With the breakdown of the family the perversion of many supposed Christian churches, we face the loss of our country. The Founding fathers indeed wanted religion as far away from the constitution as possible. The Founding fathers also recognized the need for spiritual guidance. This guidance comes from faith. In many conversations with my late father, we discussed the political situation in America. He told me it would most likely break into five or six smaller countries.
I looked at the map and researched the politics and resources of each area of the country. Here is my educated guess of how and why the break will occur, binding specific states together. First, there is the West coast. California, Washington, and the western slope of Oregon. This group we will call Cascadia after the Cascade Mountains in Washington. Each region of the new alliance will keep its original name corresponding to its original borders. The southern half of Cascadia will become a desert again; its only asset to the coalition is several port cities. Western Oregon and Washington have mineral and agricultural resources that can feed the fledgling country. Water is scarce in Southern California. It gets most of its agricultural water from the Colorado River. Water is pumped over the Sierra Madre Mountains to supply the cities and farms with water. The break up of the country would discontinue the water treaties between the Colorado River basin states and California. Other than its ability to import goods, it would become a ghost state. Most of the people in Southern California will venture north, where the climate favors growing food. This migration will strain the living area of Northern Cascadia.
Moving West, we have the Great Plains and southwestern States; we will call this country Heartland. It would stretch from Mexico to Canadian. The inclusion of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas is due to the sparse populations of these states. They have natural resources but not enough industry or infrastructure to be an independent country. Adding their resources to the rest of Heartland would provide economic and security benefits to these northern states. The Colorado River basin states Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona are prime agricultural states given the water from the Colorado and Arkansas Rivers. Both rivers are vital to the viability of the region. If the water now siphoned by California were to remain in the basin, it would replace the lost food production of SoCal. Kansas and Nebraska are currently the breadbaskets of the US and a significant part of the world; they would continue to produce grains for domestic consumption and export for hard currency. Oklahoma and Arkansas are here for their relationship to Texas, the economic engine of Heartland. I question if Louisiana and Mississippi would go with Heartland or with the new South. Both states could blend with either new country.
Heartland would be the largest and most productive country in energy and food. There are vast mineral and petroleum resources. Colorado has substantial coal reserves to feed the electric generation stations. Natural gas and petroleum are plentiful in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Eastern Colorado, Wyoming, and North Dakota. These states export energy, grains, and meats. Except for Wyoming, they are also at the forefront of wind energy generation. Louisiana and Arkansas have productive oil and natural gas wells. This group of states all have similar conservative political beliefs. There are large liberal cities in some of these states. Colorado has Denver, Boulder, and Ft Collins as its liberal hub. The rest of the state is conservative. It goes blue in elections because more than half the population lives in these three cities.
Great lakes region could bond together as a socialist country. The major population centers of Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis/St Paul, and other cities lean towards Socialism now, so it would be the logical progression for the citizens to continue along that line of political persuasion. The primary resource this country would have is shipping from the great lakes. To revive the Automobile and Steel industries, the new government would have to reduce regulations and onerous taxes. These industries could help rebuild the new country and give it significant economic leverage among the new countries.
The last three countries are the oldest states in the union. The original thirteen states are here. Starting in the north would be a country we call Victoria. This name comes from a book about a future where the US breaks into several smaller countries. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire would be Victoria. Vermont is a small state with 620+ thousand citizens; it produces the best maple syrup and maple sugar treats. It is also a large producer of granite and marble. Looking at New Hampshire, it is mainly an agriculture and forestry state. The state 85 percent forest, with about seven percent of its land dedicated to farming. New Hampshire has double the population of Vermont. Maine is a coastal state where Vermont and New Hampshire are landlocked. Victoria as a country has considerable forests and produces granite and some food crops. Lumber is the largest industry in this new country. Victoria could use the lumber for domestic projects and export it for hard currency.
Mid-Atlantic could be a prosperous country. New York and Pennsylvania both have a large landmass with many natural resources; removing the three largest urban centers NYC, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg, the rest of the new country is primarily rural. There are large cities in all of the states. This block of states contains more than half of the population of the US. Only Pennsylvania is landlocked; all other states are coastal or have a port city such as NY. Many ports from Massachusetts to Virginia provide ample opportunity to be a naval and marine power. Trading with Victoria for wood and the iron mines in Pa would provide materials to build ships. There are shipyards all along the coast. Shipbuilding would bring in much-needed hard currency for the new country.
Finally, there is the New South. West Virginia and Kentucky are the only states I doubt where they would fall between the New South and the Mid Atlantic countries. I doubt either state would go with the Great lakes country. West Virginia split along political lines shortly before the Civil War to not necessarily want to be in the same region. The mineral deposits in both states are valuable for many industries. The New South, like the mid-Atlantic, has several ports for import and export activities. The region's rural nature would give it the products to trade with the other countries in the former Unites States.
I have given my reasons for why I choose each state for each new country. There are a couple of questions about four states in the east and southeast. Other than these four states, I believe my guess or predictions are going to be good. None of the new countries will have the economic might to pay for never-ending wars. Cascadia would be vulnerable to attacks from Mexico, Russia, and China. The small border with Mexico, which is virtually open at this time, would be a very tempting target for the Mexican government or the Drug Cartels. A war with Mexico or the cartels could split Cascadia in half. I do not believe Oregon and Washington could be a viable countries on their own. A similar concern is valid for Heartland. The border with Mexico is porous, allowing invaders access to a large section of Heartland. Either Russia or China could stage troops inside Mexico in preparation to invade Heartland to gain its resources. I genuinely doubt Russia would undertake such a risky and expensive gamble. China currently has both the economic and manpower to attack a smaller country in the old US footprint. Alaska would most likely join Canada and become one of its provinces. Hawaii would become an independent country as it was before 1960 when it joined the US.
Let me know what you think. I am always open to spirited discussions.
