SHIELDS: A National Divorce Is in No One’s Interest Pt. II

by

Monday, November 29, 2021


The fact a national divorce will not eliminate the strife between red states and blue states is itself sufficient to demonstrate the folly of a national divorce. Nonetheless, because support for a national divorce grows by the day, a constant barrage of arguments against the proposed separation is necessary until it is thoroughly discredited. 

While my first argument against a national divorce centered around the continual strife between a Red America and a Blue America, the idea’s practical application should be decried for its absurdity.

There are many reasons the Union of the 1800s could not let the Confederacy secede, slavery chief among them. But the one variable that at least granted feasibility to the idea of secession was the clear geographic divisions between loyal and rebel states. The proposed confederacy was, geographically speaking, as ideal as a separation can be, for it was roughly known which states wished to leave and which wished to remain in the Union. 

The ability to do the same with a Blue America and a Red America simply does not exist. In 2020, Trump and Biden each won 25 states with Biden also winning D.C. Biden received roughly 81 million votes and Trump received roughly 74 million. Of Biden’s 81 million voters, about 28 million, or 34.6%, live in states Trump won. Of Trump’s 74 million voters, about 38 million, or 51.31%, live in states Biden won. Comparatively, in 1860, Lincoln received 1,865,908 votes. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, Lincoln received just 1,887 votes, all from Virginia. Had the rebellious states been permitted to leave, only 0.1% of Lincoln’s voters would have found themselves living in the Confederacy. If the blue states were to leave today, a majority of Trump’s voters would find themselves living in Blue America. 

This is a rather crude proof, unable to account for dissatisfied Republicans and Democrats, third-party voters, and other relevant categories. Even still, it illustrates the futility of separation. There are the obvious red states and blue states, but what of Purple America? Six states that went for Obama in 2012 went for Trump in 2016. Five states that went for Trump in 2016 went for Biden in 2020. Will these purple states be compelled to choose which America to join? 

Forcing this choice upon purple states ought to frighten any conservative concerned about voter fraud and political acts of violence. It shall be a dozen Bleeding Kansases all at once. The incentives to rig elections will be at the highest they’ve been since the days of slavery, and if there were to be a swing state who commits to Red America but possesses a large minority of Democrats or vice versa, turmoil will follow. For in picking a side, a state strips its minority party of all political power at the federal level. As this minority has a radical agenda forced upon them, there will likely be a desperate turn to violence. 

Thus, not only will this proposed national divorce fail to alleviate strife between a Red America and Blue America, it will also guarantee strife within both Red America and Blue America of a nature far more volatile and calamitous than the strife we face today. There are parts of Texas as liberal as California, and there are parts of California as conservative as Texas. Separation will not create political homogeneity where none exists. What are we to do? Redesign each state so that we have not only a Red America and Blue America but also a Red Texas and Blue Texas? A cursory glance at how the counties within a state vote reveals plainly the impossibility of this. 

There may very well be two Americas. But these Americas share states, cities, school districts, and neighborhoods. Even a single household can contain both of them. The audacious task of successfully dissolving the Union in such a manner as to allow the two Americas to be wholly intact, yet independent of one another, would make even the worst gerrymanderer blush. It cannot be done. Separation is as impractical as it is unconscionable. 

Jack Shields is a student at Texas A&M University. He is a history major and huge Dallas Cowboys fan, with interests in politics, religion, and philosophy.

The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.


Share This

About Jack Shields

Jack Shields is a student at Texas A&M University. He is a history major and huge Dallas Cowboys fan, with interests in politics, religion, and philosophy.

Looking to Submit an Article?

We always are happy to receive submissions from new and returning authors. If you're a conservative student with a story to tell, let us know!

Join the Team

Want to Read More?

From college experiences to political theory to sports and more, our authors have covered a wide assortment of topics tailored for millennials and students.

Browse the Archives