Should the Confederacy rise again?

[skadistic]

Because if the south were to leave the union it would take the new automotive industrial base with it. Ones that are owned by successful companies. The south also has the gulf and its oil/natual gas reserves. I'm just pointing out the oft over looked economic pluses the south has.

 

[Che Guava]

Halliburton just moved to Dubai for a tax break. Tons of companies move to get into a better environment all the time.

True, but keep in mind it's only the 'head' of haliburton that has moved, most of the jobs stayed just were they are.

A completly liberal socialist north would raise taxes to no end. NYC would surely not be the financial capital of the world. Many firms would surely move. I wouldn't be surprised if some European firms moved to the south also.

And yet NYC has managed to thrive in this supposed socialist-strangled state for nearly a century. I think state policies have a lot more to do with location of companies rather than federal impediments, anyhow...

The south would be a politically stable economically free nation. That is VERY enticing for wealth generators.

Neither the north nor the south would be politically or economically stable for years after a split. Too many 'what ifs' and unknowns...

Plus many of you are making the South out to be some poor farm land. Florida and Texas are two of the most important states as it is. Georgia is pretty strong. The Carolinas are pretty strong. The only real 'dead weight' would be the Alabamas, Missippissis, Arkansas etc. But the North has some dead weight in the MidWest also. And its not like Montana, ND, SD, Wyoming etc are really tearing it up also.

Not denying at all that there is much to be proud of in the south. There are, however, some drawbacks: infrastructure is not as developed, there are higher rates of poverty and functional illiteracy, etc.

Both sides of the split would have thier own problems, and I don't think anyone would really come out ahead.

 

[JohnRM]

Well thought out post John

Agreed. A new 'Confederacy' might have new core states, and old ones may stay with the Union if the seperation were taking place today.

Let us have a good look at the situation, as far as I know it to be.



Alabama -----------------: South (no explanation required)
Alaska ------------------: Independent (strong independence movement, oil)
Arizona -----------------: Union (lots of transplanted northeasterners)
Arkansas ----------------: South (no explanation required)
California --------------: Union / Independent (5th largest world economy in its own right)
Colorado ----------------: Union (too much defense infrastructure)
Connecticut -------------: Union (no explanation required)
Delaware ----------------: Union (lots of NJ, PA transplants)
District of Columbia ----: Union (Federal district, duh!)
Florida -----------------: Union (too many transplanted northerners)
Georgia -----------------: South (Atlanta's position is questionable)
Hawaii ------------------: Union (relies somewhat on defense jobs)
Idaho -------------------: South (lots of transplanted southerners and christians)
Illinois ----------------: Union (no explanation required)
Indiana -----------------: Union (would be forced into it due to railroads and highways)
Iowa --------------------: Union (see Indiana)
Kansas ------------------: Questionable
Kentucky ----------------: Union (Kentucky stayed Union in ACW, even with slavery)
Louisiana ---------------: South (no explanation required)
Maine -------------------: Union (no explanation required)
Maryland ----------------: Union (no explanation required)
Massachusetts -----------: Union (no explanation required)
Michigan ----------------: Union (no explanation required)
Minnesota ---------------: Union (no explanation required)
Mississippi -------------: South (no explanation required)
Missouri ----------------: Questionable
Montana -----------------: Union (too many nukes/defense)
Nebraska ----------------: Questionable
Nevada ------------------: Questionable
New Hampshire -----------: Questionable / Independent
New Jersey --------------: Union (no explanation required)
New Mexico --------------: Questionable
New York ----------------: Union (no explanation required)
North Carolina ----------: Questionable (attitude is very northern)
North Dakota ------------: Union (Defense/nuclear)
Ohio --------------------: Union (no explanation required)
Oklahoma ----------------: Questionable
Oregon ------------------: Union (no explanation required)
Pennsylvania ------------: Questionable (PA has a lot of independents & conservatives)
Rhode Island ------------: Union (no explanation required)
South Carolina ----------: South (no explanation required)
South Dakota ------------: Union (Defense/nuclear)
Tennessee ---------------: Questionable (lots of reliance on the feds)
Texas -------------------: South / Independent (I'd bet they'd go Independent)
Utah --------------------: Questionable / Independent (Mormons)
Vermont -----------------: Questionable / Independent
Virginia ----------------: Union (HUGE reliance on Federal jobs)
Washington --------------: Union (no explanation required)
West Virginia -----------: Questionable
Wisconsin ---------------: Union (no explanation required)
Wyoming -----------------: Questionable

The Union would be a lean, mean Liberal machine, yes, but why do you think we'd be more 'dangerous'?

Those with power, use it. It is not just the Republicans/Conservatives that go to war. In fact, true conservatives are more apt toward isolationism. Remember, it was a Democrat/Liberal that bombed Serbia, Iraq, and Sudan in the 1990s, as well as military involvement in Somalia.

It was a Democrat/Liberal that was at the helm during the lead up to and during the beginning of Vietnam. A democrat was at the helm when we nuked Japan.

The Confederate States would be much poorer than they are today, yes. But theyd be free to pursue their conservative agenda without encumbrance from the North, and the Union would be free to pursue its Liberal one. No more dysfunctional fighting and bickering between the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party. Free at last!

Not to mention, on further thought, that they'd have all of the nation's oil refineries, so the Union would be in a sticky situation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Maryland ----------------: Union (no explanation required)

Keep in mind it was only federal occupation of Annapolis and a few illegal house arrests that kept us in the Union last time. Based on your precedent in that list, I would reclassify Maryland as "questionable," we're pretty evenly split between liberal North and conservative South.

 

[skadistic]

Keep in mind it was only federal occupation of Annapolis and a few illegal house arrests that kept us in the Union last time. Based on your precedent in that list, I would reclassify Maryland as "questionable," we're pretty evenly split between liberal North and conservative South.

Outside of the DC metro and B-more its a conservative west and east and rural north.

 

[Shadylookin]

Halliburton just moved to Dubai for a tax break. Tons of companies move to get into a better environment all the time.

A completly liberal socialist north would raise taxes to no end. NYC would surely not be the financial capital of the world. Many firms would surely move. I wouldn't be surprised if some European firms moved to the south also.

without government handouts the south could not sustain it's low taxation rate. As far as state income taxes go they usually range from 3-7% regardless of the state. In fact arkansas highest tax bracket is higher than new yorks highest. http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html

The south would be a politically stable economically free nation. That is VERY enticing for wealth generators.

the south doesn't have the infrastructure. California's economy certainly isn't the most booming because it's the cheapest place to live. Even with all of our modern technology location is still a huge factor in where things flourish. Most foreign trade comes in through what would be union ports. Also is the south formed a national government they would still have to have taxes, and if they wanted to keep their standard of living it would have to be even higher than current federal taxes(which could now be lowered since we've lost the states that take the most in federal handouts)

 

[theimmortal1]

I think the difference is a few of you seem to be taking a snapshot right after the split. I agree the North would be better off right away. They do have more wealth right away.

Over time the South would pass them up. The OP and many of the posters were splitting it up by red state/blue state.

Many of you keep bringing up how the south would not be able to sustain itself w/o high taxes. Whys that? You are assuming we are going to keep a whole bunch of bs social programs. Isn't the whole point of the split would be for the south to go capitalist and the north socialist? The whole point of a capitalist state is low government interference.

With the infusion of wealth bigger cities will be born, ports will be born, trades routes will develop etc. It won't happen overnight but over time the South would surely pass the North.

Free nations do better than nations that are not as free.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I voted no.

If any or both of the resulting two countries were better than the original country I would support the split but I doubt that would happen and there is no way of knowing this before it happens anyway.

The 'South' and 'North' of the 1860s no longer exist. There is no big South vs. North vs. West rivalries anymore. Now it is more big city vs. rural/suburban rivalries if anything. I don't see how you could geographically make two countries with this division.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I don't know if it would be better. It would definitely be interesting to see and I think the competition, especially if the U.S. split up a couple ways, would probably be very beneficial culturally and economically.

World-wide though things might be heavily destabilized and the risk of a new American Civil War could be very dangerous.

 

[covok48]

Good point immortal. Also to provide explanation to the 'liberal cities bring in the wealth, conservative farms take it all up" argument, note that most of the tax revenue comes from individuals and businesses located in the suburbs of cities (limousine liberals like Ben & Jerry not withstanding), suburbs that more often than not vote conservative while most of the inner city (the recipients of such tax revenue) vote democrat.

Tax suburbanites enough and they will take their families and jobs elsewhere, usually where there's cheaper property, overhead, and lower overall taxation. Where would that be? Well the new south of course. Decaying northern cities/states, aware of their declining tax base will quickly realize that red-state/suburb revenue allowed them to entertain these socialist utopian ideas.

Suddenly those poor-downtrodden rural areas might have more economic activity while cities rot away from the inside? Need proof, compare city populations to that of the metro area (like St. Louis & surrounding suburbs). The secession of the South would expedite this process. Will it happen overnight? No, but people vote with their feet.

 

[Theige]

Yes. Rest of the country would be better off without that 3rd world area attached to us.

(We'll keep Virginia, North Carolina and Florida though. CSA can have all the other CSA states, including Texas)

 

[Leonel]

I don't like the idea. Rather an independant California + Oregon + Washington.

That's my plan.

 

[Shadylookin]

I think the difference is a few of you seem to be taking a snapshot right after the split. I agree the North would be better off right away. They do have more wealth right away.

Over time the South would pass them up. The OP and many of the posters were splitting it up by red state/blue state.

Many of you keep bringing up how the south would not be able to sustain itself w/o high taxes. Whys that? You are assuming we are going to keep a whole bunch of bs social programs. Isn't the whole point of the split would be for the south to go capitalist and the north socialist? The whole point of a capitalist state is low government interference.

well the democrats are far from socialists and the republicans are just hot air when it comes to being fiscally conservative. Give that the south would start at a disadvantage and it's history of being socially backward I don't think it could ever surpass the union in terms of GDP or gdp per capita. They may be able to surpass the north in terms of manufacturing but those aren't high paying jobs

 

[Perfection]

Would they reinstitute slavery?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Outside of the DC metro and B-more its a conservative west and east and rural north.

And apparently the southern part is so far out there it's not even worth mentioning.

 

[skadistic]

And apparently the southern part is so far out there it's not even worth mentioning.

Why no, no it isn't.

I meant in addition to those hillbillies down yonder.

 

[MjM]

Yes, than we wouldn't have Republicans.

 

[Babbler]

The future belong to larger, not smaller, states.

 

[Bill3000]

Yes, than we wouldn't have Republicans.

We'd still have the Midwest, which is thouroughly Republican.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, than we wouldn't have Republicans.

Then the most right-leaning democrats would become the new "evil," until they leave, and then the next most right-leaning people become the evil, so on and forth.