what would it look like if the country split into two?

I have considered what it would be like for the U.S. to split up. It seems it is getting to a point of no return with all the divisiveness and hatred expressed by a very vocal part of the population. The "social experiment" could prove very enlightening. One country where the central government is more "socialist" and another with a central government that may not even exist.

How would the country be divided up?
What would each government provide/stand for?
What would the two "countries" look like?
What would they be called?
Could it work?

based upon what I have seen in state populations, I think it would look something like this



The purple ones are states I am not sure about where they would fit.

Any other ideas on how it would be broken out?

East and West of the Mississippi River. If you want a central government, you migrate east of the Mississippi. If you want a republic with sovereign states, migrate West. The republican union of independent states keep Minnesota and Iowa and the single state folks retain Indiana and Florida. Both would then have access to the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico for commerce.

However, I don't think such drastic measures will become necessary in the wake of the collapse of the union. The utter failure of the march towards a single central and all powerful government will result in a resurgence of the original intent of the Constitution to provide for a central authority with regards to foreign relations and strong sovereign governments among the states. It is too bad that we will have to learn the lessons of Rome for ourselves, but since, unlike those that wrote the Constitution, we seem to want to disregard the lessons of history and try yet again what has always resulted in the fall of what were once great nations, I guess we will have the opportunity to experience that fall ourselves. When the nation crumbles, as Rome did, because a single government proves utterly incapable of governing such a vast and diverse area, we will naturally return to the republican tack that Jefferson charted - hopefully never to return to the current one.

Jefferson warned of what consolidation of governance would bring to the republic. It is there for anyone who wishes to do so to read and reflect upon. To compare his warnings with where we are today and become familiar with just how intelligent and wise the author of our Declaration of Independence was and how well he understood why this people needed a different form, a path that would not lead to that same destructive destination.

In a letter to Associate Justice Johnson dated June 12, 1823, Jefferson had this to say:

I have stated above, that the original objects of federalists were, 1st, to warp our government more to the form and principles of monarchy, and, 2d, to weaken the barriers of the State governments as coordinate powers. In the first they have been so completely foiled by the universal spirit of the nation, that they have abandoned the enterprise, shrunk from the odium of their old appellation, taken to themselves a participation in ours, and under the pseudo-republican mask, are now aiming at their second object, and strengthened by unsuspecting or apostate recruits from our ranks, are advancing fast towards an ascendancy. I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for a reformation or revolution. I have answered by asking if a single State of the Union would have agreed to the constitution, had it given all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State, of being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then, to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?

In the same letter, a bit further on:

I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.

Or the December 26, 1825 letter to William Giles:

I see, as do you, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved to them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic..........Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals and aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare", a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of the government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to arms with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of the Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation of their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation.

The reason we have arrived at our current place is that we have ignored the wisdom of Jefferson and continued to consolidate power within the federated government. One government can't govern this vast and diverse people. It couldn't do it when the nation contained 3 million people, and it certainly can't do it with over 300 million. We need to return to the States the sovereignty that has been usurped from them in domestic affairs and limit the role of the general government to only that which involves only the general welfare of the union established by the compact that they entered into. The welfare of the union is not served in the accumulation of massive debt to address the individual welfare of each and every citizen in each and every state. That much should be obvious to all, regardless of political persuasion.

Our only hope of avoiding the fate of Rome resides in treating the federated government as a subset of all of the individual sovereign States rather than continuing to treat the separate, individual and sovereign states as merely subsets residing entirely with the larger whole general government.

PrintSmith, that is certainly your best post ever. Congrats!

I liked the post too. But with world wide media, multi- national corporations, globalization, technology and the rise of world competition PS's view seems archaic to me. Perfect world ,fine, but real world? fantasy and a throwback that will leave us in the dust. Wishful thinking.

If you look at history we are no more divided now than we have been often in the past. With the 24/7
News cycle and the internet we feel more divided than we are. I have family that spans the spectrum from Kucinich liberal to Trump birther and everything in between. We all disagree on what is best for America, but we all agree that we love each otherand our country. I very much doubt that Ladyjazzer or Nymysys treat friends and family with different political views with the same disdain they do to their fellow posters. It takes a psychological cripple to be as rude to someones face as they are behind the anonymity of a keyboard.

Yet 1/3 of the general population doesn't even bother voting so while if it happened, the country could split along those general lines, I don't think it would happen.

Consider Belgium right now, split between the French speaking and rest of the country, it can't elect a goverment to rule them, yet the country remains intact. We could also see a Anglo/Spanish split, with the southwest returning to Mexico or becoming a buffer nation.

However, I don't think such drastic measures will become necessary in the wake of the collapse of the union. The utter failure of the march towards a single central and all powerful government will result in a resurgence of the original intent of the Constitution to provide for a central authority with regards to foreign relations and strong sovereign governments among the states. It is too bad that we will have to learn the lessons of Rome for ourselves, but since, unlike those that wrote the Constitution, we seem to want to disregard the lessons of history and try yet again what has always resulted in the fall of what were once great nations, I guess we will have the opportunity to experience that fall ourselves. When the nation crumbles, as Rome did, because a single government proves utterly incapable of governing such a vast and diverse area, we will naturally return to the republican tack that Jefferson charted - hopefully never to return to the current one.

A friend and I were recently talking about the certain collapse of the union last week. I think he was spot on when he said "Complacent humans have to be taken really low before their offspring will stand up and say no more. One thing is for sure, as long as the illusion continues to be propped up Americans as a whole will continue to sit in the pot and be boiled."

History does repeat itself. And for that reason I think we're in for some hard lessons.

Trouble wrote:

However, I don't think such drastic measures will become necessary in the wake of the collapse of the union. The utter failure of the march towards a single central and all powerful government will result in a resurgence of the original intent of the Constitution to provide for a central authority with regards to foreign relations and strong sovereign governments among the states. It is too bad that we will have to learn the lessons of Rome for ourselves, but since, unlike those that wrote the Constitution, we seem to want to disregard the lessons of history and try yet again what has always resulted in the fall of what were once great nations, I guess we will have the opportunity to experience that fall ourselves. When the nation crumbles, as Rome did, because a single government proves utterly incapable of governing such a vast and diverse area, we will naturally return to the republican tack that Jefferson charted - hopefully never to return to the current one.

A friend and I were recently talking about the certain collapse of the union last week. I think he was spot on when he said "Complacent humans have to be taken really low before their offspring will stand up and say no more. One thing is for sure, as long as the illusion continues to be propped up Americans as a whole will continue to sit in the pot and be boiled."

History does repeat itself. And for that reason I think we're in for some hard lessons.

History is hard lessons, slippery slopes, and eventually progress. I am optimistic.

JCM, I do not see how multinational corporations threaten the guiding principles of the constitution. If we allow our Federal government to usurp more power by telling corporations such as Bowing, that they may not set up a plant in South Carolina we take another step on a slope we can not scale without dismantling it. I think it dangerous to believe the central guiding principles of the Constitution are archaic. It is such distain of wisdom that leads us where we are today. After all, some of us still believe in self sufficiency, responsibility for our actions and our well being, and living within our means with a forward look of saving for old age. It is a grounded perspective of life that held true during the birth of this country and today. The times change does not erode the basics of survival. And in our current warped form of the Federal government that continues to strip states of their rights at an alarming rate, survival of the states and its residents comes into question. As always PS, your knowledge of the constitution is a guiding light and we are grateful for your participation.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: JCM, I do not see how multinational corporations threaten the guiding principles of the constitution. If we allow our Federal government to usurp more power by telling corporations such as Bowing, that they may not set up a plant in South Carolina we take another step on a slope we can not scale without dismantling it. I think it dangerous to believe the central guiding principles of the Constitution are archaic. It is such distain of wisdom that leads us where we are today. After all, some of us still believe in self sufficiency, responsibility for our actions and our well being, and living within our means with a forward look of saving for old age. It is a grounded perspective of life that held true during the birth of this country and today. The times change does not erode the basics of survival. And in our current warped form of the Federal government that continues to strip states of their rights at an alarming rate, survival of the states and its residents comes into question. As always PS, your knowledge of the constitution is a guiding light and we are grateful for your participation.

The one thing I learned in business is that you don't cling to the past, you adjust to the changes. Dustbin of history is still true.