Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don’t know if I agree with your first and third points. Plenty of crops grow in New England, and there are the fish off the coast. There’s no guarantee that New York would want a hard border with an independent New England, so Fairfield County might still be ok.
Google is telling me New England produces about 10% of the food it consumes. And with 2/3rds of inhabitants centered on Boston, you’d have a country almost wholly dependent on the health and well-being of one city. It’s a recipe for a disaster.
And soft borders matter not when it comes to taxes. Most New Yorkers will find a new bedroom community.
Another point against New England is that the people don’t want to secede, unlike Texans and Californians. The New England Secession movement predates the civil war, and a lot has changed since then.
Google is telling me New England produces about 10% of the food it consumes. And with 2/3rds of inhabitants centered on Boston, you’d have a country almost wholly dependent on the health and well-being of one city. It’s a recipe for a disaster.
And soft borders matter not when it comes to taxes. Most New Yorkers will find a new bedroom community.
And California produces 15% of the food for the entire U.S.A., by far the most of any state. This doesn’t even include the food it exports. This, and countless other reasons is why California is the number one answer to this question. The thread really should be titled “After California which....”.
If you were to step back and look at this objectively there’s no other clear choice for number #1. Texas is clearly number #2.
And California produces 15% of the food for the entire U.S.A., by far the most of any state. This doesn’t even include the food it exports. This, and countless other reasons is why California is the number one answer to this question. The thread really should be titled “After California which....”.
If you were to step back and look at this objectively there’s no other clear choice for number #1. Texas is clearly number #2.
Well, again, it’s probably the South and then California. But those would be the top tier.
And California produces 15% of the food for the entire U.S.A., by far the most of any state. This doesn’t even include the food it exports. This, and countless other reasons is why California is the number one answer to this question. The thread really should be titled “After California which....”.
If you were to step back and look at this objectively there’s no other clear choice for number #1. Texas is clearly number #2.
If you are calling New England a potential country, and Dixie a potential country, I think you have to roll Oregon and Washington into California and call it the west coast. Seattle particularly as a high tech powerhouse should be included....IMO.
If you are calling New England a potential country, and Dixie a potential country, I think you have to roll Oregon and Washington into California and call it the west coast. Seattle particularly as a high tech powerhouse should be included....IMO.
That would also open up some water sources for California. If California bailed out, all that water they import would go away. I suppose their agriculture industry would adapt to the loss of all that water welfare but you're not raising cattle, almonds, and pistachios in California when you have to pay market rate for water.
IMHO it's the the Nation State of California. You can also expand it north to include Oregon and Washington and call it Pacifica.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.