Oh man, are you going to catch hell for this one.

While we're posting fun maps, check out these, from three U Michigan profs.

Gordie, would you care to expand further? I'm not sure what you mean.

Setting aside the FTS guy's obvious anger, he's got some interesting points. They're similar to the ones made in the book What's the Matter with Kansas? in which Thomas Frank asks the key question - why would states that have a net gain from the federal govt be so anti-federal? As Jon Stewart has been asking lately, why is it that New Yorkers - attacked by terrorists and surrounded by gay people - are not as afraid of terrorists and gay people as folks in middle America who haven't been attacked and have fewer numbers of gay Americans in their midst?

Look, I'm just pointing folks to the sentiments out there, not endorsing them -- but there's some compelling thoughts in there, once you get past all the rage.

Turns out the red-staters want a divorce, too:

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth... That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter.

Unfortunately, Blue Oregon wasn't included. We're part of the vastly expanded dixie!

Interestingly, here's the author's definition of the two Americas:

BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

("Is predominantly white..." You think he shows his hand in this analysis, or is it just me?)

Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have been clamoring for inclusion among the expelled on Daily Kos.

Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have been clamoring for inclusion among the expelled on Daily Kos.

Well they shoulda thought of that before they swung red! Jeez. They can stay with the other red states. Teach 'em a lesson. ;-)

As for FTS guy (and he's a guy - most women wouldn't call an entire populous "bitch," lol.): He's not a biggot, he's just pissed. Like Kari said, if you can see past the cursing, he's got some great points. Perhaps he should write a g-rated version for the easily offended.

As for the new "modest proposal:"

Of the states with poverty levels above the national median, all but two (and DC) are red states. There's no way they could make it on their own. It'd be interesting to see what percentage of the GNP comes from red vs. blue states. I'm guessing blue ranks higher. States with more money pay more for the welfare (lowercase "w") of poorer states. They could not survive without our money or our constant check-and-balance to attempt to protect their civil liberties. They just couldn't. One cannot survive on oil and tobacco alone...

They want us out? They think they can make it on their own? Heh, let 'em try. I'd be much happier if I were not ruled by the laws of a second Bush term.

I also think it'd be funny to have to have a passport to go to Las Vegas, but other than that...

OOOh and think of how many ports the blues would control compared to the reds. heheheh. The entire Pacific Coast and every harbor north of the Mason-Dixon... can we say tarrifs? hehehe. Takes a long time to ship stuff to China via the Atlantic. We would also control a majority of the US/Canadian Border. Now... if we can just infiltrate North Dakota (who are still very upset about their lack of tourism and wanting to change their name to simply "Dakota") and they come with us, the only way to Canada from a red state without going through a blue state is Montana... I really think we could get Montana eventaully, too. Then we'd pretty much have a strangle-hold on 'em financially and trade-wise. They obviously haven't thought this through and I'm getting a little too excited about something that's never gonna happen.

So anyway, to sum up - they want out? they want us out? OK. What petition do I sign to make that happen? lol. As the FTS guy pointed out, we wouldn't be turning our backs on what this country was founded on - we'd be going with them.

I hear you, cc, but it's possible they may have been suppressed, at least in Ohio's case. Everybody else is on the train: Pennsylvania can deport Tom Ridge.

Hold the **** up: Delaware and Maryland were SLAVE states? Could have fooled me.

How about a constitutional amendment in Oregon that directs the Governor to secede and negotiate the terms of secession with the United States government? And if we passed successful initiatives in Oregon and Washington, we could have a contiguous land mass that could easily join British Columbia. Canadians are nice, I bet they'd take us.

I've thought more about this and realized a few things:

<h1>1 - Ohio can come with us. They make Hondas there. Good industry. I'd also like to take Iowa. The majority of insurance companies (including my employer, so I'm a little biased) are from Iowa, Illinois, Mass., and New Jersey. We would control the life/health/property & casualty insurance markets (one of the largest industries in the country) giving us more bargaining power. Additionally, if we have the market share then we have a much better chance of getting rates to drop. Also excellent farmland in Iowa.</h1> <h1>2 - There is NOTHING that we need that we can't get/make in a blue state (except that pesky oil). To prove the point, I looked at the labels of everything on the table at the restaurant I was at for dinner tonight. Every single thing was made in a blue state - even the salsa, LOL.</h1> <h1>3 - The nuke thing worried me as well. As part of our secession agreement, we should split all nuclear reserves 50/50. After all, we paid for most of 'em. That will level the playing field and make the point moot (or, y'know, start another cold war). The other idea is that we can take the nuclear weapons and they can take the nukular ones. ;-)</h1>

As part of that agreement, we'd take the tax revenues and defecit on a per capita basis. Even though we should make Bush take the entire debt with his country, we can use this as an opportunity to prove that we're right and they're wrong and laugh all the way to the bank (and the well-funded schools, etc. etc. etc.). Hey that makes me realized that we'll be taking most of the Ivy League with us, too, won't we. Hehehe. They really shouldn't have pissed us off.

<h1>4 - We should have a two year open emigration/immigration contract so people who are in the wrong country can relocate hassle-free.</h1>

OK, now who's gonna start the revolution and where do I sign, send my money, etc.? The more I think about this, the more I like it. I really don't want anything to do with the right-wing freaks anymore. I don't want to lose my rights. I don't want to go deeper and deeper into debt. And if we have a new country, then Bill Clinton can technically be President again - as long as we have a grandfather clause for citizenship. ;-)

I'm going to take a moment here and just let all the incoming people who are Googling "Fuck the South" that most (but perhaps not all) of the comments on this thread are tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek.

Of course, just when I think all this secession talk is all just morbid joking, here comes somebody who's deadly serious. They've even got a flag.

Also, a legal analysis from Slate.com on the possibilities.

OK, with all of this talk of secession - joking or not - I have a question. Being not-quite-30, I don't remember a time when the country was this divided. History books and reflections in political climate of various times don't really touch on this sort of sentiment as, if it existed, it was obviously fleeting (unless, of course, a war followed, tons of people died, and slaves were freed).

Has there ever been a time since the Civil War where the country was so divided that there was talk of secession? If so, when and why?