Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the United States has decided to dissolve over irreconciliable political differences. Assume that the break-up is to be peaceful, and the many sticky questions (e.g. responsibility for federal debt, common infrastructure, etc.) can be worked out. Please, for the purposes of this thread, ignore any reasons why this might not be a good idea; assume that it is a fait accompli.
As the winner (or loser, if you will) of a national lottery, you are in charge of creating the new countries, which can number from 2 to no more than 6. Your task is to lump like-minded states together, under the following assumptions:
- Individual states cannot be broken up (except that the existing non-contiguous parts of states may be divided; e.g. the Upper Peninsula can be split off from the rest of Michigan, or Virginia's Eastern Shore can be split off from the rest of the state).
- The states within each new country must be contiguous (excepting Alaska and Hawaii, each of which may be assigned to any country or made their own).
- Each new country should be, in the aggregate, similar in political views, culture, etc. In other words, Massachusetts could be joined with Connecticut or New Jersey, but probably not with Utah or Kansas. You may assume that people who would find themselves in the minority in their new country -- e.g. liberals in Utah, or conservatives in Massachusetts -- are free to move elsewhere if they wish, or be willing to subject themselves to their new country's political organization and way of life if they don't.
- For the purposes of contiguity, you may assign no more than 1 "opposite" state to any given country. (For example, if there are 2 liberal states that you feel should be in the same country, and there is 1 conservative state in-between them, you may assign that state to the new country along with the 2 liberal states.)
- Each new country must have direct access to international shipping; i.e. they must be located on at least one of the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, or Great Lakes. Navigable bays (e.g. Chesapeake, Delaware, etc.) count; but having access to an ocean only via a river, excepting the St. Lawrence, does not count.
- Subject to the foregoing, each new country may consist of any number of states, without regard to population or geographic size.
Given all this . . . which states would each of our new countries consist of?
I would refuse. That kind of partition would be on the scale of India in the 1940s.
The New England and Mid-Atlantic states form up into one nation.
The Confederate States re-emerge, with the exception of Texas, which would become an independent Republic again.
The aforementioned Texas Republic would probably annex Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.
California, Oregon, and Washington would become a nation.
Hawaii would reassert its individual kingdom status again.
Alaska would go independent.
The 'Rust Belt' and Midwestern states would form up together. (Incidentally, I know Missouri could have counted as a Confederate state, but for this exercise, I put it in the Midwest.)
Now, the Mountain States and Great Plains states, those are harder. Nevada would likely join up with the West Coast states.
Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas seem like they'd be inclined towards each other.
Colorado's a bit tricky, since it wouldn't quite fit with the Utah-Idaho-Montana-Wyoming-Dakota alliance. Nor would it be a perfect fit with the Texas Republic. It would just barely border the Midwest/Rust Belt nation (sharing a border with Kansas and a bit of one with Nebraska). Of those three nations, the Midwest/Rust Belt nation would probably be the best fit, with the Texas Republic being a close second.
Probably if I sat down and thought more on this, I'd come up with more exact borders and probably some more nations, but those are rough ideas.
6. A republick [sic]; a government non-monarchial.
Source: A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition. 10th Edition; London, 1785.
Why not just create 50 independent States?
If some States wish to join in union, that is an issue of Self-Determination.
That's silly....it violates the Principle of Self-Determination.
Mircea
The Declaration of Independence is about the separation from the Crown and Great Britain, not the creation of the United States. By quoting that passage, you are saying they are one in the same and they are not.
In fact the Constitution wasnt even written until 11 years later.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the United States has decided to dissolve over irreconciliable political differences. Assume that the break-up is to be peaceful, and the many sticky questions (e.g. responsibility for federal debt, common infrastructure, etc.) can be worked out. Please, for the purposes of this thread, ignore any reasons why this might not be a good idea; assume that it is a fait accompli.
As the winner (or loser, if you will) of a national lottery, you are in charge of creating the new countries, which can number from 2 to no more than 6. Your task is to lump like-minded states together, under the following assumptions:
- Individual states cannot be broken up (except that the existing non-contiguous parts of states may be divided; e.g. the Upper Peninsula can be split off from the rest of Michigan, or Virginia's Eastern Shore can be split off from the rest of the state).
- The states within each new country must be contiguous (excepting Alaska and Hawaii, each of which may be assigned to any country or made their own).
- Each new country should be, in the aggregate, similar in political views, culture, etc. In other words, Massachusetts could be joined with Connecticut or New Jersey, but probably not with Utah or Kansas. You may assume that people who would find themselves in the minority in their new country -- e.g. liberals in Utah, or conservatives in Massachusetts -- are free to move elsewhere if they wish, or be willing to subject themselves to their new country's political organization and way of life if they don't.
- For the purposes of contiguity, you may assign no more than 1 "opposite" state to any given country. (For example, if there are 2 liberal states that you feel should be in the same country, and there is 1 conservative state in-between them, you may assign that state to the new country along with the 2 liberal states.)
- Each new country must have direct access to international shipping; i.e. they must be located on at least one of the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, or Great Lakes. Navigable bays (e.g. Chesapeake, Delaware, etc.) count; but having access to an ocean only via a river, excepting the St. Lawrence, does not count.
- Subject to the foregoing, each new country may consist of any number of states, without regard to population or geographic size.
Given all this . . . which states would each of our new countries consist of?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
