Should the United States be divided into two or more independent nations?

[A18]

Secession, secession, where art thou?

[Frodo]

I thought this has been settled already. 

[Person Man]

Well, if it is determined that our nation is too large and diverse to be effectively run by one president and one congress.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Most certainly. Preferably five to ten nations, if not more, in order to dilute the power as much as possible.

[SPC]

I personally would prefer 300 million nations, but 5-50 would be an acceptable compromise.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

One Nation, Under God, Indivisible

No.

[ag]

Secessionists, secessionists, where art thou?

Bad grammar. "Art thou" is singular, and "secessionists" is plural - they don't agree.

[The Ex-Factor]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

[Torie]

One Civil War was enough.  We are one nation, and will rise or fall together. The end.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No, of course not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




E Pluribus Unem

Out of many, one. Not out of one, many as the liberal Multiculturalists love to misinterpret it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

And Mexico.

[The Ex-Factor]

Figures that "Hamilton" would suggest that.

For anyone who doesn't know what I'm referring to (last paragraph):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton#Quasi-War

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (normal) - it'd only lead to fighting over natural resources and stuff like that.

[Lief 🗽]

Let's kick out the South, let them devolve into a fascist banana republic, and then join the rest of the world as a civilized western country.

[Frodo]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

I read somewhere that there were plans by a victorious North to invade Canada which had served, during the war, as a conduit point for Confederate soldiers and terrorists to attack various northern cities.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

And Mexico.

I would rather wrought in hell then allow a North American Union. Borders are Borders that is that, and any such Union would qualify as Treasonable acts in violation of the Consitution and any politician who tries that crap should be executed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

I read somewhere that there were plans by a victorious North to invade Canada which had served, during the war, as a conduit point for Confederate soldiers and terrorists to attack various northern cities.

Yes and the British came vary close to forcing the North to the bargaining table by threatening alliance with the CSA. The French were also probably ready to ally with them in actuallity. Damn good thing the battle of Antietam was spun as a victory both here and abroad allowing Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation preventing any such European-CSA coalition or "Mandatory Arbitration" if you will . (Sorry couldn't resist the obvious conotations.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

And Mexico.

I would rather wrought in hell then allow a North American Union. Borders are Borders that is that, and any such Union would qualify as Treasonable acts in violation of the Consitution and any politician who tries that crap should be executed.

Just a point - if they were annexed, it wouldn't be a NAU, it'd be America.

[tik 🪀✨]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

And Mexico.

I would rather wrought in hell then allow a North American Union. Borders are Borders that is that, and any such Union would qualify as Treasonable acts in violation of the Consitution and any politician who tries that crap should be executed.

"Wrought in hell?" Nice accident, that. You are aware of how new States are added to the Union, eh? If Saskatchewan up and said one day that they'd like to be annexed, following the proper channels, old borders (a rather abstract and meaningless construction) are no reason not to add another star to the flag. That's not what the other posters were implying, of course, but "Borders are Borders" is basically an appeal to tradition (aka an impediment to progress). Borders always have been a fluid thing, "wrought in hell" as they be sometimes.

I know you meant a North American Union, as akin to the European Union, and I also disagree with the idea besides perhaps more open trade agreements among the continent's nations. But execution for proposing such a thing as the NAU is not executing someone for treason, it's execution for an idea (one that wouldn't fly to begin with). Perhaps you're exaggerating for effect, but exaggerating nonetheless. Tends to make you look silly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I personally would prefer 300 million nations, but 5-50 would be an acceptable compromise.

     Indeed, but the important thing here is reducing the power wielded by any one nation. Anarchy can come after that is done.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I prefer California be divided into a Bay State and a All the Rest state.

[Mechaman]

I personally would prefer 300 million nations, but 5-50 would be an acceptable compromise.

     Indeed, but the important thing here is reducing the power wielded by any one nation. Anarchy can come after that is done.

The idea of an America devoid of the evil State makes me very happy in the pants.

[War on Want]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




E Pluribus Unem

Out of many, one. Not out of one, many as the liberal Multiculturalists love to misinterpret it.

You're losing me here, what is so bad about Multiculturalism in the Information Age?

[The Ex-Factor]

No. We should annex Canada instead.

I read somewhere that there were plans by a victorious North to invade Canada which had served, during the war, as a conduit point for Confederate soldiers and terrorists to attack various northern cities.

I went looking up the history of American imperial designs on Canada and came across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

You must be logged in to read this quote.