Perhaps it is time to let the Union divide.

As a independent conservative, it frightens me to see the reaction of liberals and many others after tragic events like the recent school shooting. However, it does not surprise me. In the past 20 years, the social and political views of the people of the US has become dramatically polarized. Half the country desperately wants to become more European with regards to social and economic ideals as well as governance. The other half want to continue or strengthen the nation based on the founding principles. There is very little middle ground between these two factions.With this division it is a constant struggle, sometimes back and forth, amplifying the gulf and discord with every step. If it is to continue, it is inevitable that the United States, as founded will no longer exist. What will be left at best is a Europe-lite version of the nation. One more in line with globalization and increasing government control, and the eradication of individualism and actual freedom.

Having said that, I can only see one possible way to save any remnants of a free Republic of the United States, and that is for the country to be divided. The populations of people with like-minded views are are clustered together in certain areas. The concept of a free country, of free individuals as founded by the US is unique to the US. If the country is converted to what is already available a multitude of nations, then there will be no place left for freedom.

Do you think that an amicable division of the nation, that allows these two diametrically opposed groups live as they see right would be a bad thing? Would it solve the problems that the disharmonious blend of views has created? Do you think that the idea of what was created in the founding is at risk of being lost forever to a more globalist, secular and socialistic ideal? Is there any way to fix things in a way that brings unity?

a reply to: Wolf321

It is inevitable with the way things are going. Already here in ATS, some members are saying that the Coasts don't represent them.

a reply to: Wolf321

it appears you're not alone in your assessment, check out the comments section of this tweet...



The Mark Pantano

I've always believed it was wrong for the union fight a war against the confederate states. Why? For a sinole reason that forcing them to rejoin or he part of the union is anti democratic to begin with. I think any state(s) province(s) etc should be allowed to seperate if that is what the people want. The will of the people should come first.

I can see a seperation of states coming soon. Hopefully withput a civil war.


If my American history understanding is wrong i apologize

The problem is that the country is not divided neatly. Some red states have blue major cities / capitals. So a state like GA which may be solidly red, Atlanta is blue. Same with Illinois. Same with Texas (Austin is about a wacko liberal as they come).

a reply to: Edumakated

Austin is liberal? As a non American i thougjt tje entire Texas state was raging republicans wanting to be the top executer every year

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
a reply to: Edumakated

Austin is liberal? As a non American i thougjt tje entire Texas state was raging republicans wanting to be the top executer every year

Big cities, even in the reddest of red states are still usually very liberal.

a reply to: Wolf321

Someone get a map, a marker, I'll bring the hookers and booze and we can divide this bastard up!

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
a reply to: Edumakated

Austin is liberal? As a non American i thougjt tje entire Texas state was raging republicans wanting to be the top executer every year

LOL. Most states are red, but the major cities within them are usually blue.

Austin's slogan is "Keep Austin Weird..." It is raging liberal.

Not seeing it, nor any time soon.

The US was less than 100 years old the first time it tried to split. Everyone knows how that ended.

Now at almost 242 years, I seriously doubt anyone is going to try and leave the union again. Too much money, too many assets, too much of everything after all that time.

Whenever you look at a political map (normally those shown during elections), you may see a state all in Red (conservative) or all in blue (liberal), but it's much more complex than that. Every place across America is a mixture of people. Yes, many places tend to have a large amount of people who tend to think and vote one way, but there will be a small chuck of those that don't.

In the mid 1800s, it was easy to split up the states that existed then and draw a line. for decades prior to the civil war, you had states that clearly established whether slaves were allowed or not. You also had a very clear line you could draw because of agriculture. South was where all the big farms were at, while up North, not so much.

Today's world is much different. Political ideaology is really mixed. Not everyone is all right or all left. Plenty of pro gun people on the left, and plenty of pro choice people on the right.

It would be a logistical nightmare: who gets what assets? Military assets alone, from military bases, to military hardware....including nuclear weapons. Who gets what?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Wolf321

Someone get a map, a marker, I'll bring the hookers and booze and we can divide this bastard up!

I can't find a marker. Otherwise, I'm in.
I have an Army air corp jacket with a map of England and occupied Europe on the interior.
Hookers and booze shouldn't be a problem.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is that the country is not divided neatly.

I agree. Clearly the West Coast and North East have a predominantly liberal democratic populations. While there are majority liberal group in many large cities around the US, many of the same areas states as a whole are more conservative. If there were essentially a liberal-socialist US as an option as close as California or New York, do you think that would act as a beacon and refuge for like minded?

As a person of more conservative values, if there was an independent nation within 500 or 1000 miles of me that was more true to the original founding principles of the US, I would be there first chance I had. Would liberals not think the same way?

a reply to: Wolf321

I claim the Appalachian Mountains.

Give everyone Universal Health Coverage and I doubt people would be so willing to split up the union for insurance companies to keep making windfall profits.

well if the Dems get back control and pass gun grabs and then impeach trump youll get ya wish op. might be a good way to kill off the left for them.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
It would be a logistical nightmare: who gets what assets? Military assets alone, from military bases, to military hardware....including nuclear weapons. Who gets what?

Yes, there is a mix of beliefs everywhere, even in primarily one-sided states. But With the option to go elsewhere, it might more unify the areas.

The logistics of it might not be that bad. Keep it clean. Physical infrastructure stays. Redeploy-able items are relocated. I know that's a bit oversimplified, but there is a conceivable way to do it.

What alternatives do you see if things don't break up by design? Civil war, not against the government but truly between the people?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Wolf321

I claim the Appalachian Mountains.

They're yours...
All the Deliverance you can squeal like a pig for...
Tasty BBQ, though.

Oh great, then the US could have a redneck Mexico on our southeastern border! Just what we need. Would another wall then be necessary?

We would be left with the essentially all of the GDP and tech development so unless slavery was brought back it'd be a slow painful descent into third world status for the righties - good luck with that I suppose.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Not seeing it, nor any time soon.

The US was less than 100 years old the first time it tried to split. Everyone knows how that ended.

Now at almost 242 years, I seriously doubt anyone is going to try and leave the union again. Too much money, too many assets, too much of everything after all that time.

Whenever you look at a political map (normally those shown during elections), you may see a state all in Red (conservative) or all in blue (liberal), but it's much more complex than that. Every place across America is a mixture of people. Yes, many places tend to have a large amount of people who tend to think and vote one way, but there will be a small chuck of those that don't.

In the mid 1800s, it was easy to split up the states that existed then and draw a line. for decades prior to the civil war, you had states that clearly established whether slaves were allowed or not. You also had a very clear line you could draw because of agriculture. South was where all the big farms were at, while up North, not so much.

Today's world is much different. Political ideaology is really mixed. Not everyone is all right or all left. Plenty of pro gun people on the left, and plenty of pro choice people on the right.

It would be a logistical nightmare: who gets what assets? Military assets alone, from military bases, to military hardware....including nuclear weapons. Who gets what?

Don't forget gerrymandering...
That's how the last two republican presidents won their first terms.

The division is born on twitter, and it should be left there.