Sudan split of North-South should inspire similar split in United States
Congratulations to the Sudan on what is expected to be a splitting of the country. The votes are in on the referendum, but a considerable amount of time is needed to count the votes. But the prediction is pretty clear that soon, the South and the North will be two different countries.
The Sudan was one of many colonies/countries that the British formed into what it needed to be, regardless of the concerns of the population at hand. So there have been a number of problems between the North and the South.
So even though the countries will be smaller than the original Sudan, there will likely be much more peace in this area of the world. Yes, there will be a number of elements to negotiate, but once the vote is count, that process can begin.
The United States has been held up as an example of many different areas coming together as one, being an example to places around the world that have been thrown together or having a poor time mixing people of another country to that country.
Western Europe countries are having trouble with immigrants that don’t have the same color and background. Former colonies having different cultures thrust together.
But the perception of the United States by the rest of the world is just that — a perception. Within the United States, this feels a lot like how the Sudan is.
Each country has a Christian South that feels oppressed by the North. Both sides feel like different countries within the same borders.
And the United States might have the same kind of high turnout that the Sudan had for its referendum if Americans were asked the same question: “Do you want to split into two countries?”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry joked about secession, and many Southerners didn’t disagree with the idea. Northerners might think they are too PC to say it out loud, but if they could be free of the South, they might be up for doing so.
The conventional truth is that the differences were settled in the Civil War, which ended in 1865. The reality is that the South was able to keep black people separate for the next 100 years, and have worked hard to set a different way of life than their neighbors to the North.
The main reason why this won’t happen is that the perception of an united country is “more important” than having two separate countries that would be better off “doing their own thing.”
Southerners can keep education spending and have their “states rights” concepts. Northerners can take their money and spend it on infrastructure and public transportation.
And everyone would be happier about government and politics than they are right now.
Of course, the question of where the borders would lie, along with currency, defense spending, trade, immigration, and more would have to be decided. But with both sides eager for a separation, something will get done.
So which states would form the Blue America vs. the Red America?
Blue America — The New England and Midwestern states would definitely fall into Blue America (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN, IA). Logically, Blue America should include the West Coast (WA, OR, CA).
Even though they were border states, MD and DE should logically go in the Blue Column.
Red America — The Red America would get all of the original Confederate states (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, AR, LA, and TX). Since Virginia will be in, its textbooks can say there were 12 Confederate states, even though there were only 11.
KY, a border state in the Civil War, and OK are obvious choices to go red.
So 34 of the 50 states have obvious homes. And Blue America will have more states since some of the small ones will stay blue.
Continuity is an issue in the South as well as the North. You could easily put AZ in the South, but NM belongs in the Blue column. ID would seem to go Red, but that would cut off the West Coast Blue from the other Blue states.
Perhaps there would be a trade where Idaho gives up enough land so that WA can join MT, ND, SD.
CO is a logical Blue, yet is surrounded by Red (WY, KS, UT, AZ).
Despite what Gov. Palin thinks, AK makes more sense in Blue as does HI.
WV is another borderline situation, seemingly Blue but given its border scenario, could go Red.
NM might have to go Red for continuity, but giving CO for Blue might be a good trade. But for CO to fit in with the Blue map, NE might have to go Blue.
MO is another state that could go either way, but that might depend on which part of the state you reside.
So a preliminary Blue America could include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington. (29)
And a preliminary Red America would include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. (21)
There are a number of imperfections. Idaho would have to give up a strip of land, though it might be relieved to no longer get Canadian cooties. New Mexico might prefer to go back to Mexico than go Red.
Nebraska would want to be Red, and West Virginia might not want to be Red. And you could argue the merits of Missouri and Alaska being Blue and Nevada being Red.
The GOP House leader would be in the Blue and the Democratic Senate leader would be in the Red.
None of the Red would touch Canada, and the only Blue state to touch Mexico is California.
Better to have two happy societies than one miserable country where nobody is happy.