In “The Coming Reckoning,” we explored how the United States is fracturing and how that fracturing may be delayed or averted. However desirable it may be to many, perhaps most Americans, that the country remain united, a path towards dissolution appears as a possible avenue ahead of us. While there are countless voices predicting a coming civil war, that future is highly improbable. Frankly, you’d need parties that were really interested in that sort of a conflict and we don’t have that today in America. But we do have a deeply divided society and there are possible Troubles ahead which, though short of a civil war, could spell potentially years of social, political, and economic hardships that could lead to a dissolution of the country as we know it today. Those who work tirelessly to advocate for union will continue to do so and hopefully they will be successful.

This is not an essay about politics or a call to action. It does not advocate a progressive or reactionary, liberal or conservative position. However, it does address the reality of the situation we find ourselves in today. While news at the local level is generally positive with positive outlooks for the future, the national news is riddled with dysfunction. Some trends, like increasing crime rates since the start of the Covid pandemic, are alarming to people everywhere even if they themselves are not impacted. Other issues, such as Congress’s ability to pass some legislation but not others causes the population to lose hope in their elected representatives. And even though the greatest number of laws that affect individuals are passed at the state, county and city levels, many Americans read about dysfunction in Congress in the media and lose faith in the American system of democracy. Those issues are important, but they are not what this essay is about. This essay considers the possible future American dissolution that might result from current social problems.

If we were to imagine a single scenario which might lead to a dissolution and explore all those events, the discussion would certainly get lost in arguing the details of the scenario itself rather than the social soil which sprouted the breakup or of the consequences of the chain of decisions which this situation could produce. So rather than write a collapse scenario, I ask you, reader, to skip over the specific chain of events when any number of various events would suffice. And if it helps you to envision specifics, I invite you to fill them in yourself from among the myriad of possibilities. When considered coldly in light of actual events on the ground every day, what follows seems plausible. Sadly for many. With great anticipation for many others.

In “The Coming Reckoning” we considered the impact social media has on driving opposing opinions to the extremes and how this results in physically driving people apart through sorting into politically like-minded cities and even neighborhoods. As that happens, individuals see and hear what they already believe to be true politically, economically, and socially. The political progressives see large and bold government programs as a cure for America’s problems while political conservatives see state centralization leading towards the disasters of totalitarian states of the 20th century.

As Ezra Klein wrote in the New York Times,“policy lies downstream of society. Mandates are not self-executing; to work, policies need to be followed, guidance needs to be believed. Public health is rooted in the soil of trust. That soil has thinned in America.” In America today society at an overarching level seems to be so fractured that no coherent policy can be formed on a national level let alone executed. Yet, society on state, city and neighborhood level seems to be working just fine and even flourishing.

Those local societies are where school boards that aren’t in the news are unanimously passing curriculum, left, right and center, depending on location and social makeup. Many of those states, counties, and cities, are so successful that they belie the need for national policies apart from defense foreign affairs. That local success can in many cases make their populace feel independent of anyone else, evoking a time before social media and national news when society existed largely at the local level. And from there it is a short leap to imagine a time in which those states or regions accept a new normal without formal ties to other regions and states they already don’t pay much attention to outside the news except to be glad they aren’t there. So what might happen if the federal government continues to attempt to push national policy that goes against what society wants locally?

//////

Despite controlling the Presidency and both chambers of the US Congress, the Democratic Party is positioned to become the minority governing party in 2022. State redistricting maps have been redrawn in the decadal census allocation of House of Representatives seats to the States, and it doesn’t look good for the Democrats. Both FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times have good explainers about Republicans picking up the House. CNNexplains why the Republicans are likely to take back the Senate in 2022. The outlooks for 2024 are even more dire for Democrats and encouraging for Republicans.

To this electoral prediction we can add the very real problem of the social and political divide and the alarming acceptance by a significant majority of the potential necessity or justification for violence in support of political ends. A third of the country in a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll answered that it is justified for citizens to take violent action against the government (see question 12 in this link). The University of Virginia Center for Politics and Project Home Fire found results from recent polling that probably surprise most readers. Two thirds of both Democrats and Republicans think “emboldening and empowering strong leaders and taking the law into their own hands when it comes to dealing with people or groups they view as dangerous” is justified.

Perhaps more interestingly, the UVA poll found: “Roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.” People on both sides of the political aisle are increasingly seeing the country through a sectarian lens.

One plausible scenario for and American version of The Troublescould beginwhen one state governor and legislature decides not to comply with regulations directed by a federal department. That decision could lead to a cascade of events that could end with the dissolution of the United States of America as it is now constituted into several countries.

States have long chipped away at federal laws and the regulations promulgated by federal departments. States had wide variances in abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade. Yet since the ruling in 1973 some states have neutered ruling to the point of near bans in their states. Some states have declared certain firearms restrictions to be unconstitutional and vowed not to enforce them. And many municipalities declared themselves sanctuary cities which would not allow local law enforcement to assist federal agents with immigration enforcement. These and similar situations have a long history across states. But they have never led to a dissolution.

It is not only with abortion that states vary from one another and the federal government. California legalized marijuana despite the substance being banned by federal law. Now states across the country allow it not only medically but recreationally. Recently local law enforcement agencies in California and Kansas have seized cash from state-licensed marijuana dispensaries while in armored transit and tuned it over to the FBI in return for a “bounty.” How long might states be willing to endure that robbery and what would the consequences be for other businesses? States surely must ask themselves if the Feds are willing to coopt local law enforcement for theft and come into our cities during protests with non-uniformed federal officers as happened in Portland in 2020, what else can we expect in the future?

If a state decided to ignore a federal mandate, things wouldn’t fall apart immediately. Background calls between governors and the federal department in question would happen as a matter of course. Senators and Representatives would likely furiously lobby the Chief of Staff, the Vice President and the President himself to consider the macro consequences. Governors of other states might be asked by their state media to comment, which would likely lead to predictable pronouncements about the need for calm and national unity while preparing their own staffs for decisions they will have to make when their time comes to decide where they stand. Its easy to envision a group of states saying “enough.”

What if the President directs his staff to enforce the mandate? In our system of government, the President would be bound by the constitution, by history, and by modern politics to act boldly and not back down in the face of a challenge from a state or municipality. If that were to happen, the staff would likely explain to the President that he will have to enforce the order by force as several states could simply refuse to comply. The President, being in a position in which if he backed down would certainly lose moral authority as well as the next election, could easily be forced into calling in the National Guard. It would not be unreasonable to expect some state governors might order their state’s Guard to stand down. In this scenario, individual officers would have to decide where their red line is and whether they’re being asked to cross it.

In 2007, author Orson Scott Card spoke at the Air Command and Staff College in Montgomery, Alabama, to a class of 600 graduate students made up of US and foreign officers and government civilians. He began his talk by telling the class that none of them know if they really meant it when they took their oath of office. Many were indignant with jeers coming from the audience. He reminded them that Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet took the same oath of office they did and fought against their country. Card suggested that officers today ought to think about what event or circumstance would lead them to make the decision to go against their oath or to resign their commissions. It was worthy advice.

Should a President ever order the military to occupy specific states declared to be in rebellion, there could conceivably be a mass exodus by officers who refuse to be party to what they see as direct support to an autocracy. The citizens that thinks this would set off a civil war of competing military hardware are simply wrong. It won’t happen. Some sidearms and automatic weapons might go missing, but combat arms are closely guarded in armories. Nobody is taking a tank or fighter jet with them. No. They would just resign and decide which side they are on and where they will want to live. Many, however, might see this as their opportunity for rapid advancement and they will let it be known they are on the team and they will be given positions of significance for their loyalty.

The Troubles could spiral if other states in other regions also decide to resist. In that scenario, the military could be spread thin. The uniformed leadership would inevitably explain to the President that if the US couldn’t subdue Afghan tribes for a 20 year period in an area smaller than the size of Texas, they would be unable to maintain order when spread thin across the North American continent with supply lines vulnerable to attack.

Although there would almost certainly be widespread civil unrest as there was in 2020, all work and commerce would not come to a halt. Farmers would still plant crops. Food production in the big plants would continue as long as utilities provide power or their gas on hand allows their electricity-producing generators to run. Expect a lot of people to panic and withdraw cash from their banks, especially if there is a fear of power outages or cyberattack. We could easily see a mass exodus from inner cities to families and friends in suburbs and smaller cities. But likely most people would attempt to go to work and do their best to support their families. Businesses would do their best to coordinate with suppliers who would do their best to get their products to market. All commercial activity doesn’t cease even in long periods of uncertainty.

During the Great Sort circa 2000, people used information to relocate and move to live near people who thought like they did. That was the first time in American history that a large percentage of the population moved for socio-political reasons rather than purely economic ones. The coming crisis could turn the tables on the economic opportunity vs. social desire vs. driven-from-home migration rationales. There would be some relatively small percentage of people who move for political or social reasons. There would likely be a much larger percentage of minority populations that move for their own safety. In countries that go through civil strife, things get bad. Often really bad. But human needs must be met and while some would use that need as a target to be exploited, most of humanity will try to keep going.

Should these Troubles come, it is almost certain that everyone would have to declare where and with whom they stand. It is fairly easy to conceive of a dissolution of the united states into several new countries. Without laying betting odds, on the most and least likely outcomes, lets explore what is plausible if people on the West Coast, Acela Corridor and Heartland all come to decide that they’re fine with not being united any longer.

//////

In the event of a dissolution, the most plausible result would be three new countries, while the most interesting potentiality would leave us with five. This dissolution and confederation would not occur overnight. Many people would decide that where they live is where they want to stay and they’ll deal with whatever government succeeds just as they dealt with the previous one. But there would be some level of mass migration as states align with each other into the successor countries. That alignment would be as much based on differentiation from one another as on similarity with each other.

(Most Likely)

(Most interesting)

For some states it’d be easy. The very progressive states might well want to separate from those they see as a drag on their taxes and culture no matter how much they supply them with raw materials and food. The very conservative states would be happy to finally be rid of liberal Baba Yagas like AOC and Nancy Pelosi, no matter how little impact they actually have on those states or districts outside the ones they represent. But for the majority of states there would be very slow and deliberate discussions about which new country to join. Some states have very politically balanced, though not evenly distributed, populations. For many of those states, perhaps for most, the accident of their geography would determine how they align. For others on the new borders, they’d have to make a difficult choice that may either break the states apart or see a significant portion of the population move.

Lets start with the West Coast. If a dissolution begins, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Hawaii would likely recognize a common political culture, their common geography and their common Pacific international outlook and will come together to declare the new republic of Pacifica. This new country would be in a very strong position economically as it would become a top 10 global economy at its founding. It would be able to keep its tax revenues for itself and use that money for investment as it sees fit. This would likely be on green energy and climate mitigation and generous social support systems.

Alaska would likely be offered admittance to Pacifica as well. The most likely outcome is that Alaska would accept. However, there is a possible future in which the Alaskan people would decide this is not their best option. This new independent Alaska could be self sufficient in food, power production and technology production.

Should Washington and Oregon become part of a new Pacifica, its eastern counties may well vote to secede from those states and seek to join Idaho in a different country. Conservative Californians will find themselves in a familiar position of being outnumbered politically and tied to their land. They would most likely stay where they are although some percentage of them might pack up and move eastward to new lands. It is unlikely that there would be a great variance in either the people that wish to migrate out or the people that desire to migrate in.

Moving eastward towards the Rockies, we can easily envision a great debate among Idaho, Montana, Wyoming about joining together to form the American Redoubt or to join with Middle America to form a large new politically and socially conservative country in the center of the continent. Most likely the Rocky Mountain States would decide to join Middle America as a new country, but there would be a debate as to whether to form their own republic. So here is how it would look if they go it alone.

Begun as a philosophical and practical movement of like-minded people, the Redoubt adherents sought Puritan-like movement away from what they saw as a corrupt culture in Washington DC. What was once a fringe gathering of doomsday preppers grew to real communities as people moved from other parts of the country to ride out what they saw as the coming storm of political and social collapse. In any future dissolution, a great debate would rage in those states between long time residents that moved there to get away and the more liberally minded recent arrivals who cashed out on expensive homes on the coasts and started anew in the mountains for far less, bringing liberal values with them.

A great question would be where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico would want to align with the Redoubt. Colorado’s population mean has moved to the left politically over the last two decades and now politically identifies more closely with Pacifica. However, Colorado will be geographically isolated from Pacifica and it will be untenable for it to join as a satellite state. Utah’s Mormon religious and political culture more closely aligns with Idaho and to some extent Arizona. However Utah also strongly identifies with American culture writ large and is disproportionately represented in the military. It’s strong right-leaning political culture will ensure Utah does not join Pacifica, so Utah would most likely either join the Redoubt or work to convince Colorado to join the Middle America to the East.

Arizona would find itself with a three-way choice. Its political left would advocate to go with Pacifica. However, Republicans in Arizona would likely fight hard for that state to become part of a more politically conservative country to the east or to the north. Of the three possible outcomes, it is difficult to predict which way Arizona will go because there is a greater likelihood that Arizona would be economically strong with Pacifica. But in the era of spite we live through today, it is just as likely that the state will give up economic gain for political assimilation. New Mexico is fairly evenly split left and right. New Mexico would prefer to join with Middle America to the East but might be convinced to form a new country that spans the Intermountain West from Canada to Mexico.

Should that less likely but more interesting result be born out, the American Redoubt would be dependent on imports from the coasts just as those states are today. It would be self sufficient in energy due to its hydroelectric, crude and coal capacities. With Eastern Montana and Eastern Colorado farm land as well as the potato producing regions of Colorado’s San Luis Valley and southern Idaho, they will be nearly self sufficient in food as well. This new country would likely see net inward migration as many people who have the means to move would want to be part of a rugged libertarian country with low taxes and a very small safety net of public welfare. Most liberal leaning people who have transformed the Denver metro area and turned Salt Lake City from a dry city to one with a vibrant brewery scene would likely stay where they are. Of course many might make the political and moral decision to move and they would likely go West to Pacifica.

In the center of the continent we could easily envision the new country of Middle America. It would stretch from the Gulf Coast to the Canadian border. Its western boundary could be as far as Arizona or it could stop at New Mexico if those states and Colorado choose to go to the American Redoubt. The country would include the Dakotas, Nebraska and Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Within these states, there would be little, if any debate about which country they would want to belong. They would be Middle Americans.

West Virginia, and Indiana might feel more inclined to join Middle America but that would only come after a long debate about whether to stay in the United States. South Carolina could easily become a victim of geography. The people of the state would find themselves ideologically aligned with Middle America. But in the most interesting outcome, in which Georgia becomes an independent African-American nation-state, South Carolina would be geographically separated from Middle America and would most likely throw in with the remnant United States.

Middle America would be very much like the United States that we know today economically, but it would be a very politically conservative country. It might offer a social safety net but at a very low level. It would almost certainly restrict abortion almost completely. It could scale back existing voting rights and be hostile to special protections for minorities. Should those new laws come about, it would certainly make it a challenge for minorities, especially African-Americans to remain. Do not expect to see widespread hate crimes start as a result of the declaration of independence. Do expect to see the Black population of the deep south making calculated decisions on whether to stay or move. If their voting rights are increasingly restricted and social safety nets tighten, expect to see a large net outflow of the Black population akin to the Great Migration but in a much shorter time span.

Middle America would be a major energy producer in petroleum. Texas might decide to link its power grid with the rest of the new country. Petroleum and natural gas would continue to be refined for power generation and export. The new country would be a net exporter of food. The ports on the gulf coast could provide ample naval and commercial basing.

The successor United States of America would stretch from South Carolina up the coast to Maine, and arc west across the Great Lakes to Minnesota. It would, by the other states leaving, become a more liberal and more cosmopolitan country, albeit with many conservative pockets remaining. The country would see itself as free from the headaches that both the conservative heartland and liberal West Coast brought. It is easy to envision a theme of a new beginning based on the experience of the last 250 years to reframe the constitution for a new United States in a new era.

Perhaps the most interesting socio-cultural question is how Georgia will go. Almost certainly, Georgia and its Republican legislature would initially declare it belongs with Middle America. But that position could change rapidly if a Black reverse migration takes hold. African-American intellectuals may work to convince not only writers like Charles Blow, who moved to Georgia years ago and wrote urging African-Americans to move there, but working class and poor African-Americans to move there as well to found a country of their own. With a commercial and financial capital in Atlanta, plentiful natural resources and major port in Savannah, the experiment could finally have a cause for a tipping point of migration to make it work. As for size, there is no reason to think that Georgia is too small to be an independent country. It is nearly twice the size of Austria, of Hungary and Portugal as well. Plenty large enough to be its own country.

Certainly not all African-Americans from other states would move to Georgia. Many, however, would see this as an opportunity to finally be rid of the endemic racism they and their ancestors survived for generations. Of course this would also cause a reverse migration of White Georgians out of the state, but many others would desire to remain in place to be part of the experiment. Should the experiment of an African-American independent nation succeed, it would be a strong draw for African-Americans from the other new countries to move to.

However, it is highly unlikely that Republicans in Georgia would give up without a fight. It is easy to envision them making life for African-Americans uncomfortable. White Georgia Republicans might genuinely feel themselves at risk of ethnic cleansing and would see some point at which they would have to leave and move. Many might rather fight and we could expect real ethnic tensions and perhaps real violence to decide Georgia’s future.

//////

Which brings us to a final and important point. The successor countries to the United States would not only be countries, they would begin to become what the Unites States has never been, nation-states. The US has been a strong country since its independence. However, it has never fully become a nation with an identity shared by all. The melting pot and multiculturalism were aspirational objectives of what the United States could be but never accurately described what it was. The breakup of the United States could allow those successor countries to not only be states but more likely nations as well.

Although these scenarios, both most likely and most interesting, are remote, one key aspect of each is that there will still be an urban-rural split in the new countries. There will still be major cities from which technology and culture will emanate. At a more granular level that states, some people argue that the United States in practice functions more like medieval duchies centered on great cities and smaller cities and towns connected to them. Even if there was an American dissolution, these local cultures would remain and likely strengthen. So even if the US fell apart, peoples’ lives would go on largely as they do today.

For those fearing a full scale civil war, it will almost certainly not occur. There could be Troubles for a period of time from the initial trigger by the President as states resist, federal military and law enforcement try to maintain order and states begin to align into new regional blocs. It may occur over a period of three years or it may all be over in a year as calmer heads prevail after an initial period of riots and fighting.

The Roman republic foundered for centuries after its peak as did many empires since. It is quite possible, perhaps most likely, that the United States is not in danger of dissolution and will remain a global power. Or it may be at the beginning of a Romanesque decline that would see it retreat from a global power to a contented continental hegemon. While I don’t advocate for what ought to happen, perhaps a dissolution to multiple smaller, regional, more culturally cohesive powers would be a natural outcome.

If the United States breaks apart, the new countries of the former union would quickly begin to form their own new political and social cultures and would naturally diverge in many areas. They would remain fairly close in political relations with each other for the first several years. The basic sociology of family and friendship ties in what were once different states but would become different countries would be incentive enough for the new countries to maintain open borders with air and auto travel looking just like it operates today. Over time, however, the new countries based on formerly regional culture and politics would begin to diverge in how they see themselves and how they see the world. There would be great military and diplomatic implications for the continent and overseas as each new country works out its own alliances and reactions to previous treaties as well as their military structures and force posture.

How that might play out must be left for a future installment in this series.