There seems to be this conventional wisdom that a secession effort on the part of a state would result in war. I’m not seeing why. There are several historical examples where that has not been the case, e.g. the split of the Czech and Slovak republics. There is a good way to avoid violence; don’t initiate it. And in any case, there are plenty of other political avenues besides secession that have yet to be tried. It may well come to that for some states, but its not the only strategy out there.
The reason any secession attempt will be resisted with force is that the US government has an unstated but clearly known doctrine that ‘secession is illegal’ pure and simple. Any attempt to break away will be violently resisted by any sitting president and he or she will have a lot bigger armed forces to do it with than A. Lincoln did in April 1861. How such an effort will end is another matter.
When the War of Northern Aggression began in South Carolina, there were many, many ideas in the Public’s mind that War was inevitable.
Again in the 1930’s the pervasive sense was that the USA was going to get sucked into another World War. So great was the resistance to such a fear, that the Isolationist Movement was very powerful.
Since then there have been no declared wars, and few massive public inevitability for war periods.
Now the USA does not have the money to fight any wars, let alone a newly formed Constitutional Republic.
Realistically, all Republics would contribute what they could spare to support a defensive Military that protected all Republics from FOREIGN aggression.
States would be responsible for their own borders except when potentially overwhelmed by superior military forces.
Splitting up the USA is all about the money.
After 80 years of Keynesian Debt Theory, the USA is broke.
Obama will end the USA, but America will survive in the various Republics.
The USA is so encumbered with Regulations, that the USA could never be put back together again.
It was all about the money - - -