Um, I think you missed a 10 factor out on the calculation. At 1:30,000 the present population of the US would need over 9000 reps not over 900.

Interesting idea - I have two quibbles, one small and one big. The small one is I think Maryland should be in the South (read Countee Cullen's poem "Baltimore") The big one is that this isn't going to happen - because it would a) increase democracy (which the powerful don't want) and b) destroy a currently ruling empire. I don't think you can gloss over such a major fact of our present geopolitical situation by talking of "realignments". Just like Rome before it, the US started out as provincial republic and as it grew in power and wealth, it shrank in personal freedoms and personal integrity for its citizens. There is some inexorable force of history at work here, and I expect the demise of the American empire will follow a similar path to that of the Roman: barbarians at the gates, scary cults, the triumph of anarchy, and a slowly encroaching cultural dark age.

That's if the environmental apocalypse doesn't make the whole question moot.

Geez, you're right about the arithmetic. (And to think I was going to be a Mathematics minor in college.) It's even worse than I thought. I'll go back and edit the article, but I'll leave the corrective notes here.

In assigning states to different nations, I agonised the most over the northern border of the Dixie Confederation. Missouri and Kentucky were both disputed states in the Civil War, but having been to each of them in modern times, only the latter felt truly "Southern" to me. But then, maybe St. Louis isn't representative of the rest of the state. I was tempted to include Indiana, both for its right-leaning politics and the general Southernness of its southern population, but that would be too much gerrymandering. My first instinct was to include West Virginia, but I had to honor the schism that created the state in the first place. And Maryland was on the south side of the Mason-Dixon line, but it never seceded. But I think I will switch it. At least until we can have a referendum. {grin}

I do realise that this (or anything like it) is probably never going to happen. But the idea that our society has simply gotten to large has been nagging at me for a while now. And and when I got out the map to start breaking up the states, I was amazed at how easy it was to build new nations out of them (the redrawing of the Mason-Dixon line notwithstanding). All five of them have comparable populations, substantial natural resources, a bunch of vital major cities, even plenty of tourist attractions (which seems to be the industry that forms the basis of every state's economic development plan), plus there's an identifiable cultural "character" to each one. Heck, even the names were easy to come up with, based on how (I think) the locals think of themselves. Heck, there are even good 2-character country codes available for them! The whole idea just seemed so "right" that I had to go public with it.

Which of course means that if anyone tries to run with this idea, they'll have to disavow the origin of it. I don't think that a plan by "God's ex-Boyfriend" would go over very well in any region of the Untied States. {wry grin}

I recently discovered your BLOG, and it is wonderful to read your ideas, thoughts and observations.

I just wanted to add something about the state of Maryland. The reason Maryland didn't become part of the confederacy is because federal troops seized Anapolis right before the state legislature was about to vote (they would have voted to join the South).

The reason federal troops were sent to seize Anapolis was that the folks in Washington, DC realized that if MD seceded (sp?) from the Union, the capital of the Union would be INSIDE the Confederacy! Imagine the possibilities of how that would have affected the course of the conflict...

Anyhow, as a Yankee who lived and worked in VA/DC/MD for 10 years, I can assure you that MD would have been, and under your plan should be, part of the South.

Hey, keep up the wonderful writing. I really appreciate your work.

If we're going to daydream about breaking up the U.S., why just limit ourselves to state (or even international) boundaries? I would only include northern California with Oregon and Washington. I think climate and tempermentally-wise, southern CA would do better going with the southwestern states of Nevada and New Mexico, and even Baja Mexico. If I were being particularly fastidious, I would use the Cascade range as the north/south boundry for Pacifica, throw in Northern California, and head straight north across the Canadian border and add BC to a Pacifica nation. That way, eastern WA and OR, which frankly have more in common with the northern mountain states, could drift off to join Utah, Idaho, Montana, et.al.

Bruce: As you can see, I've added Maryland to the Confederation. As a northerner, I was always amazed that a state right next to the capital seceded, and the CSA (for a time) established its own capital so near the Union's. The fact that the rebels never took (or tried to take) Washington is almost surprising. Also makes you wonder how things would have been different if the capital had been put further north in NYC or Philadelphia, as many suggested four score and seven years earlier... would the federal government have been so anxious to keep it all together if they weren't facing the prospect of becoming West Berlin?

Don: I was trying to keep things simple and stick to just an equitable refactoring of the fifty(one) states, with their current borders. Otherwise, I'd cheerfully hand southern Indiana over to the Dixie Confederation, give southern Texas (at least) to Mexico or revive the Republic, let New America merge with the eastern provinces of Canada, make western Pennsylvania part of Heartland (Pittsburgh isn't at all New-England-y, is it?), give Hawaii its rightful independence, and let Alaska join Canada or go indy if they wanted. Go ahead and annex British Columbia if you'd like. I think Ontario would make a nice addition to Heartland (they'd love the revaluation of their currency), but I'd hate to leave the flyover provinces and northern territories all alone (since Quebec would certainly go sovereign while we're at this).

First, Maryland and DC are Yankees. To the North with them!

Texas and Oklahoma go to the South.

Nevada goes with Pacifica. (I know it seems wierd, but I just moved to Las Vegas from Albuquerque, and believe me, the overall Law / Political feel here is way more California than Arizona.) There's a lot of regulation here, as strange as that may sound.

I've thought about this very idea before (well, at the very least, the idea of the 4 corner states plus everything to the north seceding) and I've often thought that either Denver or Salt Lake should be the capital. Though, perhaps there's some merit to having the capital be a smaller town.

I don't know enough about the political situation in KS, NE, SD or ND to say whether they belong with the FSA or the Heartland.

Not that I expect success from a seccesion movement. More's the pity.

Don: Southern California is nothing like New Mexico politically. Nor Arizona, for that matter.

And we should just let Alaska do its own thing. Alaska for the Alaskans!

Forcing the independent people of AK to put up with the dictates of San Francisco wouldn't work. First of all, the Alaskans aren't going to give up their guns, as NoCal would try to dictate. Second of all ... well, I think the first one is probably enough.

Seems like no one wants MD. As a southerner, it doesn't belong here. The U.S. only keeps AK for the oil, so let them do their own thing. I've thought this for many years as well. TX and OK are not southern. Whoever suggested that was a Texan (no offense). For some reason Texans think they are southern because they fought on our side. The cultures are completely different. Texas should go solo and give everything 50 miles south of I-10 to Mexico.

By the way, I'm a southern libertarian who will probably move with the free state project to NH. I read the domain as god... sex... boyfriend and thought "what a bunch of demented fuckers"

Did you get this idea from John Titor's tales of the future? If you've never heard of him, do some reading online. The guy told an interesting story of coming from the future, and said that after the US second Civil War and then WWIII that the US became five distinct nation-states.

I've just done a little online research about Titor, and no, I hadn't heard of him before now. So I didn't get the idea from him. In fact, since he was (supposedly) from the future, I could argue that he and his future citizens got the idea of splitting the country into five parts from me. {grin}

I say give Alaska to Canada or make it a sixth country. It is huge, roughly 1/3 the size of the 48 states.

In my opinion, John Titor is a fraud. Then again, I have a scientific mind. I leave fiction inside the realms of books and campaign promises.

The problem with a single state seceding is that the federal government would not allow it to happen. Which government has the guns? Which states are allowed to have their own militaries? Guard does not count, that is joint state and federal. And you can bet your ass that as soon as rebels seceded, the federal government would activate whatever part of the guard did not secede to take back the state, not to mention active duty and reserve military forces.

You are correct, the federal government is bloated. Representation is a joke, and not just because of the numbers you quoted. Regulation, nepotism, and corruption are rampant enough to cause major issues. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the U.S. citizens know nothing besides the status quo, so they are unable to discern that something is wrong.

I am one of the few that realizes this country is screwed up and needs to be corrected before something really bad happens. While your plan is a pipe dream, I commend you for keeping that dream alive. After all, Franklin and Jefferson were dreamers. Look what they accomplished.

ok let me just say i think your right except i think that maryland and northern virginia should be part of the north. If you talk to anyone who lives in these regions they would be pissed if u associated them with the south. i know cause i live right outside of dc in virginia

Not sure if you've ever read Joel Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America", but it positted this very theory twenty-five years ago. As an earlier post noted, he ignored state and international borders and based his map on cultural and economic factors. Its out of print now, but a very interesting analysis of these ideas with a human touch. Sad, though, that in twenty-five years his ideas have garnered so little attention.

As for your Pacifica, Ernest Callenbach called it Ecotopia in his novel of the same name, in which The Pacific Northwest (from the Bay area up) uses nuclear blackmail to force secession from what it sees as a hopelessly corrupt and polluted nation and establishes an ecological new age paradise. Also interesting and worth a look to those intrigued by these notions.

By the by, I appreciate your initial premise that Lincoln got it largely wrong and we and the world would be far better off had he shown a bit more farsightedness, although it might be argued that he was suffering a hangover from the high heady days of European imperialism and feared the South might ally with the British in a two front war on the North after a period of time. Largely nonesense, though, given Britain's reluctance to help the South in general and Europe's feeding frenzy over Africa and South Asia at the time. In any event, interesting premises.

I think this is a great idea but there is the problem of Northern Virginia maryland and DC. These areas are traditionally southern but as jobs are filled by people from all over the country it is such a confused area that you couldn't associate it with the north or the south. I live in northern virginia (Falls Church) and consider myself southern as hell but many people who live here do not. People from the south don't think we are southern enough and people from the north see our southern traits and immediately associate us with the rest of the south. So, nobody wants us cause we don't fit neatly into any of the groups. So I suggest since DC is already its own entity that it should take in maryland and northern virginia and be a sixth nation. Maybe let us have Delaware as well because they are culturally ambiguous as well. THis sixth smaller nation could be the diplomatic homeland of the other five so that we can arrange trade, discuss disputes and keep the former capital in tact as a reminder of our common history. I think this would help smooth over any differences between the new countries so we wouldn't immediately break out into war. Overall though I think this is a great idea.