Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-19-2014, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,193,158 times
Reputation: 16937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
The succession of Indian owned land is a very interesting idea thanks for telling me about it. Again though they might have trouble surviving financially.

What do large states gain by splitting in half?
The splits in California have largely been over regional culture. Historically its been north south. The first was just a few years after becoming a state. The people in norcal don't like the taxes for supporting socal and the ones in socal don't like paying for the whole state. They really do feel like two states, but are interdependent. The water in norcal supports socal. The money in socal supports norcal.

The most recent was a pick of counties sort of east west. The eastern side which was where the proposal came from, did not include Los Angeles, San Diego or most of Orarnge. They left the poorest counties on the east to join together. I have a feeling some losangelenos would say fine, DO it already.

Most of the time there are differing parts, either or both socially and politically, and the residents long to get their full way and don't consider that they are not going to reap any real benefit from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2014, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,193,158 times
Reputation: 16937
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
Thank you for such an honest post. Are you really sure that the southern plantation owners could not have found a way to free the slaves and still turn a profit? They may have made a little less but still been successful. What did they do after the war?

I do believe that everyone should have quality health care, as well as fair taxation laws. I think you are right that the anger people are showing should not be ignored. That is why I created this thread. I know that some of the worse poverty in America is in the deep south.
Maybe they could have. What came later was tenant farming. It was much like serfdome. A family had an amount of land and could live on it and grow crops for themselves, the land rent cotton for the owner. It actually proved cheaper and easier to maintain than slaves since most of the individual responsibility wasn't there. A child too young to work or someone too old wasn't their problem. This is exactly why serfdome lasted for thousands of years in many places.

But while most southerns did not own any slaves, and were poor themselves, and many slave owners may have owned one or two, the big wealth was in the large plantations and land owners, along with the the political power. And for them, slaves as property were their wealth. It was not in their possessions or land or crops but in the slaves they owned that enabled them to get the loans to produce crops. For them to lose *ownership* was to reduce them to cash poor land owners who could not get financing. The slave owning class was not the majority and the mass of them did not own plantations but socially those who did were at the top. This is how it had always been as their culture was taken from the estate based one of rural England, and so to lose status would take everything. Many of the old families started accumulating land and labor back when the labor was indentured whites so roots ran back far.

To lose the plantation with its chattle slaves was to lose the culture they lived in and the only one they knew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,511,716 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
This. There is no serious secessionist movement anywhere in the US, just the usual collection of ignorant cretins who are a few cans short of a six pack.
Alaska secessionists have real influence in that state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,511,716 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
The splits in California have largely been over regional culture. Historically its been north south. The first was just a few years after becoming a state. The people in norcal don't like the taxes for supporting socal and the ones in socal don't like paying for the whole state. They really do feel like two states, but are interdependent. The water in norcal supports socal. The money in socal supports norcal.

The most recent was a pick of counties sort of east west. The eastern side which was where the proposal came from, did not include Los Angeles, San Diego or most of Orarnge. They left the poorest counties on the east to join together. I have a feeling some losangelenos would say fine, DO it already.

Most of the time there are differing parts, either or both socially and politically, and the residents long to get their full way and don't consider that they are not going to reap any real benefit from it.
NorCal subsidizes SoCal, not the other way around. SoCal is an economic basketcase that would be in very deep trouble if the state split. The north could easily live without the south but the south could not live without the north.

Actually the most recent involves splitting California into 6 states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,193,158 times
Reputation: 16937
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
NorCal subsidizes SoCal, not the other way around. SoCal is an economic basketcase that would be in very deep trouble if the state split. The north could easily live without the south but the south could not live without the north.

Actually the most recent involves splitting California into 6 states.
It used to be the other way around, before silacon valley. If I had to live there again it would be in the far north with lots of trees and mountains over anywhere in socal.

Six seemes excessive. It would be rude shock for the residents of the newly minted small states to find out how it is for states which are small and don't pull much influence....

The thing about the east west split was virtually all the eastern part was sparcely settled and leaning more towards poor. The areas with money were not included due to their politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,533,637 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian71 View Post
Well, he's wrong. All the Founders understood that the states were part of a voluntary union that had a right to alter or abolish any government that because abusive of the people's liberties. It's practically spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which itself was a statement of secession from England. In other words, if we didn't have the right to secede, the United States would have never come into existence.

As to the original post, there have been secession movements all through American history. It's not just right-wing cranks, either. No one seems to remember that after the 2004 election, angry Democrats began circulating a map showing the states that voted for Bush as "Jesusland," and the states that voted for Kerry united with our neighbors to the north as "The United States of Canada." Even right now there's a movement in Vermont to establish a separate nation that would have a very liberal/progressive agenda.

Frankly, I'm all for it in most cases. The more power people have to control decisions over their lives at a local level, the better. Bureaucrats in D.C., 2,500 miles away, don't have any idea what happens here in Washington state every day, but people at the state and local level do. The question then simply becomes whether the secession is feasible. In my home state of Michigan, the Upper Peninsula has wanted to break away from the Lower Peninsula for years -- but it would probably never happen, because the U.P. is too financially dependent on the state government.

But out here on the West Coast, there's talk of having Washington, Oregon, and B.C. break off and form a new nation called Cascadia. And from an economic standpoint, it would probably work. We have Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom, and Costco all headquartered here, plus Boeing has an enormous presence. I remember reading that Cascadia would have a powerhouse economy rivaling that of Switzerland in GDP.

What drives secession? More and more, people are moving to places where they surround themselves with like-minded people. That ignites movements to address political issues that the federal government isn't taking care of. People desire self-determination. If those people feel that the government isn't responsive to their needs -- or, worse, abusive toward their rights -- there are inevitably going to be calls for secession. In short, the feds are bringing it on themselves, in most cases.

Sucession is a huge step to take , one the state may not be ready for, they may have more problems then they bargained for. I can understand political frustration but is becoming a new country the best way to solve it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,533,637 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by ackmondual View Post
Heck, that was a main motivator for the whole Revolutionary War. Some have pointed out that if England left the money of those of the wealthy alone, it never would've happen, at least not the way it did.




And using health care and insurance since you sort of brought it up, many businesses today try to skirt these as much as possible. There are complaints how the new Health Care law has caused businesses to reduce worker hours down below 30 to avoid having to comply with it, causing smaller wages to be earned as a result of that. Well, I still recall that business were reducing worker hours to 38 since back then, it was 40 where the employee was now FT and had benefits. Change it to 20... I have a feeling many workers will now be at 18 hours a week of employment.
That was Obama's mistake giving big business a way to get out of providing healthcare to it's employees based on hours. Not sure they have thought that through cutting the hours of employees will not make them very happy to say the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:42 PM
 
155 posts, read 273,795 times
Reputation: 75
Default Statues in Southern towns

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
It happened after Obama won the presdential election. And most recently Wisconson Republicans are threatening it at a convention.Why?

States petition to secede from union - CBS News

Wisconsin Republicans to vote on secession from the union next month [VIDEO] - UPI.com

Don't they like being part of the USA? Do they really think (with the exception of Texas) that they can financially survive on their own ? Or how weird it would be to partition America into separate countries?

I have studied a bit about the civil war though by no means an expert. It is a great tragedy in American history, over 600,000 lives lost . Entire small towns wiped out of a generation of young men. I was born in new england and moved to the south as a child. I do think many in the south still have strong feelings about the civil war.

The south made a big mistake threatening to secede and starting the war. They never had a chance against the north because all the weapons were manufactured up there. Cotten and tobacco are profitable crops but they won't win a war. The war lasted much longer then it should have because northern generals were stupid and made many mistakes and southern generals were brilliant and took full advantage of those mistakes, but that meant the war dragged on for years longer than it should have resulting in more death and suffering. Wouldnt the south have been better off just giving into the north's demands on slavery ? They ended up having to anyway and by then their towns were destroyed. It's all so heartbreaking for America

How do we finally heal from the civil war?

Why the U.S. Is Still Fighting the Civil War - TIME

Dixie Outfitters is still fighting the Civil War - Salon.com

4 ways we're still fighting the Civil War - CNN.com
When I was in the South (1n 1958) I noticed that the towns had an equestrian statue at the town square with a Southern Civil War hero mounted on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,533,637 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
Maybe they could have. What came later was tenant farming. It was much like serfdome. A family had an amount of land and could live on it and grow crops for themselves, the land rent cotton for the owner. It actually proved cheaper and easier to maintain than slaves since most of the individual responsibility wasn't there. A child too young to work or someone too old wasn't their problem. This is exactly why serfdome lasted for thousands of years in many places.

But while most southerns did not own any slaves, and were poor themselves, and many slave owners may have owned one or two, the big wealth was in the large plantations and land owners, along with the the political power. And for them, slaves as property were their wealth. It was not in their possessions or land or crops but in the slaves they owned that enabled them to get the loans to produce crops. For them to lose *ownership* was to reduce them to cash poor land owners who could not get financing. The slave owning class was not the majority and the mass of them did not own plantations but socially those who did were at the top. This is how it had always been as their culture was taken from the estate based one of rural England, and so to lose status would take everything. Many of the old families started accumulating land and labor back when the labor was indentured whites so roots ran back far.

To lose the plantation with its chattle slaves was to lose the culture they lived in and the only one they knew.
Isnt that what they called sharecropping ? And also the peasants in other countries in the past or the potatoe farmers working the English owned land in Ireland? Talk about a dead end job.

It sounds like most soldiers fighting the war in the south were dying for the interests of the wealthy minority . I recall an 1863 draft riot in New York over the issue of the wealthy being allowed to hire someone else to take their place fighting and dying in the civil war.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by vanguardisle; 04-19-2014 at 04:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2014, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,533,637 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
The splits in California have largely been over regional culture. Historically its been north south. The first was just a few years after becoming a state. The people in norcal don't like the taxes for supporting socal and the ones in socal don't like paying for the whole state. They really do feel like two states, but are interdependent. The water in norcal supports socal. The money in socal supports norcal.

The most recent was a pick of counties sort of east west. The eastern side which was where the proposal came from, did not include Los Angeles, San Diego or most of Orarnge. They left the poorest counties on the east to join together. I have a feeling some losangelenos would say fine, DO it already.

Most of the time there are differing parts, either or both socially and politically, and the residents long to get their full way and don't consider that they are not going to reap any real benefit from it.
Isn't California having a lot of financial and unemployment problems currently ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top