of post.

BTW I had the idea for a novel set in a post WW1 Britain where we lose the submarine war and the German March 1918 offensive breaks through leading to revolution and civil war. The idea was to fill the book with historical and fictional figures of the 1920s - T E Lawrence, Bertie Wooster, Hercule Poirot, Robert Graves, Rose Macaulay, Virginia Woolf, assorted Waugh characters - and work out whether they'd be Reds or Whites, and see what happened. Too idle to write it though.

[iang]

By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive?

[alien8ted]

Jun 4, 2020 11:42:44 GMT iang said:

By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive?

To those in the States, it will not be attractive at any time in the near or even medium term future for economic and security reasons.

[pl]

Jun 4, 2020 11:47:51 GMT alien8ted said:

Jun 4, 2020 11:42:44 GMT iang said:

By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive?

To those in the States, it will not be attractive at any time in the near or even medium term future for economic and security reasons.

And while all Mexicans are Hispanics, not all Hispanics are Mexicans.

And only 50% of fourth generation immigrants consider themselves Hispanic...

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/11/who-is-hispanic/