The CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank of note, has published some interesting commentary on the possible breakup of the American republic.  Excerpt:

Is America too big? Is it time to break up the U.S.?

A week after the November election nearly 700,000 Americans from all 50 states had signed 69 secession petitions as part of the White House “We the People” online petition system. The missives requested the administration to peacefully allow states to leave the union. One petition advocated permitting states which seceded to form their own nation. A formal White House review is triggered by just 25,000 signatures.

Although President Obama’s reelection sparked the cascade of petitions, advocates cited other grounds. Daniel Miller, president of the Texas nationalist movement, claimed: “This is not a reaction to a person but to policy and what we see as a federal government that is so disconnected from its constituents and absolute no regard for what its purpose was.” He added that “self-determination is kind of the underpinning to all of this — the ability to provide Texas solutions to Texas problems.”

One Texas petition complained that America “continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” in contrast to the state, which “maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world.” Many of the petitions cited America’s Declaration of Independence. Two state measures quoted Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” One petition spoke of the necessity of separating from “a tyrannical government.” A related bumper sticker proclaimed: “Secede! From the United Socialist States of America.”

This is not the first time this idea has been brought up; it’s not even the first time since 1861.  The one time it was actually tried, it led to the American Civil War (or, as Maryland and Virginia-bred Mrs. Animal prefers to call it, the War of the Northern Aggression.)  Would a secession today lead to war?  Almost certainly not.  Abraham Lincoln was determined to hold the Union together by any means necessary, and employed the full power and rage of the Union Army to do so.  Would any political leader today have the same testicular fortitude if Alaska or Hawaii, for example, to announce they were going it alone?  Or Texas?  The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue certainly does not, nor do any of his likely successors.  There are no Lincolns on the political horizon.

As the Cato article points out, following George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election, some on the political left were circulating maps proposing a split between what they called “The United States of Canada” and “Jesusland,” presumably on the assumption that all of their political opponents must be mouth-breathing religious fundamentalists as a matter of course. So the calls for breakup of the Union seem tiresomely connected to whoever won the most recent elections.

In conclusion, Cato correctly points out “Secession isn’t likely to prove a practical answer. Instead of breaking up the United States of America, people should focus on devolving authority to states, localities, families, and individuals. Rediscovering federalism should become the new mantra in Washington.“  While yr. obdt. agrees, there is not only no Lincoln on the political horizon, neither is there a Goldwater.  Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to all agree on the necessity of keeping the Imperial Federal leviathan well-fed, fat and happy even at the expense of future generations; “Federalism” is a concept all but forgotten in Washington.

The American Republic will end, sooner or later; every great civilization does.  The Cato Institute shares a name with a great man who saw first-hand the fall of the Roman Republic, and who took up arms in what proved to be a futile struggle against Caesar.  The American Republic is more likely, I think, to break up through apathy rather than conflict.  The breakup may well encompass more of North America; the U.S. already has what amounts to a failed Third World narco-state to the south, and Canada’s economic and political fate has ever been closely linked with the colossus to their south.  So what might a Balkanized North America look like?

One can easily picture five nations arising; the Atlantic Northeast, including New England, perhaps Canada’s maritime provinces, and likely extending west as far as the blue states of Michigan and Ohio and the Canadian province of Ontario.  The American Southeast differs politically and culturally from the northeast in a plethora of ways, and so would probably form a second nation made up mostly of the states of the former Confederacy.  The midwestern states would do well to form an alliance astride the Mississippi, where they would control the country’s best agricultural lands and the major water route to move those goods.

The Mountain West and Canada’s western provinces share a lot, culturally and economically, and if they could include the deep-water ports at Seattle and Vancouver they would make a viable nation.  And California?  It would probably be best for everyone else involved if the fiscal train wreck that is the Golden State were to just go its own way, sink or swim.

Alaska and Hawaii, in such a scenario, would almost certainly be left on their own.  Hawaii has a port that dominates the central Pacific and so would become a prime target for any resurgent Pacific military power; Alaska is remote, most of the state uninhabited, but it controls vast energy resources and could possibly survive for quite a while with an extraction economy.

Of course, that’s just one possible scenario of many.  I hope not to live to see it happen; I’m afraid my grandchildren will.