1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Independence of individual states

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Drone, Apr 25, 2016.

  1. Drone

    Drone Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is completely pie in the sky thinking and I doubt very much it would ever happen.

    But, with the UK voting on staying in the EU coming it, it had me thinking.

    What are the chances of a US state, or a group of states leaving the US and establishing on their own.
    I don't know the legal limitations for the possibilities of this, but humour me:
    • Which state(s) would be more likely to follow this path
    • Why
    • How would they benefit
    • Would the US benefit by losing a certain state(s)
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Texas considers it from time to time and currently is albeit not terribly seriously.

    Much further back various states in the northeast threatened it.

    There us nothing preventing it other than leaders willing to abandon the constitution to conquer the departed ones.

    The advantage for the ones with resources to do it is eliminating the parasitic suckling of wealth from them.

    Challenges involve access to the rest of the world. You basically need to have oceanfront and a harbor. You have to have resources to use or trade for the basics. Can't assume trade with the rest that stayed put.

    Disadvantages are you start from scratch working out trade agreements with everyone. You may have trouble if those places have to refuse due to us pressure. Ergo resources other places not only want but need.

    It could be fun though.

    Say the old CSA bolted again with texas in tow. They could survive it. The northeast could not (the real reason Lincoln had to get the south back).
     
  3. Walter

    Walter Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    174
    Location:
    Heart of Europe
    May I ask why?
     
  4. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    All they have by way of natural resources are steel in Penn and maple trees for syrup in Vermont and I guess lobsters in Maine.
    Mainly a financial services paying the bills and unless you're Switzerland that's hard to make work in an independent country.
    It's also why Lincoln could not lose the southern states.
     
  5. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343

    You don't know much about the NE do you? Ever been there? They have the fishing, shrimp, farming with dairies, orchards, timber industry, and the list goes on.

    Anyway, one might consider this:

    http://www.stateofjefferson.com/history/jtr1.htm
     
  6. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Ag is not going to support that many people.
     
  7. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343

    Try living without it. However, at the time of Lincoln, to which you made reference, the North was the industrial center of the country. The South had basically cotton, and cheap labor. The main reason Lincoln needed the South was for the coastline, shipping, and defense. He wanted united front.

    BTW, even today when we have such a low percentage of people in actual farming they provide for grocers, stock boys, trucking, restaurants, and numerous other occupations. Also, do not forget that the NE is the shipping center for the East Coast.
     
  8. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Lincoln's north required the cotton or those machines were paperweights.
    There are ports in the Southeast that can pick that work up further limiting their gdp.
     
  9. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343
    Not at the time of the Civil War, or Lincoln. The South supplied 2/3's of the worlds cotton, and foreign countries were far more dependent on the South exporting that cotton then the North was in receiving it. While 84% of the Southern economy relied on agriculture, only about 30% of the North's did. And foreign countries, such as Great Britain, relied heavily on "King Cotton", however, they did not recognize the South as a legitimate government, and would not buy from the South.

    You really need to study your history:

    https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=251

    The North was becoming a commercial, and manufacturing, economy, and by 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.

    Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.
     
  10. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    They made all those textiles with what cotton ?
    GB would not risk running c the blockade as they had sufficient stock and lack of supply made what textiles they made very valuable.
    The blockade made trade not happen but it also brought into sharp contrast the dependant nature the north was in relative to raw maerial from the south. Not to mention the tariff income.
     
  11. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343
    Again with the ignoring of reality, and the lack of knowledge concerning history. Blockade runners placed lots of cotton in British territory so there was no real worries. The North had plenty of wool, leather, silk, and linen, for their goods.

    But you think the only form of textile comes from cotton.
     
  12. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    As you know, blockade runners were not brits, large or useful after a year.
     
  13. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343

    Never said they were Brits. And while many blockade runners were captured, as the war went on, and more professional runners took the chore on, 80% of he runs succeeded. Of course, as the war turned against the South blockade running became less profitable, and more dangerous. You really need to study history.
     
  14. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,803
    Likes Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Wandering around
    If the bits wouldn't come, the rest didn't matter.
     
  15. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    343
    I know we are not supposed to get "personal", however,. your responses are more disjointed everytime you reply. If the "bits" don't come? The cotton was taken by the runners to the Btits on their held territories. If you had read the article I posted, and I know how you hate having to learn anything that contradicts your grandiose delusions, you would have known this.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice