SEPARATION: Why and How to Partition the United States of America

Given current political and cultural clashes, we should ask whether continued union is the best option. Yet we cannot answer that question without considering other courses of action. Who am I? I am 70. I have a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from Fordham and one published book titled Aristotle’s Best Regime. I am not a member of any political organization. ~ Jeff Chuska


America is divided into two camps, the Reds and the Blues. (The names are based on the maps showing the locations of red and blue states.) The disagreements between them are numerous and profound. They hold conflicting and incompatible views on the following and more: abortion, climate change, the economy, the environment, equality, the family, foreign policy, free speech, globalization, government, gun rights, healthcare, human nature, human sexuality, identity politics, immigration, marriage, the military, race relations, religion, taxes and welfare. As a consequence of the irreconcilable beliefs of the Reds and the Blues, concord between them is impossible. And because concord is impossible, the two groups cannot live together peacefully.

The disputes between the Reds and the Blues show that the Americans have become two peoples in fact and two countries in effect. They now have two histories (1776 and 1619), two religions (Christianity and Social Justice) and two constitutions (the Framers’ and the Progressives’ versions). They also see the role of the country in antithetical ways. The Reds believe that the promise of the Declaration of Independence is a boon to humanity, that America is the inheritor of wondrous civilizational accomplishments and that America’s ways are such that it attracts people from all over the planet. For the Blues, the settling of America was a scourge to humanity, not only because the country has been a source of oppression but also because its prosperity has come at the expense of the other nations of the earth. No words will prevent the breakup of these two peoples.

This split is accompanied by an institutional imbalance between the Reds and the Blues. While the two peoples are roughly equal numerically, the Blues dominate most major institutions. They rule big tech, corporations, the Democratic Party, the federal government, Hollywood, the media, minority groups, the Pentagon, professional sports, public education, the publishing industry, part of the Republican Party, teachers’ unions, universities and Wall Street. The Reds holdings are meager: They run evenings on the Fox News Channel, a few magazines, part of the Republican Party, talk radio and the Wall Street Journal.

In spite of – or as a consequence of – the Blues’ domination of American institutions, the Blues exacerbate the fissure between the two peoples by, among many other things, denying that the Reds have certain rights. A sampling follows. 1. The Reds have no right to freedom of religion (Jack Phillips). 2. The Reds have no right to freedom of speech (Ann Coulter). 3. The Reds have no right to bear arms outside the home (Ninth Circuit). 4. The Reds have no right to due process (Mark Ibrahim). 5. The Reds have no right to govern when Reds win elections (Donald Trump). 6. The Reds have no right to take part in the education of their children (Loudoun Co.). 7. The Reds have no right to make a living (Cancel Culture). 8. The Reds do not have a right to be free from government surveillance (Tucker Carlson). 9. The Reds do not have a right to freedom from fear (Cassandra Fairbanks).10. The Reds do not have a right to freedom from assault (College Republicans). 11. The Reds do not have a right to freedom from battery (Andy Ngo).12. The Reds do not have a right to freedom from political persecution (1/6rs). 13. The Reds do not have a right to freedom of thought (Critical Race Theory classes for employees and students). 14. The Reds do not have a right to security of property (Mark and Patricia McCloskey). 15. The Reds do not have a right to life (Ashli Babbitt). 16. And the above shows that, for the Blues, the Reds have no right to equal treatment under the law. To the Reds, the Blues are a hostile, alien power who intend to batter the Reds until the Reds submit to Blue despotism.

The Reds seem to have three options. First, the Reds could submit to the Blues. They should reject this path. The Reds do not wish to be the subjects of the Blues (or of anyone); they want to be free. They also know that to voluntarily submit to despotism is slavish. Next, the Reds could try to dominate the Blues. They should reject this alternative, too. The Reds do not desire to dominate anyone, the Blues included. Further, the Reds would find it repugnant to dominate those who are as reprehensible as the Blues. Finally, the Reds could continue to wage political and cultural war against the Blues. They should reject this course of action as well. The conflict is a waste: It consumes massive amounts of time, effort and money, and it distracts the Reds from their goal of preserving and transmitting their history, religion and constitution.

A fourth option is necessary; namely, the Reds should separate from the Blues. And the first step should be this: The Reds should inform the Blues that they will neither threaten nor harm the Blues. They then will separate from the Blues. The separation will be voluntary, peaceful and agreed-upon, and it entails a division of the country between the two peoples.

The separation is a literal one: The Reds and the Blues should part from one another physically. The separation is to be voluntary: The two peoples should not be forced apart but they are to move away from one another willingly. The separation is to be peaceful: Neither people should engage in violence or solicit agents to do so. The separation is to be agreed-upon: The agreement to separate should be explicit. Finally, the division of the country between the two peoples will entail establishing a border between them.


Separation is unwarranted because the country has been here before. America was divided before the adoption of the Constitution; witness, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Framers split into two parties as soon as the Constitution was ratified. New England nearly seceded in 1814. The Confederacy seceded in 1861. And there have been deeply divided political parties since then. Nevertheless, no matter how vitriolic or violent the disputes, the country has survived them.

On the contrary, the country has never been here before. The Blues have never been here before: They did not exist in 1960 or even in 1990. For example, Liberals were defenders of free speech; the Blues censor the Reds. Liberals were defenders of equality under the law; the Blues deny Reds equal treatment under the law. Liberals were opposed to bullying; the Blues thrill in bullying the Reds.

There are other things the country is experiencing for the first time. Today is the first time in American history during which whites are condemned for being inherently defective. Today is the first time in American history during which it is regarded as wrong to praise the achievements of Europeans. And today is the first time in American history during which many Americans hate their country so much that they are destroying vestiges of the country’s past.

Indeed, today the distance between the Reds and the Blues is greater than that between the North and the South during the Civil War. Americans were not at odds about the sexes, marriage and the family during that war, yet today the Reds and the Blues disagree about how many sexes there are and what marriage and the family are. The Reds and Blues do not agree on what it means to be human. The Reds believe that humans ought to conform to a standard of goodness outside of man – as did both Northerners and Southerners during the Civil War – while the Blues believe that there is no standard of goodness outside of man by which he must be guided. Again, the Northerners and Southerners of that bygone era did not deny the existence of God; their disagreement entailed only the place of chattel slavery, if any, within the divine order. Now, however, while the Reds believe in God and in religious freedom, the Blues deny that God exists and they deny that religious freedom deserves protection.

In short, the country has never been here before, and there is no guarantee that it will survive the present schism.

Even if the country has not been here before, there is no need for the Reds and the Blues to separate. The way to heal the fracture between the two is found in the Constitution; namely, federalism. A return to the original federal structure can be realized by returning a number of powers presently held by the national government to the states (authority over abortion, for example). Also, within that older order disputes about such things as abortion were kept in-state. A return to federalism, then, would reduce the country-wide power that the Reds and the Blues have over one another as well as the number of country-wide powers over which the Reds and the Blues could contend. Restoring the federal structure would, in effect, result in a separation of the Reds and the Blues at the national level, and this would dilute the animosity between the two peoples and reduce the possibility of disunion.

Unhappily for the proponents of federalism, the present arrangement is the result of the rejection and destruction of the federal system by the elites. In order to restore it, vast amounts of authority over the following (and more) would have to be taken from the national government and returned to the states: agriculture, civil rights, crime, education, fisheries, forestry, health, horticulture, labor, manufacturing, marriage, mining, morals, ranching, religion and safety. One implication of the transfer of these powers to the states is that the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court would have to be expunged.

Further, there are no efforts being made to return to the federal system. Attempts to rein in or block the national government have been merely sporadic, and these with regard to specific issues only; an illegal immigrant sanctuary here, a 2nd Amendment sanctuary there. There are no signs that the national government will return a multitude of powers to the states: Indeed, all the evidence is that it will continue to aggrandize power. Nor are there signs that the states want to retake and wield the various powers which once were theirs alone.

For these reasons a return to federalism is not feasible and, thus, it is not a solution to the breach between the Reds and the Blues.

Whether a return to federalism is possible or not, the Reds must fight to keep their country. First, the Reds must fight a political battle. The prospects for retaking the House and the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 are good. Should this occur, the Reds will be able to stop the implementation of Blue policies and perhaps reverse them. The Reds, then, should focus on a short-term electoral strategy rather than fantasizing about separating from the Blues. Second, the Reds must fight a cultural battle. For example, revolts against Red-hating school boards have begun. Also, alternatives to Red-hating big tech are beginning to appear (Parler). The Reds, then, should focus on a short-term strategy to combat anti-Red institutions rather than day-dreaming about separating from the Blues.

It would be a grievous error for the Reds to focus on political and cultural battles alone. Even if significant Republican victories were to occur in future elections, the Reds know that they cannot count on Republicans to defend them because so many Republicans are Blues. Such a strategy also does nothing but preserve the status quo: Political and cultural battles, no matter the outcome, will lead to nothing but more political and cultural battles. Worse, more Red losses will occur in the mean time: More illegal aliens will enter the country, creating more Blue voters. Also, the focus on political and cultural struggles alone will distract the Reds from their ultimate goals – passing on their history, their religion and their laws – if not cause the Reds to lose sight of those goals altogether. And, again, such battles are an awful waste of time, money and effort.

The Reds should remind themselves that independence is more valuable than political and cultural warfare and that liberty is a better bequest to posterity than endless strife. Thus, while using some resources for political and cultural battles is unavoidable, it would be better for the Reds to devote as many of those resources as possible to pursuing a life apart from the Blues.

Whatever the Reds decide to do, they cannot separate because separation is illegal. First, secession is illegal. In order for Reds and Blues to separate, Red states would have to secede from the Union and then reunite by way of treaties, alliances or confederations. However, the Constitution declares – without qualification – that “[n]o State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; … .” (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.) Second, separation is illegal. In order for Reds and Blues to separate, the two peoples must divide the country between them. This entails, altering the borders of states as well as dividing the national territory and property. However, the Constitution states that changes to the borders of states can be made only by the legislatures of the states who wish to alter their borders and by Congress, and that only Congress can dispose of the territory and property of the United States (Article IV, Section 3).

Both arguments against separation are irrelevant. First, separation is not secession. Secession is a unilateral action, backed by force and not dependent on the consent of the political body left behind. Separation is quite different for it is voluntary, peaceful and agreed-upon. Second, separation does not fall within the confines of the law: Separation is an extra-legal act. Consequent to that act the Constitution is no longer in force and the United States of America is dissolved.

Separation, then, is not illegal.

Even if separation is not illegal, it is immoral. The democratic process has worked well for the Americans for over two centuries and it has led to one of most successful polities in history. However, that process requires a lot of work and can be messy and infuriating. By seeking separation, the Reds are refusing to engage in the labor the democratic process demands, thus revealing a lack of fortitude. Further, separation entails the theft of public properties – lands, parks, buildings, roads, waterways, a portion of the military – which the Reds do not own. Separation also will result in the theft of private properties – homes, businesses, farm lands – which the Reds do not own. Moreover, the United States currently has a relationship with almost every country in the world. Some of these involve trade, some travel, some aid, some military assistance, some cultural exchanges. But separation will create uncertainty about whether those relations will continue and what form they will take. Separation, then, will throw the international arena into disarray and this is reckless.

These criticisms of the Reds by the Blues are projections rather than accusations. It is the Blues who oppose the democratic process. They are attempting to establish a system in which they will have permanent electoral dominance (doing away with the electoral college, encouraging illegal immigration to enhance the number of Democratic voters, engaging in electoral practices and passing election laws which invite fraud). The Blues also refuse to participate in the democratic process unless victory is assured (the flight of the Blues in the Texas state legislature when they foresaw defeat on a vote on election rules). In short, it is the Blues who betray a lack of fortitude by trying to destroy the democratic process or by fleeing from it. The Reds are displaying fortitude by trying to create a new country.

It is the Blues who engage in theft when they lay claim to the public properties of the country. As citizens, the Reds have as much ownership in them as do the Blues. Further, the Reds have no intention of confiscating private property. The Reds will make all efforts to ensure that no property holder will suffer an uncompensated loss. Rather than being thieves, then, the Reds are being just.

And it is the Blues who are attempting to sow international chaos by causing other countries to fear what a separation might bring. The Reds, for their part, will have no difficulty avoiding the creation of international turmoil. Assurances will be given to other countries that treaties, contracts, alliances, assistance and exchanges will continue as before, and negotiations will enable all parties to manage transitions. The Reds are thus responsible actors rather than reckless ones.

Because separation will require the Reds to display fortitude, eschew theft and be responsible actors, separation is not immoral.

Even if separation is not immoral, it is unwise. First, separation will further damage the relations between the Reds and the Blues. For example, a separation will complicate trade between the different parts of the former union and thus increase the friction between the two peoples. Next, one separation will lead to others and it is impossible to foresee how many separations will occur or how much chaos will ensue. Finally, separation will lead to future wars between the Reds and the Blues.

None of these objections hold. For example, separation is the only means by which the relations between Reds and Blues can be improved. Rather than being at odds on a daily basis, the two peoples will maintain current trade relations while preparing for all sorts of future interactions (military, scientific, technological) and exchanges (educational, cultural, tourism). In short, the Reds and the Blues will be engaged in an array of cooperative enterprises which will reduce the discord between them or at least reduce its salience.

One separation will not lead to others, at least not among the Reds. It is the Blues who have divided the country into two in the first place by offering no alternative to the Reds but subjugation. Though there are disagreements among the Reds – a Red country will not be a utopia – they will not be as fundamental as their disputes with the Blues, reducing the possibility that further fractures will occur among the Reds. Besides, the Reds will have to remain united in order to ensure the success of a separation.

Nor will separation lead to a Red-Blue war. Separation is being undertaken for the sake of avoiding a war and, once separated, both Reds and Blues will have the same reasons for avoiding future wars as they do for avoiding a present one.

Separation is not unwise: It is the prudent course of action.

Even if separation is wise in theory, in practice it is too radical. Something less extreme, more moderate – more conservative (small, careful steps) – should be undertaken. Is it seen as wrong to praise the accomplishments of Europeans? Teach children the achievements of non-European civilizations and mention some European ones. Is it impossible to restore the federal structure? Begin to undo existing bureaucratic regulations and refuse to make new ones. Is fighting to keep the country an expensive and enervating enterprise? Revolts against Blue school boards have been conducted by part-time rebels with meager resources. In addition, the Reds ought to begin to build a Red society inside the existing country. They should start by buttressing basic institutions; families, schools, churches. These basic institutions should be linked with Red strongholds which are to be connected with one another: in business (Hobby Lobby), in the media (Fox), in publishing (Regnery), in tech (Parler), in higher education (Hillsdale). And a myriad of benevolent associations should be formed. For example, many Reds will lose their jobs during the separation, so the Reds should establish job bureaus for their unemployed compatriots.

While this plan appears to be conservative, it is not. It does nothing to dampen the disputes between the Reds and the Blues; rather, it allows the discord to fester. Nor does it reduce the institutional dominance of the Blues; instead, it allows them to retain that dominance. And it does nothing to protect the Reds from the Blues’ attempts to subjugate them; indeed, it enables the Blues to intensify their efforts.

Like federalism, this plan entails a partial separation of the Reds and the Blues. However, while federalism would enable the Reds to control entire states and regions of the country, this plan gives the Reds nothing more than affiliated enclaves – islands connected by causeways. The Reds could become more isolated from one another than they are now, and this would make them more vulnerable to the machinations of the Blues.

Worse, it ignores a sinister development. With the onset of the Wuhan flu, Blue state governors assumed the power to decide who has a right to make a living and who does not, who has a right to travel and who does not, who can be imprisoned in their homes and who cannot. As a consequence, some Blue governors became elected despots – tyrannical in their power, yet ruling with the assent of their Blue constituents. (On elective tyranny, see Aristotle, Politics, 1285a31-1285b4). Such governors might be but one emergency away from assuming limitless power to stem climate change, forge equity or combat domestic extremism. This also opens the way for elective tyranny at the national level.

The ‘small, careful steps’ plan is not a conservative plan; it ultimately cedes the country to the Blues. Because separation is a better guarantor of the preservation of the Reds and their liberties, separation is the conservative option.

Even if separation is not too radical, it is impossible. There is no way to separate the Reds and the Blues physically because they are too intermingled. There are many streets in the country – too many to count – on which an equal number of Reds and Blues live. This pattern is repeated in rural areas, hamlets, towns, suburbs, cities, counties and metropolitan areas. Then there is the psychological aspect of separation. For many, splitting up the country is unthinkable. Similarly, many people are so accustomed to thinking of the ‘lower forty-eight’ as one, unified whole that dividing it is most difficult to imagine. It also seems strange to ponder separating a people who, until recently, shared the same history, religion, laws and language. Finally, Americans customarily think of themselves as being ‘one nation, indivisible’.

Nevertheless, people also are used to thinking of the country in terms of regions. There is the old division between the North and the Confederacy. There are geographical regions (New England, Southwest), regions defined by bodies of water (Great Lakes, Gulf Coast) and regions defined by mountain ranges (Appalachia, the Rockies). And, lately, there are the Right and Left Coasts and Flyover Country.

Further, there are a number of people who talk and write about the widening rift between Reds and Blues, and a number of proposals have been made about possible responses to that split; civil war, fight to take back the country, renew federalism, establish Red enclaves, initiate non-cooperation or nullification or secession.

Moreover, maps proposing various ways of dividing the country can be found on the internet readily.

Indeed, separation already is happening. A number of Reds have migrated from places which are not hospitable to them to more welcoming ones. For example, Many Reds have moved from Blue states to Red ones (California to Texas, New York to Florida).

Psychological barriers to separation are being removed, then. (For more on physical separation, see 20. Migration below.)

Even if separation is possible, the Reds and the Blues should not try to separate because that attempt will lead to civil war. American secessions always have resulted in wars (the secession from England and the Revolutionary War, the Confederate secession and the Civil War). Second, the Blues will oppose separation and they will use the military to force the Reds to stay.

On the contrary, separation will not result in a civil war. As before, separation is not secession: Separation is a voluntary, peaceful and agreed-upon partitioning of the country.

Next, consider just war theory. If the Blues wage war against the Reds, would they be righting a wrong? No: The Reds are not committing a wrong against them, so there is no wrong to right. If the Blues waged war against the Reds, would the Blues be engaged in self defense? No: The Reds are neither threatening nor harming the Blues, so it makes no sense to talk about self defense. Do the benefits of a war outweigh the costs? Everyone can see that the result of a civil war would be horrendous; uncounted deaths, devastated infrastructure, destroyed economy. And all so that the Blues can lord it over the Reds? Do the Blues have legitimate authority over the country? No: The Reds and the Blues possess the country equally. Do the Blues have legitimate authority over the military? No: The Reds and the Blues possess the military equally; neither has the authority to use the military against the other. If the Blues order the military to attack the Reds, what is the probability that they would succeed in subjugating the Reds? Asked another way: What must be done in order to successfully pacify 100 million people? And what about this? The military is not uniformly Red or Blue. The part of the military which consists of Reds will not attack Reds. The portion of the military which is neutral between the Reds and the Blues will want no part of a civil war. And the section of the military which consists of Blues might balk at killing people who are no threat to them. Is war against the Reds the last resort? No: The Blues have offered the Reds nothing but subjugation and so they have done nothing to avert a war. There is an obvious way to conduct a peaceful separation which has not been tried – negotiations with the Reds.

There is no way for the Blues to wage a just war against the Reds. It follows that, if the Blues start a civil war, the world will know that the Blues are engaged in an act of raw aggression.

In conclusion, then: If the Blues do not start a civil war, there will not be a civil war.


The Blues can be divided into three groups. First, there are the Blues who wish to separate from the Reds; these will not need to be persuaded to do so. The second group of Blues are opposed to separation because they are driven by the desire to subjugate the Reds; these cannot be persuaded to separate.

The third group of Blues see advantages in both separating and in not separating. The goal of subjugating the Reds is to silence them, to render them politically ineffective, to – in effect – get rid of them. To accomplish this, however, requires great swaths of time, effort and money. The easiest way for these Blues to reach their goal is by separating from the Reds.

Still, these same Blues fear that separation will lead to a loss of population, resources, wealth, power and reputation – and the greatness these things bring. To this fear the Reds must reply that, if separation brings any losses, the Reds will lose as much as the Blues. The Reds also must inform the Blues that any losses will not be as big as the Blues think. With respect to population: When separated, while neither would be the 3rd most populous nation in the world as the USA is now, the Blues would be the 7th most populous nation and the Reds, 9th. With respect to resources: Any loss of resources would be offset by the fact that the Reds would be the largest trading partner of the Blues. With respect to wealth: In terms of GDP, while neither would be the 1st in the world as the USA is now, the Blues and the Reds would rank 2nd and 3rd, respectively. With respect to power: Even if the resultant armed forces of the Reds and the Blues were half of what the military is now, not only would they be the most formidable fighting forces in the world, the Reds would be the Blues biggest ally. With respect to reputation: No loss of reputation would occur as a result of separation. Quite the contrary: The two peoples would earn the world’s admiration for pulling off such a colossal feat. Taking these things together, it can be seen that greatness would be retained.

Separation enables the Blues to retain their status and to get rid of the Reds, and it leaves the Blues free to pass on their history, religion and laws unencumbered.

Partitioning the United States can be initiated in the following way. The Reds and the Blues will each get a map showing the Red and Blue states and counties of the country. Two things will be apparent immediately. First, the Red territories are much more extensive than the Blue ones. Second, the bulk of the Blue territories consists of islands surrounded by Red oceans. Questions and complaints about these circumstances will be made, and no doubt they will be the topic of extensive discussions. Both Reds and Blues should then begin drawing lines to get a rough idea of the outlines of the two new countries. Using a second map which adds purple, light red and light blue areas to the red and blue ones, each side will then redraw the lines to see what borders seem to appear. Both peoples should try to give each new country a border with both Canada and Mexico and ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as on the Gulf of Mexico. Also, both peoples should note whether any glaring advantages or disadvantages for either or both are emerging. For example, both should consider how travel by land, sea and air would be affected by the potential borders. Given the dispute about the southern border, the effects of partition on that boundary should be talked about as well.

Needless to say, many disputes will arise before, during and after separation. For example, given that many Blues will find themselves in areas surrounded by Red territory, questions will arise concerning travel. Attempts should be made to ensure the ease of movement by both peoples, and solutions can include things like leases, rights of way, corridors, swaps and other contrivances. Questions about the division of public property, financial assets and the military necessarily will come up and these should be subject to negotiations, too, as should questions about citizenship, currency and national capitals. It takes millions of minds to operate a country as large and complex as the United States. It will take millions of minds to operate two countries once the USA is divided. It is no surprise, then, that it will take millions of minds to negotiate the transition between the two.

While the Reds will have to establish a new government, most of the work has been done for them already. The territory the Reds will govern possesses towns, townships, cities, counties and states, and all these bodies have functioning governments. The only political institution the Reds will lack will be a national government, but it will not be difficult to form one. The legislative districts (or parts of them) for a new House of Representatives already exist. The districts for a new Senate, the states (even if some are shaped differently) also exist already. The means of electing a new President – the electoral college – is in place as well. And once a new President and Senate are elected, the members of a new Supreme Court can be appointed. The Reds will need executive departments, too. What departments to have, what their functions will be and what authority they will have will be determined by the new government. The Reds will be able to man the new government with Reds who are existing officers, with Reds who step forward to become officers as well as with those Reds who are officers in Blue territories but who will be migrating to Red ones.

As mentioned earlier, some will say that the intermingling of the Reds and the Blues will render the separation of the two peoples impossible. Some also will claim that separation, even if possible, is unfair and perhaps even tragic because, when the two groups are separated, many Reds will find themselves marooned behind Blue lines while many Blues will find themselves stranded among the Reds. Happily for the Blues who find themselves among Reds, not only will they not be harmed, their presence among the Reds will be tolerated – just as their presence is tolerated now – until those who wish to move away from the Reds have the opportunity to do so. However, the Reds who find themselves among Blues should assume that they will be treated roughly. Indeed, given the intolerance displayed by the Blues toward the Reds, it will be incumbent upon the Reds so situated to move away from the Blues with celerity. To this end, better-situated Reds will be obliged to help their friends flee from the Blues.

To see how migrations might be carried out, assume for the moment that a separation has been agreed upon and that the borders between the two peoples are understood adequately. Assume also that a Blue soldier finds himself on a base which will be in Red territory. The Reds will be obliged to help that soldier make his way to a Blue base. This assistance will consist, first, of the leader of the Red base making a list of the Blues who wish to transfer to a Blue base. Second, the leader of the Red base will make the arrangements necessary to transport the Blues on his base to a Blue base. Finally, the leader of the Red base also will see to it that the family and the real and personal property of the Blue soldiers are protected until the Blue soldiers are able to retrieve them. Likewise with Red soldiers found on Blue bases.

Many lists of this kind will be developed and exchanged during the separation, and they will include individuals, families, churches, businesses, public schools, universities, newspapers and other media, publishing houses, sports teams and federal employees to name but a few. Clearing houses will spring up in order to facilitate the numerous transfers and exchanges that will occur between and among disparate individuals and groups. These clearing houses could function in the way that employment and real estate agencies do now. Directories will be developed from the information contained on the many lists and gathered by the various clearing houses. These directories will facilitate the dissemination of information that the separation will require, and they could function much in the same way that the Yellow Pages have done. Many kinds of movers will spring up, from compact shuttles to caravans of trucks and trains. Crowd-sourcing, charities and low-interest loans are some of the financial devices which can be used to help those in need.

Two conditions must be met if the Reds are to successfully separate from the Blues. First, there must be a sufficient number of Reds to form a functional country. Roughly speaking, there are 139 million Reds and Red-leaning Independents in the country (111 million who are 18 or older). Now, there are about 85 million Germans, and Germany is a fully functional country, so there are more than enough Reds to form an operational country even if not all the Reds join the new state.

Second, there must be a sufficient number of Reds to mount a formidable defense against the Blues should the need arise. After all, the Blues have used and approved of violence in the past. Again roughly, there are 153 million Blues and Blue-leaning Independents in the country (122 million who are 18 or older). The Blues outnumber the Reds by 14 million people (and 11 million 18 or older). In both cases there are 91% as many Reds as Blues. So there are more than enough Reds to mount a formidable defense against the Blues should the need arise even if not all the Reds participate in that defense.

Author ~ Jeff Chuska
Submitted to Kettle Moraine Publications for publication, September 25, 2022.

3 thoughts on “SEPARATION: Why and How to Partition the United States of America

  1. TassieTyke

    An interesting conundrum, and a damned good attempt. However it raises more questions than it answers, naturally. I’m a very well travelled Anglo/Australian, and a political observer ( Staunchly Conservative ). I always wondered why are the Dems blue, and the GOP red, seems to be the opposite of other countries where labour, (the party of ‘free handouts) are red, and Conservatives, if you can find them, are blue?

  2. Pingback: SEPARATION: Why and How to Partition the United States of America — The Federal Observer | Vermont Folk Troth

  3. Peter O'Donnell

    I also considered partition or separation as a possible solution to what will otherwise become a nation in crisis. One of the aspects not discussed here is military. If (as assumed) the “blue” portion of the country inherits all currently existing aspects of government while the “red” portion creates new institutions, then the military would remain under control of the “blue” or DC government while many of its installations would be located in the red portion. The only way that could work would be to divide by agreement the military into two separate institutions and share the nuclear arsenal. We see what happened to Ukraine when it gave up control of a portion of the former nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union to Russia.

    My own thoughts about this topic led me to reject the workability of it. I think the solution would be in a new constitutional provision to balance representation in the Congress by a formula in which larger cities would have reduced numbers of congress representatives (the Senate would remain two per state). This would dilute the power of the cities which already have additional power through their municipal governments. It would also render fraud irrelevant especially if the voting totals in presidential elections could be scaled in the same way.

    At the present time we see the unfortunate results of having a federal government largely created to serve the wishes of the large cities and their populations, including many desires which are essentially fantasies, such as climate change, or a role for government in making everyone kind, healthy, and prosperous, without having to work or do anything useful at all. This may suit people in big cities but it will destroy the United States of America. And that would be a bad thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *