By now, most have reviewed, or at least googled, Colin Woodard's American Nations.
It's possible that a few checked out Tim Draper's "Six Californias."
There may have even been interest in investigating the "Cascadia Movement."
There will certainly be more written on "Texit."
In all, those insightful enough to "read the tea leaves," may conclude that a separation movement will have it's origins in the West. This is fitting. The West has the most to gain!
A question that will emerge: "Would a President Hillary Clinton draw the line rather quickly? To states withdrawing from the union, wouldn't her response be, "not hardly?"
She would like to! Mrs. Clinton's historical demeanor would suggest that she would be outraged! But there are numerous considerations. Starting with, the military.
The armed forces are pledged to defend the constitution, not the presidency. The Secret Service holds that responsibility! It would be the high leadership of the United State's armed forces who might take the greatest exception, in the name of national unity. But, who is to say that the military leadership itself is not deeply divided? Smart money suggests that it is. If so, commissioned military officers might cast their lots with their home states. This would be a worst case scenario for Hillary Clinton and the states staying with her.
The Cascadia movement would attract a lot of disgruntled liberals. These are the Americans who have given up on the idea of "one country, one people." Dismayed and disgusted with the inherent corruption clearly evidenced by the Clinton machine, they would welcome a new life in a beautiful respite. Especially, when the government announced it's intention to use Huey Long's "Every man a King," concept to effectively turn six socio-economic classes into four!
For those unfamiliar with the former Louisiana Governor/Senator's proclamation that "you could be a millionaire," consider this. Long believed that every citizen was owed free public education, including higher education, and free healthcare. He asserted that "inherited money" was the "root of all evil." His solution: "Everyone was entitled to a million dollars, tax free." Over an above that went back into state coffers, benefiting all. For better insight, please reference T. Harry William's autobiography, "Kingfish." I would guess that Bernie Sanders has already done so.
Unlike Cascadia, the remaining California's West, North and Silicon Valley, might want to maintain ties with Hillary's America. This would largely depend on what happened with the Midwest. But, there is always the chance that they might decide to make it on their own, as Cascadia would seek to do. The final disposition of these twenty-three million people could remain fluid until much later.
Meanwhile, Clinton and cohorts would face three major considerations. The first is obviously the police and law enforcement agencies.
The surface impression suggests that men and women working in law enforcement would obey directives given. Their unpredictability stems from where those orders come from. Most are originated at the local or state levels. Thousands of local officials are visibly unhappy with the tone and actions of the current administration. Not much relief is considered forthcoming when assessing a Clinton presidency. These law enforcement officials are vital in quelling potential revolts. Thus, the motivation to nationalize the police forces.
Veterans nationwide are furious with the Obama Administration. Hillary Clinton does not represent a departure from current practices. Many of our Vets are aggrieved beyond words. Angering former military members is not a good idea. Especially when considering how many young people in arms would be influenced by them.
Scaring the Clinton's the most is "Armed America." The National Rifle Association recently estimated approximately 312 million firearms in the United States accounted for. At least that number are believed to be unaccounted for. Almost all these weapons are in the hands of roughly 30% of the population. It's little wonder why Clinton and the left seek rigid gun control measures!
Any efforts to subdue a peaceful separation of states by force could bring on a confrontation that would make the first Civil War look like a church social! Clinton's advisers undoubtedly would advise against a violent reprisal. After all, this isn't 1861. We no longer live in the "Age of Innocence." We have Television. We have the Internet. Most Americans simply don't care! To expect them to welcome a "bloodbath" is beyond reality!
Hillary's pragmatic Jewish advisory contingent would share the apocalyptic downside! This would be a "mano versus mano" war, left versus the right, winner take all. Being forced to vacate the continent would suddenly become a real possibility!
Isn't a half of a loaf of bread better than no bread? Depends on how you slice it! Not to mention, who is selling it!
Hillary Clinton's negative ratings are very high. Against Donald Trump, they are comparable. But, what about when comparing negatives to those of Rick Perry?
Perry represents everything that Clinton isn't. He is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. Rick Perry didn't have an indoor bathroom until age six. Unlike Clinton, he couldn't afford a fancy school back east. Instead, he attended Texas A & M on a ROTC scholarship. Upon graduation, he entered the Air Force, flying C-130's in 51 sorties!
Military men, especially former combat veterans, love Rick Perry. So do Christian fundamentalists. To them, a choice between Rick and Hillary would be a choice between good and evil; Christianity versus Secular Humanism; honesty versus corruption. It would represent choosing between Americanism and Globalism; a choice between an encroaching federal government and "states rights." Perry attests to being a "10th amendment guy," less we forget!
The latter consideration would be pivotal in determining the final outcomes of Colorado and Utah.
What about the East? Would Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia join their Southern Brothers? For that matter, what about those Midwestern States referenced in the previous post?
Before we go there, let us return to the West once more. Previously the sequence moved North, crossing the Canadian border. Three provinces exited Canada, creating a crisis in itself. It is highly probable that both Clinton and her Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau might summon the help of the United Nations.
For Americans seeking separation, the rage would be beyond words! Mrs. Clinton would be the "globalist," inviting foreign players to subdue Americans here at home. Ouch! Many would vow to "kill UN operatives first, asking questions later."
The new republic would waste no time in gaining recognition. Russia and Great Britain would likely be the first two nations to extend the welcome mat!
By now, I would anticipate every state west of the Mississippi, with the exception of Minnesota, the three non-"texiting" Californias, Cascadia, and Hawaii falling in. Hawaii's disposition would remain fluid, a final determination to come later.
Woodard's book defines Georgia and South Carolina as a mix of "Deep South" and "Greater Appalachia." North Carolina represents these nations, plus "Tidewater." Virginia is a mix of "Greater Appalachia" and the "Tidewater" nations.
Although small, Maryland represents three nations: "Tidewater, Greater Appalachia" and "The Midlands.Maryland's five western counties have recently made public their aspired separation from the rest of the state. Woodard's model places these counties in "Greater Appalachia." Many of the 500,000 residents have indicated a desire to join West Virginia.
The "Eastern Shore" of Maryland and the Southern counties, starting with Anne Arundel, are "Tidewater." So are Kent and Sussex counties, Delaware. Collectively, we have better than two million people living in these nineteen counties. Did I hear the word "Chesapeake?"
How the East will ultimately shake down is anyone's guess. But, the probability of four Southern States and a new Tidewater state, christened "Chesapeake," all going with Texas, is high.
Northern Virginia has three counties that are essentially "Washington, D.C.." A breakup in the Union might be to their detriment, but it would hardly matter. They would go with the rest of the state. Or, they would wait until the fate of D.C. itself was determined.
At this juncture, we are better than 180 million who have cast their lots with Texas and the new Republic. The end of the Exodus is not in sight.