Could America Tear Themselves Apart? US Secession Explained - TLDR News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лис 2021
- TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
Book & Pin Set: tldrnews.co.uk/product/bookpi...
As the US becomes more and more divided some are hoping for big changes - maybe even as big as secession (when one or more states break away from the union altogether). So in this video, we explain how secession would work in practice and if the country could be better off divided.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldr-news-eu-100757392...
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewseu
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewseu
Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
Imagine US breaking apart, while Mikhail Gorbachev is still alive
*EDIT:* Well, this aged poorly...
“We do a little trolling “ -Mikhail Gorbachev provisional president of the Alaskan Comune
Lmao thst would be a sight to see
There was apparently an old Cold War era joke in the 80s that went like this:
Gorbachev and Reagan get hit by a car on their way to a summit and go into a coma. Upon waking up they are shocked to find themselves twenty years in the future. Eager to learn about what the future is like, Reagan asks for a copy of the New York Times and Gorbachev asks for Pravda. Gorbachev opens his Pravda and immediately begins laughing hysterically. Reagan wants to know what is so funny, so Gorbachev shows him a front page headline reading, 'US POLITBURO AGREES TO SECOND FIVE-YEAR PLAN'. Shattered, Reagan despondently leafs through the New York Times, but then seems to cheer up, and suddenly it is Reagan who is laughing. Irritated, Gorbachev demands to know what he is laughing at, so Reagan shows him a small page-3 column titled, 'The China-Poland borders are quiet'.
That would be the biggest "No youuu!!!" probably in history
@@mikicerise6250 i think it was a russia or a joke from the balkans
"The inevitable outcome of a 2 party democracy is a bitterly divided, civicly ignorant electorate" ~ George Washington
Coming from a man who owned slaves and purchased hundreds as an adult as well as relished in slaughtering native Americans I don't see how you can take anything he said to heart. The man became president simply because he was a war hero, elected effectively because he was great at killing British troops, possibly the least qualified president to date, even counting Trump. The mans political views were closer to an anarchist than anything else anyways, he didn't have any meritable thoughts on how our current government works.
@@joshbull623 Washington was the leader of moment and likely didn't have a time machine to review our current system of government. And yes, he killed people, that does happen in wars.
@godless yuri fan Yeah, not putting in term limits for congress and supreme court justices and only for the president was a dumb move for our constitutional amendments for starters when it comes to needs to be updated constitutional concepts. The amount of issues we could avoid by that singular move is astounding to think about. The average age in congress is 60.25 and several members are pushing 60 consecutive years in power. They don't understand how to securely send emails but we depend on them to regulate and make policies around massive tech and social media companies and protect us from growing cyber security threats among other new age issues and have justices making decisions while still being stuck in the 50''s and 60's mindset. Party system be damned, true term limits for all could have saved allot of people headaches for the best off and lives for the worst off.
@@joshbull623 As far as term limits for the Supreme Court, I'd favor having reconfirmation every 10 years.
Can you please provide a source for that "quote"?
There is no more misquoted group of people than the founders of the US.
Calling a single state breaking off into a separate country a 'mini country' seems rather silly as it would in the case of most states result in a more or less averagely sized country. The US is just that damned big :p
This is true. There’s counties in Nevada bigger than Belgium
@@edwardward9972 Most states would even have acceptably sized economies for an independent country. It'd no doubt be rough at first though as said economy would almost certainly be rather skewed. But a state like California or Texas could definitely leave on their own and become both large and rich countries :p
@@Arbaaltheundefeated most states could form regional unions and do just fine. Plenty or recourses and manpower to get things done. It really doesn’t make sense to say it’s not durable when you have smaller and less recourses in other countries
No I don't think that many US such as Hawaii are smaller than countries where most people of the world live such as India, China, Russia, Germany, US. So only Texas and cal can be called "proper" countries.
@@atishayritulpatwa7235 So small countries aren't even "proper" countries to you... Nice personality clue. It would have to be a significant world power or it can't be an independent country? The imperialism is strong with this one.
As a US citizen, I think it more likely that we would hit the rest button via Article V of the U.S. Constitution. This gives states the power to call a Convention of States to propose amendments or to scrap the current system with another. We've done this once before when the Articles of Confederation were dissolved. The appealing part is that Congress and the President have absolutely no control or say in the matter once Article V is triggered. In fact the Convention can and mostly likely would dissolve both houses of Congress and appoint a new president. They could also decide to break the country into several different countries.
I have been saying this for several years now. I think think we are real close to that point right now.
Yeah, there are a lot of things we can do to prevent something like this happening. The two big things I could see working would be reorganizing how the electoral college works, or eliminating it all together. And, reforming how the Senate is elected and organized. What I would do with the electoral college is implement nationally what Nebraska and Maine already do: allocate electoral votes in proportion to the state's popular vote. With the Senate, I would either add a senator for each additional 5 Mil after the first 5 mil (so 0-5,000,000 get 2 senators, 10 mil get 3, 20 mil gets 5, etc.), OR I would change it into a National Assembly were the seats are filled in proportion to the nation-wide party votes. I mean you can combine North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas into one state, and what, they'd have the population of Connecticut? And yet between them they have 8 Senators while CT has 2.
I think that this would be a good thing not so that the states can become independent but to get rid of some other stupid rules
It'd take 33 state governments to launch an Article V Convention, and it'd take 38(!) state governments to ratify whatever new document they come up with in order for the new Constitution to take effect. That's a level of unanimity it's hard to imagine the US producing these days.
@@pattersong6637 Exactly - Many of the states, for all of there gripes, have become dependent on the current system of federal funding. And imagine the mess of completely rewriting the legal system. Existing laws and constitutional amendments would all be on the table. Legal precedent, particularly at the federal level, would be abolished. All decisions by the Supreme Court are then null and void. Etc.
It's not really secession but, as an Oregon resident, I've noticed some conservatives being in favor of "Greater Idaho", where Eastern Oregon and Northern California split to join Idaho. Pretty weird, but that's just what came to mind
Probably won't happen, but that would be great.
Evangelists are apparently trying to form a theocratic regime in the region using good old Leninist-style entryism.
@@mikicerise6250 SHUT
In Nevada, the democrats mostly exist in two counties (aka the cities), whereas the rest is red rurality
Never going to happen since it needs the approval of the federal legislature and the state legislatures of Oregon, California, and Idaho.
If your wanting to leave a nation because of political divisions, the impact that will have on the nation your leaving becomes irrelevant. Why would an independent California or Texas care about the congressional make up of a forign nation?
I am sure that the Confederates were very focused on the number of Copperheads in Congress.
@@knightshade2654 well yes, as a nation engaged in a fight for its survival the presence of anti war people in congress was welcomed. That doesn't mean that they were concerned bow their leaving in 1861 would impact the 1664 election or 1862 midterms
Sanctions dear boy, sanctions.
@@Warriorcats64 who cares about sanctions. Most of the world hate America anyways and would be glad to undermine the vile union
@@edwardward9972 That's not true, like even in the slightest. American sanctions can literally cripple the economy of nations. Look at Iran, North Korea and Cuba, all of whom's economy have been drastically hampered by american sanctions.
Forcing the Union to stay together is like preventing divorce in an abusive marriage. Allow it to end peacefully or it will end tragically.
Yeah why should I live with people who hate my guts. Why should I live with people who claim I hate them fervently?!we don't have the same values let us get divorced. I agree 1000 percent
In Germany we have a phrase "you don´t see the forest, due to all the trees." Instead of succession it seems to me the US needs more different Parties who can actually participate. That two party system getting old and corrupted. Without political evolution, revolution becomes a systemic consequence.
Totally agree, that (more parties, like in most European democracies) plus modernizing the electoral system, so the popular vote is what decides, not the archaic electoral votes in the states.
@cory wexler lol weird take
"Can't see the forest for the trees" is also a popular saying in English
Parties were supposed to be banned outright, but that didn't come to fruition because special interests were against keeping special interests out of government, meaning a constitution banning political parties would be hard to ratify. It was going to be an amendment, but who woulda thunk it never got amended
But with FPTP it is gonna be a two party system.
I feel like Hawaii deserves its own video.
The reasons it'd want independence is very very different than the others.
As someone who lives in Hawaii, the people that want Hawaii to be independent again are very few (although vocal). Also, seeing as the US military is one of the larger contributers to the the economy here (really only behind tourism) I don't think independence will ever really be a serious thing.
Hawaii will probably be independent when mainland USA falls. The fall will happen in a few centuries
@@daniel_gallardo808 I'll take your word for it though from my understanding there was quite a growing movement among the Native Hawaiians.
It's also probably the most likely to actually achieve a successful legal secession, combination of cynical political gain for conservative states and sympathies among liberal states would basically mean that it would be the most likely to achieve the unanimous approval requirement to legally leave the union, although it'd probably stay a free association state based on former US territories in the Pacific that decided keeping the millitary around was good for business
@@thebobbrom7176 While I don't immediately know the percentage of people who want independence I do know that Native Hawaiians are a minority of the population here. So for any independence movement to gain traction other parts of the population would have to be on board which are generally pro US.
Also, I would like to add that unlike California or Texas, Hawaii does not have a very diverse/strong economy that could support itself being independent.
it's always interesting how often "The US will break apart" is talked about, and yet, is still probably one of the least likely to do so.
Also, fun fact: (if incl. helicopters and other rotary-aircraft) the 3 largest "air forces" in the world are the US Air Force, US Navy, and US Army
It’s just a shame Americans have to pay for that feat with their health.
Don't know about least likely. So many countries have no plausible geographical region that could consider succession. Like how do you expect Norway to break apart?
But even if we just count where there's 'reasonable' claims (countries in the UK, that one Spanish place etc) many places have no other government than the one they aim to reject. That's not the case with US states. And there's certainly a great deal of economic independence in US states too.
@@0xCAFEF00D when I mean "one of the least likely," I dont necessarily mean regional secession alone. More or less the concept of the government/nation going thru a wholescale shift and change. Like how many European nations did in the last century. But, yes, you are right. US states would have a much better chance at "surviving" than other places would.
Yeah I think only Texas could both legally pack up and leave and FUNCTION as it’s own state due to its own separate power grid and huge economy
@@zjjohnson3827 if texas leaves whats stopping the other 49 states saying nah you cant trade with us anymore and crashing the texan economy?
I personally believe that if America continues with the same political system for the next couple of decades, the more politically polarized the country will become. While it’s a huge barrier, there needs to be a serious discussion about having a system of proportional representation in electing politicians to both state and federal offices. Because the truth is we’re not so politically segregated as we think we are. Which is why I LOATHE the phrase “red state/blue state.” But the media makes us look at the country in that sort of way.
Yeah but while polarized they can't change the system.
The only way is state level reforms like that Yang is suggesting, and the only other ways I see it ending is either peaceful dissolution or civil war.
@@DaDunge peaceful dissolution now !!
Maybe make more parties or get rid of them at once?
@@6ixxera9iner55 sounds nice but unless we get rid of Feds that isn’t possible. Check laws out on how funding is. System has been set up to incentivize 2 party charade
@@6ixxera9iner55 we do in fact have more parties here. It’s just that the two major parties have made sure that the third parties are close to irrelevant. Because when we have just two parties, what options do we really have. It’s just a game to them. That’s why an electoral system in which we use proportional representation in legislative elections would help third parties win seats. The other option would be to use what Andrew Yang has been advocating for which is rank choice voting. But of course the people who are in the way of that happening are the politicians who benefit from this rigged system.
The federal government overreach is tearing us apart. A thousand people in DC shouldn't control 330 million spread across a vast country. I would move to any red state that left.
The gdp per capita is shown in UK pound Sterling (GBP) £ but the audio says it is in USD $
Yeah that confused me.
The problem remains, as Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand. It will become one thing or the other, but will cease to be divided."
Tell that to the founding fathers who SECEDED from England. Both America and England are doing perfectly fine after that SECESSION.
Lincoln was NOT a genius. He didn't understand economics or sociology. He was just a lying country lawyer that was really good at making speeches.
Exactly! Case and point, we are completely divided by left/right and by ethnicity, we need to unite with our own people. This can only be done through secession.
@@jaym.7045 The problem with this is that we in the red column would end up conquering the blue side anyways. There is no way this ends peacefully.
@@mikegarwood8680 Prez. John Q. Adams, the son of the founder I might add, recommends dissolution in cases such as this. "Thus stands the RIGHT...If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre."
I would rather get off the sinking ship than to be dragged to total ruin by the left.
In the words of T. Jefferson to the New England secessionists, "Let us separate."
@@justfiddlinaround1128 I don't agree with what Q said about this, nor a lot of what Jefferson thought or said, either. His actions in office were quite contradictory to his beliefs (ex. Louisiana Purchase ~= Nixon to China...who would have thought it...). So, I am NOT a fan of anything to do with "Secession".
What needs to stop is the federal overreach and the power vested in unelected portions of the Federal Government. Much power needs to be returned to the state and local level, where it should be.
The very reason this overreach happened was that state and local governments were abusing their authority (against newer Amendments to the Constitution) and rulings against them in the Supreme Court. Since the SC does not have the power to enact their rulings, it's up to the Executive Branch to enforce them (if they choose to do so). So the eventual "oversite" level going to the Feds.
I think now, lesson learned, return back control, but getting anyone in the Federal Government to "give up" power would take someone with a "fanatic" worship of the Constitution and Amendments. We haven't had anyone of "this caliber" in a loooong time--with George Washington really being the first. IMHO, Trump in 2021 might be somewhat close--finally "assenting" to a "definitely" rigged election, when his voters (75+ million) did not want this "usurpation" to happen (and are still angry about it). The officials in government failed him (and us), not the Constitution, in which, there was/is the "power" to correct/overturn the "usurpation".
This is also the failure of the educational system abandoning the teaching of History and Civics (calling "Social Studies"--History--is a sick joke). Almost no one knows who "Cincinnatus" is anymore (as a "heroic" Republican role-model; the actual history is a bit more interesting...). Now, unless you study Ancient Roman History (*me) or early US History, you really won't, nor know the reasons why he was important.
I lived in California for several years and I don’t desalt think we’d be the 5th largest economy without the rest of the country. For Southern California I see the biggest problem being water distribution. A lot of our water comes from the Colorado river and without that guaranteed amount that I don’t know what Los Angeles would do. That’s just one major problem. Another issue I would foresee is a lack of internal immigration to California. There are a lot of smart people from across the US coming to California, I’m not sure how border crossings would look like in this new scenario.
An independent California would probably have a GDP around $1 trillion. Once all multinational corporations flee to the union, it's left with a a strong agricultural sector and a large population. Obviously it's more complex than that though.
@@colejones6312 cutting your wealth by two-thirds is enough of a deterrent from secession i suppose
Doesn't California border Mexico? Immigration problem solved. And it wouldn't be as if there would be any issues with cultural assimilation, since Mexico orginally birthed California.
The problem with California is it's full of Californians.
California's on the Coast..limitless Water, needing Water Desalination Plants of course, to process it but its in abundance.
The Problem with Cali is that it imports most of it's electricity and water from surrounding states, and without those, their economy would collapse overnight.
Also, it isn't Americans that are polarized, it is our Corporate sponsored media. The average American is no where near as outraged as the artificially amplified "news" tells us we are.
You know you don't have to stop trading with your neighbours just because they're not the same country anymore right ?
Your onto something my guy
And yet Californis is the state that pays the most to the federal government, much of that money being welfare paid to republican states
How much of California's money comes from the military?
@@johnny_eth That is a popular myth but the actual numbers do not add up. Also, we didn't ask to have manufacturing exported, and would gladly give up any money received from Cali, if it meant they had to deal with the fallout of their stupid choices.
Yes, please do a video on political polarisation in the USA
Blame social media and the lack of human interactions.
Mainstream media and social media.
@cory wexler Here's the thing though, how many people are actually like that?
Most Americans are normal folks that don't pay much attention and just carry on getting along.
The politically polarized are the minority, they just make everything sound like a much bigger deal than it is which draws a lot of attention.
@@Dante1920 wrong
Nobody thinks succession is going to happen through proper legal channels. If secession happens it will necessarily be violent. It's also not likely the entire U.S military would oppose the rebel sources, local troops may defect, pitting the U.S military against itself.
Also, states have their own National guards. Texas and CA having like 18k soldiers each. Plus, Republicans have like 80% of all privately own guns and ammo probably, lol.
Lol you think some yoga, vegan eating multiple racial kid is going to have the balls fight against a person from Texas? Hell no.
Just give the powers back to the states and this matter will go away.
Like the Soviet Union, a deep constitutional crisis opens up more possibilities. If the federal government totally loses respect or the ability to govern, you'd better bet on something filling the power vacuum. Otoh, a stable system relies on nobody getting everything they want all the time.
Words of warning: remember that LBJ was from TX and Reagan was from CA. Things change.
@UClmo-E3CIe293jdg_4UxznA shit it's true you think some black lives matter person really going to take up arms against Texas? Hell no. They going to sit their black ass down and not do a damn thing
@@jaytilala7388 The first thing the president would do at even the credible threat of a unilateral secession is federalize that state's national guard and immediately deploy them out of the state. Then if the state continued down that path the feds would arrest the state governor for sedition. Any national guard solider that refused an order after being federalized would be arrested and court martialed.
I mean…I think in order for a state to succeed it “legally”, I think it would need 60% of voters to agree. As well as a 5 year waiting period. These 5 years should give time for people in a state to leave if they wish to do so. Get the states legal affairs in order, as well as allowing federal agencies to be separated from that state. If a state leaves, it’s not a simple cut, but rather a tear. With there being a mandatory 5 year separation period, I believe the tear could mitigate into a rip.
The length of time for a Constitutional amendment to effect a division would provide the waiting period (and requires the consent of the voters of the state since separation affects Senate membership).
We had this go dead and buried because of this little thing called... _The Civil War_ and it was the final say in that regard.
or you could just say leave and they either leave or they stay indefinitely
@agapp11able Declaring independence is ALWAYS illegal, up until you actually manage to pull it off. The results of a 150 year old war doesn't change that. If that were the case, then the USA is illegally broken away from Great Britain, and thus doesn't have any authority at all.
From what I remember, only Texas can legally leave the Union.
I will say this, as someone on the outside looking in: Just during the last decade I have noticed a huge shift in how Americans refer to one another. From what I can see Republicans and Democrats view each other with suspicion, hostility and just downright loathing. The fact that gun ownership has risen dramatically during the last decade (with some people buying weapons expressively because they fear what “the other side” might do) really makes me concerned about what the future may hold for the US…
Again, this is just my take on the situation as an outsider. Who knows? Maybe things are not as bad “on the ground” as it appears from the outside.
It’s pretty bad but the elites have too much to control to let it happen unless they want. Ending America will eventually become necessary.
Honestly the country has just gotten more radical on both sides, way more nazis and communists and more polarized but this is due to social media. It isnt really *that* bad though only political extremists hate the other side the vast majority of americans are centrist or just dont care about politics. We have been way more divided before and done fine. Also i think the reason as an outsider you feel like things are worse than they actually are is because the news covering america is very inaccurate especially foriegn news.. It definitely over exaggerates problems america has... so yeah as a resident i can say it really isnt that bad here and only extremeists who are in the minority really hate the other side
America tends to wear its heart on its sleeve and show its problems to the world. America seems very divided, and to an extent this is true, but the country is still very capable of coming together in times of crisis. And for all of the shortcomings and weaknesses of the US, every other country in the world has that times ten. For all you can say about America, it has remained a stable quarter of the world’s economy since 1960, has stable demographics, most Americans believe in the American mission, and you know your money will be safe. That’s not something you can say about anywhere else on Earth.
@@smallmalaysianboy8025
Mostly agree expect where you said every other Nation has your Problems Time Ten.
Just my Opinion, but Most Small European Nations seem a lot more chill.
@@anothergermanmapper7754
Nah. European welfare states have always been dependent on other nations, and this is only becoming more true. When the US inevitably removes itself from the world system, decades of ignoring foreign policy and military spending will finally catch up with them. Also their birthrates are horrible and their population will start declining in the next few years because they’re ethnically homogeneous and don’t want migrants. The biggest threat to Scandinavia and similar European nations is not some big external or even internal enemy-it’s the slow, agonizing process of declining into irrelevance.
"California has the resources" minus water lol
I'd imagine they begin working on desalination plants, but if they left rn US could easily cut off almost all water
All in all, a fairly good analysis. Great job TLDR.
It would take a LOT more than just political preferences. I mean we've had this same lower 48 states setup since 1912 (and only a very few new or changed counties since then), almost 110 years. I doubt it will change within my lifetime.
Saying California could stand alone just by looking at how strong it is as a part of the usa is very one sided as it completely misses the point. Basically everything in its economy would change the second it secedes. To say California could or couldn't stand alone you also have to look at what would change, stuff like the labour pool, import and export, the fact that its only neighbor would be a highly incentivised to make Californias life as hard as possible, etc.
Considering the current state of Cali it couldn’t survive as a country right now. That’s why everyone’s fleeing and people shit in the street there
Would it though? The EU did not punish the UK.
@@DaDunge The UK is an island. They do not share freshwater with desert states. If they left the tap would be turned off very quickly.
@@whatthebeepvideos `Yes but I don't see how the UK being an island is relevant. I said the EU didn't punish the Uk nott hat they couldn't and yet you list a way the US could harm California while I am saying they wouldn't.
It's fairly simply really they have nothing to gain by being an ass to California, if they wanted to prevent it from leaving the union they could do so in much more effective ways. And if they allowed them to quit then there is no reason to have an antagonistic relationship to them.
@@DaDunge The issue would be the states upstream of California are in drought too. The only reason they send water to California is because it's federal law. If they had the choice to pick their voters over nonUS citizens you can believe they will 100%. We have water agreements with Mexico that we violate on a regular basis because in reality they cannot retaliate when we unilaterally break water treaties.
California likes to focus on their GDP and ignore all the things it is still getting from the us government for free. Everything from water law to the US banking system benifits them while they are part of the US. If they somehow magically left they would find they would rapidly no longer be the 5th largest economy by gdp.
I'm not usually this early! Excited to watch, this is a topic I've been thinking about recently.
This is an amazing video and very interesting topic! Do more videos on political polarisation, especially in the US, where secession talk happens even if it’s not legally possible yet!
It’s a gray area in the constitution despite what about a scholars and judges heavily invested in the current status quo may say
Succession and civil war played a part in braking up the Soviet Union. Guess what? It was illegal there too. Legality only means a rats shit if everybody agrees and conforms to it, it’s just words the only thing that matters is the force behind those words.
Great video. The only thing that bothers me is that you have Colorado incorrectly shaped on most of the graphics.
Lookin forward to it
I hate it when you say, “you get the point” … you give me far too much credit.
Blue America isn't even geographically contiguous and would not be guaranteed the ability to internally migrate. Trains and cars would require transit visas throughout Red America - and you bet your ass there would be immigration formalities post-Amexit.
Red America doesn't fare much better. In fact, it has the opposite problem: Blue America owns most of the coastline, save for a handful of states to the south that could be easily blockaded. Everything else is a land border with Canada, Mexico, or Blue America; all of whom can condition access to their ports upon whatever political demands they seceded to avoid.
This is the same problem that Britain cursed Palestine and India with; no nation wants to be shaped this way. The only people who actually think this is a good idea are people who really just want to disenfranchise their political opponents so they don't have to listen to them.
If a split occurred it result in atleast 3 countries not 2, you would have a democratic country on the pacific coast and south west and a democratic country in the north east and one republican country with the rest
@@hs5312 That's ultimately what happened with Pakistan and Bangladesh; but I don't see that happening in our hypothetical Blue/Red Americas scenario.
The Northeast and West Coast might not be geographically contiguous, but they are culturally and economically tied to each other even closer than Red America is to Blue America. It makes no sense to partition the states *even further*, other than to make Red America look more viable.
If such a partition occurred, I would not be surprised if you either saw business lobbying for a new, tighter NAFTA; or Blue America's two halves getting subsumed into Canada and Mexico.
You know that Virginia would probably mostly go to the red states anyways? Like you'd probably have a hold out near DC while Andrews, Quantico, Hampton, and Norfolk get overrun.....you know, where the Atlantic fleet HQ is.
I really wouldn't see many of the states keeping their current borders if a split actually occurred
You'd also see other possible splits. Utah would almost certainly try to split off from red America to become the kingdom of Deseret and form a mormon theocracy, Idaho and part of Wyoming may even try to join them. Alaska may just try to become independent on its own, though would risk invasion from Russia if it didn't have military protection from someone else. Hawaii could certainly try to split off on its own from blue America. The rust belt being more purple than red or blue could try to form an industry heavy nation along the great lakes.
Good video. When they fall apart internally then they realize that everything they thought they’d have, they won’t have.
I'm seeing this type of political polarization here in Canada too, although it's perhaps not as extreme (yet).
Could you do a video on county level secessions like Great Idaho, or the proposals for the states of "Jefferson" and "Lincon"?
I feel like people would be less apt to vote in super partisan representatives if we had a system in place that encouraged people to vote for the party they actually agree with like Ranked Choice Voting.
Under a ranked choice voting system there wouldn’t be as much of a need for such broad “tent parties.” The system would allow fringe voters to stay within their smaller fringe parties while the more moderate voters who just want to vote for someone who will keep the lights on will also be able to vote for who they mostly agree with. Our current system has become more of a red team blue team name blaming system but there isn’t really an incentive to change it because neither the Republican or Democrat controlled state legislatures have anything to gain from it and actually have more to lose because it would inevitably mean that they would lose some voters who only mildly agree with their policies enough to stay registered with them under a two party system
This fix would be a step in the right direction, I would say more is necessary to solve the systemic problems that America has given itself. Problems like monopolies, big money interest, the military size, and use. Even if you get better candidates in office, what stops greed from taking over. Kristen Sinema used to be a green progressive and now she's a blue *donkey*.
@@appleducky5234 partisan polarization like we have right is huge a problem and a road block towards getting any meaningful legislation whether it be left or right wing passed. There are only 2 things that can be done separation into different countries or a reform of the voter system and the way we think about voting to remove the 2 party control
@@hs5312 polarization is more a problem of the media and how it makes people feel, It's only a mask over the real problems I stated above. Secession would not address any of the real problems. and even after secession each country would get two new polarized parties, probably on different issues this time.
California has rank choice voting. It does not make politics less partisan. It just makes parties waste money funding campaigns in "safe" seats. Basically rank choice increases the likelihood that two politicians of the same party will run against each other. A proportionate system would be better. This is the system that every other Democracy of the world uses. This system has voters vote for party not politician. So if California votes 65% Dems 34% Rep and 1% indie then California would have 65% of the the politicians that send to Congress would be democrats and so on so forth. This system makes the gerrymandering no longer a viable option to control the legislature.
@@logananderson7881 I agree with this idea a lot more, but then the problem is that we are no longer voting for the person, but the party instead. Even though it removes gerrymandering, I don't know if it would hold the politicians more accountable to the people. In a way I think ranked choice holds them more to account. Proportionate voting would work a lot better in a states upper house and leave the lower house as is. Most states have two houses that are elected the same way which is silly. I would also think about repealing the 17th amendment.
As a citizen of this country I hope and pray every day that we can divide this nation up before it's too late
Think of it like a bad relationship. You can keep trying to force it to work until it becomes toxic and dangerous. Or you can break up amicably while you're still on good terms. Those are the only two options
It would be interesting to know how much actual power each state has to set its own laws, regardless of the federal state, be it executive, legislative or judical.
That final sentence should have been "Democrats and Republicans have never BEFORE thought less of each other." With just "never" there, you're not highlighting that their rapport is at an all time low.
We can fix this whole issue right now at the federal government where to delegate more powers back to the States and also we need to change some supreme Court rulings too
@@attiepollard7847 more state power led to a civil war, Lincoln was right in making the federal government stronger.
@@greed864 you act like someone's going to really care if we overturn Roe versus Wade and get it back to the individual states. No one is prepared to die for that cause. You think someone's really prepared to die for LGBT issues in the individual states? If you a man and you think you a woman then go to California and don't stay in the state of Michigan.
There's "less" that indicates comparison anyway.
@@attiepollard7847 I don't think I've ever seen a shittier take. Congratulations have a cookie 🍪
Before you even say anything, the general consensus is that the USA is too federalized to break up over anything minor. Rather than being a Union like the EU or UK, the USA is a Nation. As in, the states of the US, such as Alaska, New York, Texas, Hawaii, etc. are more like Provinces such as Hokkaido (Japan), Yorkshire and the Humber (England), Alberta (Canada), and Brandenburg (Germany) than they are actual nations unto themselves. They're too integrated into each other to want to split unless something massive happened. The American Civil War made sure of that.
Yup, US states are just internal administrative subdivisions, not independent entities. They have a fairly high level of autonomy for logistical purposes due to the size and scale of the US.
Also, unlike in Canada or Europe, in the States secession from the Union is associated with racism, so it’s rejected by people on the left.
@@anthonyscarborough3813 in my legal system, here in one country of EU, race are only genetic standards, and racism are only genetic discrimination.
In UK empire including USA, they call race to the definition of ethnics, so, in reality, by the meaning, the true race meaning dont even exist in that nations...
When they say race, they mean ethnic. When they say racism, they mean ethnic discrimination.
UK and USA dont have the true racism word to define true racism.
UK are not the owner of the words meaning.
I disagree. True, state governments don't hold as much autonomy as independent nations do, but they hold far more autonomy than just geographic provences. The vast majority of powers in this country are still state powers, most laws that impact daily life are state laws. States have their own governmental systems. Their own military forces, their own independent legal system that is entirely apart from the the US system. Yes they are ultimately subordinate to the Feds but not enslaved to the Feds. Even the federal government operates on system of state based power as congress is elected via states and the president is as well
@@Ameriguy99 And I find your arguments completely valid. It is true that the states are indeed more independent than the geographic provinces I mentioned, but they are still ultimately more akin to pieces of a country than they are countries in a proper union.
Forgot the coast guard and space force logo at the end near of it*
Technically the US breaking apart is a very real possibility if it’s by state by state. States could form pacts to leave the Union in big groups despite federal action. States have done this in the past prior to the civil war and even did this to pile on the Texas v. Pennsylvania case last year. A big government, nuclear arsenal, and professional army won’t stop states at all. Look at the Soviet Union, they had the exact same traits and their secessions were illegal as well, it wasn’t cemented until the Soviet government gave up in keeping all 15 of the republics together and recognized the independence.
The us isn’t the Soviet Union, a few tanks would blast them to hell. Or it could brake out into full civil war
@Wiegraf I mean states can’t legally secede. So yeah either civil war or a small note in the history books about how a bunch of Texan independence fights got tanked
@@wallywallendo Look at the "union" now, then I ask you to rephrase this comment, are we really united? And does it matter if its "legal" if this particular state is no longer part of this countries legal system
Could you do a video on polarization and how it could get better?
US has been this polarised for decades, what you see now is just 5% of far left and 5% of far right people on twitter hating each other. The middle 60& aren't fighting like this. The problem is, media is pandering to the far-left and politicians of both parties are pandering to their extreme sides. On most issues, Abortion, Gun laws, Immigration, trade, military, democrats and republicans have been almost equally divided for the last 50 years (Pro-life VS Pro-choice has been around 50/50, since 1990s)
@@jaytilala7388 thanks for saying this. Our parties are more like loyalty brands meant for generating revenue. They are certainly not the backroom clubs for hammering out viable policy proposals: observe both the "shock" of two defecting Senate Democrats, or the factionalism in the House, or the void that was the 2020 Republican platform. We seem to rely on outrage to sustain a political-entertainment complex.
A video over polarization would be quite nice.
I feel with the current amount of polarisation it's a matter of when and how not if.
I like how America is so split in half, that even the two parties are split in half about secession.
It's pushed by Most to extremist from Democrats and Republicans. It's mostly a joke to a common person no matter the party.
The book "American Nations" gives a good background of how and why the US (and North America as a whole) could split up.
The book is more on the background than a prediction. Doubt any state can leave, even for a good period.
Just end the "winner takes all" system, that forces USA to have almost only 2 party dictatorship system, and you will be alright.
Words from EU citizen. Its unthinkable to imagine to live under a system that only give me 2 choices to vote, to not waste my vote.
The party i vote since 2001, got the first seat, just one in 1999, and today it gets 10% on national and local levels, not winning any territory, but has the 10% of the seats in the national level parliament, being able to vote laws and anual government budgets, and to propose laws as well.
Usualy the small parties are the ones that propose more laws, and 100% of the polemic laws, that the big parties dont want to propose, and usualy the big parties when pass polemic laws they claim to be under blackmail to pass the anual budget.... ;)
Here governments dont get the 50% to be able to govern in majority, governing alone and free...
Thats the power of the small "extremist" parties from 360° of points of views, have over the government...
USA its in a breaking point, only because are under a 2 party dictatorship system, not better than china.
At least the chinese dont pretend to be democracy.
USA are a 2 party dictatorship, both elected wings full controled by the not elected eagle.
Eagle, the true government that defines everything no matter what party are pretending to be government.
@Ana occasionally Mexico depending on the weather
@UCkLTcZ-yF-nuh_lPqiMjRLg The author also included Mexico since he contends that the border states of Mexico are more closely linked to the US (what he calls the nation of El Norte) than to the rest of Mexico.
@@paulperlock8949 no, es los estados del sul dos gringos!
The fact that there’s such a demand for this content probably isn’t a great sign.
Or a great sign if you support dissolving the Union.
Perhaps the debate needs to be had...
People need to realise that national unity is what it's about and not themselves.
@@Alisdair_UK how can we unite with people who hate their own nation? You cannot have unity if there is nothing to unify behind.
@@justfiddlinaround1128
I don't believe many Americans hate their own nation. I think Americans have embraced outrage and view their personal validation as more important than their country.
The people belong to America.
America doesn't belong to the people, but they FEEL that it does.
If you said to each person on the planet, "Go, create the perfect world." Most who took part would create a perfect corner to be proud of. The world probably wouldn't look any different than it does today...
NOW it seems that every little corner has to look the same as "mine" to validate my feelings of what's right to me and that it should be right for everyone.
Modern media culture has created a monster that thinks it's opinion is more important than anything.
Freedom has to be defined by boundaries, and it seems that people want to throw that away in favour of feeling validated, woke, whatever...
Freedom without boundary is chaos.
Perhaps we're about to make a mistake that we need to learn from.
@@Alisdair_UK I have to disagree. Did you not see the chaos that has been these past few years? The left has their own history, their own beliefs, and their own culture. They despise this country and loath everyone who disagrees with them. Heck, we don't even have the same national anthem. The only thing that "unites" us is our corrupt political system.
Secession is the most American thing a people can do. What do you think our War of Independence was? There comes a time when a people must separate from another.
The Declaration of Independence says, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I support Secession not only because I have nothing connecting me to the Left, but because I desire that my posterity might enjoy the same freedoms we are promised. It is not for selfish reasons, but in the defense of our beliefs, our religion, and our way of life. The Left will not stop until these ideals perish. It is our duty that we protect these freedoms for our children and to that effect, I support a separation. "I would rather have the Constitution without the Union, than the Union without the Constitution."
If this indeed does happen, surely it will be the biggest thing of the decade
More please!! 😊
I think this separation thing is just a pipe dream.
About the splitting of blue and red states : the big problem with this one is that the blue-red map is not that fixed. 20 years ago, George W.Bush still spent campaign efforts in California, Illinois and New Jersey. Such states as Iowa and West-Virginia were fertile ground for the democrats, while Colorado and Virginia were quite republican. Nowadays, the opposite is true (not to mention GOP winning governor's mansion and half the legislature of Virginia a few weeks ago). Also, Ohio, which was won by BO twice has shifted significantly to the reps, and the dems have gained ground in Texas. Missouri was once a bellwether, now it's solid republican. Arizona used to be solid republican, now it has two democratic senators. The list goes on. Who knows what this map will look like in 10-20 years ?
TLDR : even if polarisation is a major problem in the states, swing-states are still a thing, and breaking up over partisanship is not happening anytime soon.
Yes. Giving more power to each state is important. Americans also need more candidate choices.
The current conservatives don't know economics, while the current liberals like to gamble with cash and are becoming too radical.
Not to us Texans. Independence shall happen.
Secession does sound quite far fetched, but they need to get the rising political polarisation under control soon or there will be a lot of political violence. And if they can't get that under control, the next step would be a very messy Urban vs Rural civil war somewhat akin to the spanish civil war.
That still sounds pretty ridiculous to me, but America has surprised me over the last few years with its depth of division and anger and I wouldn't put it completely out of the realm of possibility
Secession is the only peaceful solution. This level of political polarization is what happens before violent civil unrest like what happened in the 1990s in the Balkins. Just end it peaceful now via secession
@@thedoctorairsoft6813 you are a based Texan. Dixie will follow you
hawaii hasn’t “flirted with” independence. it was a fully independent nation-state for nearly a hundred years before it was conquered
@@xunqianbaidu6917 same thing
Texas was also a independent nation, although the difference was that Texas wanted to be annexed/conquered unlike Hawaii.
@@threecards333 incorrect. Texas joined the United States because the Texan economy crashed, it was the best out of a bad situation, kinda like moving in with your parents
@@thedoctorairsoft6813 Texas is way stronger now though. Easily could be a strong country today
@@edwardward9972 not leaving anytime soon. We will invade
A canadian province and 2 US states unifying would be SUPER interesting
Canada losing their Pacific ocean coast :(
It is time to do this.
Your graphics on the California succession have £ instead of $.
Riiight. Secession, the thing that historically was always achieved by legal constitutional means and not by protests and partisan violence leading to, at first, an illegitimate state
Lol literally American history.
Dixie states and Texas should definitely go
“The empire long united must divide, long divided must unite; this is how it has always been.”
-Luo Guanzhong
See I believe that if America is to break up, it would break up more around regionality then it would specifically.
This would be a good while down the road, but the US is currently going through a 2nd Gilded Age, where is extreme uncurtailed lobbyist control policy making, over monopolization of the economy has stagnated wages and artificially raised prices on everything and we have an entrenched class of politicians mixed with the mass media of the time to keep the electorate divided so only or mostly those who are within this Greater Plutocracy are kept in power.
If America does not find another Theodore Roosevelt to this new Gilded Age then it will be a very uncertain future the longer this goes on.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 I mean I've never used reddit, I just study history for fun tbh. US regionalism has always been a strong binding trait of the US states then just State Pride.
It mostly does just break down to how reckless this Greater Plutocracy becomes, we could see a new type of US politicians that will actually try to do something related to potentially any of those key points I said before. Its all just speculation but right now the US is making one hell of a historical rhyme.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Well see the first Gilded Age in American history was already on the heels of both the Civil War's conclusion and the latter part of the Reconstruction Era. Many Southerners were still very bitter about losing and the clear North South divide was still very prominent.
Not only that there was always the speculation that if the constitutionalist party candidate had won the 1860 election that the very core of the abolitionist movement would have seceded as well which would have been the New England territory.
With the passage of time and a very interesting political development through policy making and the rise of the internet. Regionalism has actually trended upwards, you have the South, New England, the Great Lakes, the Prairie States, Cascadia and then you have the big three which is Alaska, Texas and California. There is also some unity in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico due to the strong influences of business tycoons in oil and gas along with the strong mormon influences around Utah and its border regions with other states.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Considering the divided nature of issues in American politics tends to be pretty mixed. Certain issues stick out more in specific regions than others.
There doesn't have to be people marching in the street saying "We are the Great Lake Sates and we want to be free" for there to be a rise in regionalism. Its simple demographics and geographic differences which change the views and alter what is important and what isn't.
A policy which is mostly beneficial or affects more in New England is going to attract more attention then say most people living in the Prairie States. Maybe the South and Great Lakes will be fairly the same but all in all there are distinct differences in what is and isn't important on a more regional level.
@@thewildwegonian92 By this logic, Regionalism is growing worldwide...and has always been there. There is always a divide between urban/rural, coastal/interior, and regions.
@@stephenjenkins7971 You are technically right but also wrong.
When I think of regionalism I'm talking about states or sub-divisions of leadership/organization within a nation.
States in the US, Provinces in Canada for an example. The US regionalism is linked mote to a geographic area around certain states and their main geographic features.
This is why I say the Great Lakes and the South would probably be similar cause their geographic make up is pretty much the same compared to the plains of the prairie states like the Dakota's or so forth.
Article 5 establishes that you don’t need the House or Senate to do this - all constitutional amendments have followed path 1, the full congress (both chambers) propose an amendment, then the states ratify it. But if the states are sufficiently motivated they can use path two - a convention for the proposing of amendments, which then go to the various states for ratification thus bypassing the federal government. This is there for exactly this case - the states are fed up, but the federal government won’t propose an amendment to limit federal power.
Article 5 convention is as implausible as the normal amendment process in terms of splitting up the US. Article 5 convention would require the full support of 38 states as the normal ratification process of 75% of state legislatures still applies. There is a reason why an article 5 convention has never been held and all constitutional amendments have gone through the normal process through congress, because the amendments had broad support from both sides of the political spectrum (or the southern states being barred from congress after the civil war in the case of the 13th-15th amendments)
@@mrvwbug4423 I don't disagree that it is implausible. But I believe there is a false equivalency between the levels of improbable. The US Congress will never initiate an amendment to allow the states to break off or even gain more autonomy. But the states have always had the power to do so. The problem is that you need the support of 38 states to do this and California + Texas just equals two. There'd need to be some reason for states like Kansas to really want to be independent before it could happen. I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime, but I'm not likely to be around in say 2050.
@@TysonJensen Dont worry Ill bring you back to life through future medicine or a being coming to earth
It's important to note that the "secessionist" movement in Alaska isn't like Texas or California. As it doesn't recognize Alaskas ascension to statehood at all, it views it as illegitimate. And is therefore not even really a secessionist movement, at least not like the others. Although, it was a territory and wants to go from that to an independent nation.
I strongly disagree that a *constitutional amendment* would be required for secession. A peaceful agreement between the state exiting and the national government would suffice. While there is no explicit constitutional power to leave the union, if the union decided "good riddance" then there is nothing else to do. It's a bit rather like a lawsuit - if neither side wants to go to court, there's no suit. Sure, some individuals might sue to try and block it, but they likely would not have standing. The only plausible people would be those "trapped" in the exiting state - and as long as they had the right to move "back" to the united states, then there wouldn't really be any issue. And certainly there would be no military involvement comparable to the 1860s, if the federal government was ok with the exiting state leaving.
This will never happen. Lincoln set an example, Biden would do the same. He’d invade the state
This is silly because I was born in a red state South Dakota, and live in a red state Texas, and I am a Democrat and there are plenty of other Democrats in both states that would NOT support secession. I guarantee you if gerrymandering and ranked choice voting ever take hold the polarization would go away and the center of the entire country would be stronger.
thats not how voting works at all.
first off supporting your states succession does not require a minority of voters to support it, it needs a majority so your opinion as a democrat in red states does not matter when it comes to succession with a political justification.
second off gerrymandering is a bad thing we don't want it to take hold as it creates safe districts that really shouldn't be safe.
ranked choice voting also has the opposite effect with the center squeeze effect making voting for centrist candidates a bad thing.
the best thing for american centrists today would to maintain our current voting system because as per durvergers law it brings the two parties closer to the center as they fight for control over voters.
the problem is americas center doesn't exist, 40% of americans identify as socialist while 48% voted for trump in 2020 but still both parties fight for control of center inorder to appeal to the remaining candidates that arn't guarenteed to vote for them.
what we need is proportinal representation so that everyone is represented and we need to dissolve america and replace it with a sort of EU alliance so that people from each nation within america can better control their area.
Just end the "winner takes all" system, that forces USA to have almost only 2 party dictatorship system, and you will be alright.
Words from EU citizen. Its unthinkable to imagine to live under a system that only give me 2 choices to vote, to not waste my vote.
The party i vote since 2001, got the first seat, just one in 1999, and today it gets 10% on national and local levels, not winning any territory, but has the 10% of the seats in the national level parliament, being able to vote laws and anual government budgets, and to propose laws as well.
Usualy the small parties are the ones that propose more laws, and 100% of the polemic laws, that the big parties dont want to propose, and usualy the big parties when pass polemic laws they claim to be under blackmail to pass the anual budget.... ;)
Here governments dont get the 50% to be able to govern in majority, governing alone and free...
Thats the power of the small "extremist" parties from 360° of points of views, have over the government...
USA its in a breaking point, only because are under a 2 party dictatorship system, not better than china.
At least the chinese dont pretend to be democracy.
USA are a 2 party dictatorship, both elected wings full controled by the not elected eagle.
Eagle, the true government that defines everything no matter what party are pretending to be government.
@@ricardoxavier827 Better than not getting a choice in the case of the EU. If you vote against what they want you need to vote again, and again, and again until you vote the way unelected bureaucrats want.
I vote more right wing and live in Virginia and have to deal with non Virginians flooding here from the northeast.
I don't support secession either. we can have discussions on politics and agree on a lot of things from Healthcare and lgbt rights to other stuff maybe, but if this nation breaks apart, neither of us will benefit in the long run
@@ColonizerChan If a "red/blue nation" split ever happened the blue side would likely end up much better off. The red country would be the midwest and deep south, its primary export would be agricultural products, you'd end up with something resembling the deep south prior to the 80s or so where the vast majority live in extreme poverty and the rich live gated off in their own little guarded enclaves. The red country would also probably impose racial segregation and end religious freedom for non-Christians in fairly short order. The blue country would likely see a significant improvement in standard of living and look like America does now, but with a higher standard of living and less polarization.
Wish I lived in a state where my vote counted. The representative government doesn’t represent me.
What do u mean ur vote doesn’t count?
You have a house of rep for your literal district
@@reiudfgq3vrh34ur you really think voter fraud doesn't exist and before you ask no I'm not a conservative. Voter fraud is a lot easier now with social media influencing everyone's view of the country and elections and let's not forget about corporations bribing politicians in order to get what they want.
@@sisigs4820 thats not voter fraud lmao u can still choose who to vote for lmao
I can see some version of this happening. The right vs left divide is only getting deeper, particularly among young people. A recent study of college students showed that over 70% of leftists wouldn't date someone of opposing political views, and almost 40% wouldn't be friends with them. The numbers on the right were a lot lower, but still concerning. C19 has amplified this lack of tolerance people increasingly have for anyone who disagrees with them on anything. States with intense restrictions are having serious issues with debt, education, crime, and unemployment, among other things. Meanwhile the rest of the country has been living close to normal lives the last year and a half. I've spent time in maybe 20 states since March 2020, and the differences state to state sure make it feel like you're traveling between two countries.
You would have to introduce your own currency and that could drop the state economy down. Also, with US having veto power on the UN means good luck being represented. No military and no nukes, and no trade partnerships which California will have to rebuild these partnerships. You would be a rich Afghanistan.
There may be secession, but it won't be states from the union, but areas from the states. These efforts have sprung up several times in the last decade. Most recently, the 3 western most counties of Maryland proposed seceding to join the neighboring state of West Virginia. Likewise, the eastern most counties of Oregon have proposed seceding to join the neighboring state of Idaho. California recently flirted with dividing into 6 states (meaning 5 new ones). These changes would be permitted under the Constitution provided the respective state legislatures and the Congress agree. Uniquely, Texas' admission to the Union specified it could subsequently divide into as many as 5 states (meaning 4 new ones). What fuels these efforts is the dominance of urban populations on a state, which leaves it's more rural citizens feeling both neglected and electorally powerless to have their concerns considered. I think there's a real possibility of these scenarios happening, especially if statehood is considered for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Politically, it's considered that both lean Democrat, and that all the other options would produce states that lean Republican. New states would mean two things: 1) 2 new senators for each new state, and 2) a substantial re-calibration of the Electoral College. These changes would influence the federal government in ways that may mitigate the rush to a dissolution of the Union.
That would be, interesting and favorable.
Me: Sees states getting ready to leave the Union
*Ah shit, here we go again*
Most states have a closed primary system of voting for presidential elections. This causes candidates to appeal to the extremist in each party for votes. Which in turn disenfranchised the independent voter.
I don't know about that. Maybe that's true for the Republican side but Bernie Sanders lost to Joe Biden who was seen as more moderate.
Even in the 2016 general election; Donald Trump was seen as more moderate then Hillary Clinton.
Although, even Trump in 2016 Republican primaries was perceived as more moderate then the Republicans he was running against. Of course, he didn't govern as a moderate
@@blindeagleace3629 yes I can see the point your trying to make. The caveat in these two cases is Bernie Sanders is considered a socialist. And the Democratic party knows this is considered a taboo word in American politics. Which is why Hillary push him aside in 2016, even so he probably would've won the primary he was unelectable in the presidential elections. Trump was and is considered to be an extremist, but not a religious man which is why the Republicans put Penn on the ticket with him.
5:10 The Hawaii independence movement has been happening since 1893, as it used to be its own internationally recognized sovereign nation.
I don't think this is going to age very well.
@Wiegraf exactly. It's going to start with some states banning abortion and some states unregulating abortion. People will naturally coalesce into areas and states that conform to their worldview and ideology. You'll start seeing states refuse to do business with other states and then we'll just naturally drift apart from there.
@Wiegraf I mean, the differences are going to be far more than just abortion but I believe abortion will be the catalyst.
@Wiegraf I agree that could also be a possibility. I can totally see some sort of legislative or constitutional crisis happening that would cause state secession. If that doesn't happen, though, I believe my theory might be the most possible.
This could also be named "States that should be broken into smaller states"
The short answer: No.
The long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Both short and long answers is to delegate powers back to the States
The splitting up is inevitable and already happening.
@@geoffreyharris5931 Citation, please.
@@attiepollard7847 nope, the reality is that economies of scale are backed _to the hilt_ by reality. You'll have a stronger central government no matter what you do.
It also doesn't help that the technological context has immensely changed just in the last two decades alone.
@Weston Muldune That just proves what popular opinion is, not that the process of secession is actually happening.
It wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment for a state to leave, though it is a bit tricky.
With the permission of the state involved, congress can take some or all of a state and make it into a territory. Congress can then turn that territory into a state (e.g. Maine, Vermont...).
Congress can also turn a territory into an independent nation (e.g. the Philippines). There is no reason that Congress, having turned part or all of one or more states to territories, couldn't release them as nations.
It is also politically possible if, say, the West Coast wanted to leave. WA and OR could be split at the Cascade mountains (the East of both states are quite conservative). Western Washington, Oregon, and all of California and Hawaii could form a nation, call it Pacifica for now, and Western Washington and Oregon would remain US states, with only 1 house rep but still 2 Senators. Republicans would trade 8 Democratic Senators for 4 Republican Senators and remove a net of about 40-50 Democrats in the House, plus make Republican Presidents much more likely. The support of all Republicans plus the Democrats in those states would make the law easy to pass.
Obviously it won't happen but I do think it's interesting how difficult it is for a state to leave the union in America. Talk about stacking the deck - its kinda meaningless to say that the states want to remain in the union if everyone knows that it's all but impossible to leave. Not really much of a choice for/against independence if it's conveniently not allowed
The factions are incompatible, the differences irreconcilable, the divides an unbridgeable chasm, a split inevitable.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 He LARPs and hopes for it, even if it will never happen
Why do I have the urge to play Kaisereich?
I'd say no but depending on the coming months will show where the wind is going.
There would be wars over territory and resources. In fact, this is almost certainly going to happen at some point
We successionists mainly support balkanization of regions not just separation between parties.
Looking at the thumbnail, yes, but that is the worst prediction for how the US would break up. If Texas finally left, many republican states would force Texas to let them join. I don't think it needs to happen though.
Yeah I don't think Arizona would join the blues.
I think the idea of a group of regional states seceding is more likely than just one state seceding. Being on the west coast, I feel like the country I’m more familiar with is west of the Rocky Mountains.
"So even if secession itself isn't a real problem, it's a symptom of one." That was deep!
There is no way the Midwestern States would side with the New England States.
Your British Citizenship shows in this one,
This is America : No one is concerned about Legality and procedures and forms and Bureaucracy when it comes to secession.
America gon’ America
Your insecurity shows in your comment
@@Honking_Goose 🤨
Yeah, I think it's a foregone conclusion that any secession will result in a civil war, so the question isn't really one of legality but of strategic military considerations.
@@costakeith9048 well said, and thank you for vocalizing my inferred point. The sarcasm and facetious nature of my original post is aimed at the fact that I was looking forward to tldr’s perspective on that and at the end of the video they said they wouldn’t cover it in depth.
Though it IS scary to live in America at times as the unthinkable is never far from around the corner.
Has NEVER thought less of one another *shows chart starting from 1978*
The map in the thimbnail image is reasonable. As long as their is trade aggreements for food and candy and other things.
American states: *want to secede*
The U.S Federal Government: HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TEACH THIS LESSON OLD MAN?!
Freeeduhm!
No! No! Not like that! You're doing it wrong!
Fed gov would get stomped in this scenario though
@Susan Wajicki Jokes on you, Im a pacifist.
@Susan Wajicki I see you passed your fist through my head.
Would be interesting to see a similar analysis on Russia secession, Turkey, UK etc.
Why did UA-cam suppress this from my recommendations? That's no fun!
It broke apart once. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened again.
Last time there was an outside global power close to usa, this time usa is the largest and other superpowers have their own regional agendas
As an American i will say this is the first I've heard of anyone talking about sessions no one on the ground working class even talk about sessions and I live in teaxes
Yeah. CHAD was never a thing right? Are you originally from SoCal?
Much as I like interesting lines on maps… arguably the UK is more likely to break up, or at least before USA
English independence when
Would like to see follow up video but about the differences in languages, and diasporas.
Let's hope so
EU viewer here, love all your channels and would be interested to learn more on the subject!
It's time they adopt proportional system. It will deescalate polarization.
History teach us that nothing is forever
A British person(where Ireland and Scotland are leaving) lecturing Americans on how their country is breaking apart. TOTAL DISGRACE
Succession is unconstitutional
What article In the constitution says that
Eh, it's unaddressed by the constitution either way. I say adding an Article 13 would make it more clear.
@@Andre_Hebert it was a Supreme Court case Texas V White
@@jcrosenkreuz5213 the Supreme Court ruled on it in the Texas V white case
@@highcouncil1302 That was like in the 1850’s/1860’s. I feel that it would be outdated!
It should be several different nations with an EU like Union. Four or FiVe based on regionality
Please do make a video on America's polarization
Imagine the the power vacuum and the ensuing international political/military scramble to try to fill it.