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.
Lately, I've noticed more discussion on the subject of seccession from various quarters. Vermont has a fairly active movement. The South, of course, has its share. But now I've noticed talk has moved from the lunatic fringe into more respected quarters.
So, here's my question. Do you see the United States remaining a united political entity through our lifetimes? Or do you see different parts of the country going separate ways? And which states?
The South is an obvious choice. Places such as Hawaii, too. Before it entered the Union, Texas made a deal with the United States that it could secede anytime it wanted. Of course, we know that principle was tested by the Civil War. But what about the rest of the country?
Me? I think the country is getting far too large and far too diverse to be effectively governed from the center. All you have to do is look at the Red/Blue state divide. People in California and New York refer to the vast middle as 'Flyover Country.' So I can understand why this talk has taken hold.
So I'm guessing that the issue reaches a head sometime in the next twenty years, particularly as the Entitlement Crunch continues to grow to mammoth proportions.
It will happen sometime. Large countries like the US can't last. Rome, and the USSR for example. I'm hoping for Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to become a sovereign nation. We'd have seaports, lumber, minerals, oil, pretty much every type of climate from prairie to desert to evergreen rain forest, a large and educated population in the Western part, and hard working farmer types in the East, which could make it competitive in the world scene.
Just a hope.
I'm sick of being ruled by a capitol 1,000 miles away ran by Eastern know it all types.
I tend to agree. I would guess that the United States would probably split into several states:
California/Nevada/Arizona/New Mexico, with the possibility of Utah going it alone.
Texas
Louisiana/Arkansas/Oklahoma/Mississippi/Tennessee/Kentucky/Alabama/Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina/West Virginia/Northern Florida (Draw the line north from Fort Myers to Tampa, then cut due east to the Atlantic
Minnesota puts more money into Washington than it gets out. We would be happy to make a country with Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and the Dakotas and Missouri where they lay east and north of the Missouri. (Small exceptions should be made so that we get Kansas City and Saint Louis, but that way the border looks more natural.) Your could all buy our wind, water, corn and iron; making us wealthy. You could visit our beautiful cities and towns, making us even wealthier. My apologies to Mississippi and Alabama, but you have been holding us back for way too long. For a state that gets almost $2 from Washington for every dollar you send, you all sure hate the federal government.
South Louisiana, you have been getting screwed too. Take New Orleans, and the bayous and the Mississippi. You would have the oil profits of a small Arabian nation, and it would all be yours. Levees like the Dutch, money like the Swiss. If you seceed first, I'll even move down there.
There is too much movement in this country- more and more parody, less provincial thinking. e.g. People in my high school class scattered to many different states for college, since then, they've dispersed even more for jobs (yet they still cheer for the home team). Migration will continue- some of them will move back, yet many won't return. How can a state get enough traction when their population isn't overly rah-rah about the place- most live in cities and suburbs anyway, which are losing regionalism and looking/acting increasingly similar. This is different other, more static places- my Australian friend said that Australians usually go to college where they grew up and get a proximal job afterwards. Maybe that's similar to the Balkan area, but not the US.
Last edited by Ann_Arbor; 08-26-2008 at 01:05 PM..
I actually think the south is the least likely candidate in this day and age. California and the PacNW are pretty prime as would be Vermont and even possibly Maine. I'd think if CA ever left, then TX would as well.
I too think that seccession fever will hit in the next 20 years and perhaps take place in the next 50.
But why limit it to states. St. Louis is vastly different than rural Missouri. Northern CA is different from southern CA. I think the new "countries" should and perhaps will instead be centered around a major city.
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.
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.
