Hypothetical - secession or war?

[blackangst1]

War in this scenario wouldnt happen, by design. Lets assume "the south" secedes. War requires really two things...bodies and weapons. Since the south would no longer be part of the union, that leaves federal armies (I use that term in a general sense) not available to them. So, it would be all federal resources vs state and local police. If push came to shove, the south would be slaughtered.

 

[DominionSeraph]

it's funny because it's Southern states that are, by and large, welfare states, sucking federal tax dollars from blue states.

good riddance I say.

This. It's funny that dali has bought his corporate masters' line and doesn't have a clue as to how things really work.
If the South were to secede, the Union would instantly have a balanced budget.
Texans and Floridians would be screwed. They barely pay for themselves, so to pay for the welfare states their taxes would have to go through the roof.

 

[Tom]

wrong. Back then the South paid 90% of all monies used to finance federal works projects outside of the South all while unwillingly protecting northern industry.

LOL. yea, I guess that's why the North's economy collapsed and their troops wore rags and ran out of weapons and ammo.

Oh wait, that's the opposite of reality.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Southern states secede, essentially becoming a red nation.

Northern states keep their blue ideology.

People who want to live off of others migrate North.

People who want to enjoy the fruits of their labor move South.

Hilarity ensues.

I don't think that it would really be like that...Southern states are generally poor while the other states are generally more wealthy than Southern states. Moreover, I don't think that the Southern states provide an environment where more intelligent people who want to enjoy the fruits of their labor would move to the South instead of staying in the North. For example, innovation would likely remain stronger in the 'blue ideology' areas than the South, just as it is today.

Though I think that people may move to the south if they want to exploit labor or resources.

 

[Chaotic42]

I think the South should be *allowed* to secede, but it would be a bad situation. Many of the southern states are relatively resource poor. Florida would likely split in half and the southern part would either become an exclave of the Northern US or its own independant nation. Texas would break away and become its own nation.

It might be sustainable if it were set up properly, but it wouldn't be.

Now there has been talk about the southern six counties of Mississippi splitting and forming its own state. That *might* be viable.

<-Lives on the Mississippi Gulf Coast

 

[Chaotic42]

This. It's funny that dali has bought his corporate masters' line and doesn't have a clue as to how things really work.
If the South were to secede, the Union would instantly have a balanced budget.
Texans and Floridians would be screwed. They barely pay for themselves, so to pay for the welfare states their taxes would have to go through the roof.

I'd like to see 2010 figures. Everyone pulls out the 2005 stats, but I wonder if that takes Katrina spending into consideration. I'd like to see it in a "normal" year.

Either way, my state is in a pitiful position on that list.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This. It's funny that dali has bought his corporate masters' line and doesn't have a clue as to how things really work.
If the South were to secede, the Union would instantly have a balanced budget.
Texans and Floridians would be screwed. They barely pay for themselves, so to pay for the welfare states their taxes would have to go through the roof.

What you assume is that the separation of the north and south would present difficulties for just the South. The South would reform with a different government and oil to finance it. A great deal of their energy needs would be domestically produced. The North would be faced with an energy crisis never seen before. In that scenario your tables are worthless. The slate is wiped clean.

 

[davmat787]

This. It's funny that dali has bought his corporate masters' line and doesn't have a clue as to how things really work.
If the South were to secede, the Union would instantly have a balanced budget.
Texans and Floridians would be screwed. They barely pay for themselves, so to pay for the welfare states their taxes would have to go through the roof

Perhaps, but they would only need to raise taxes through the roof as you suggest IF they wanted to continue to the welfare state systems to the degree you are suggesting. It would seem like if the south did secede, far greater states rights and lower taxes would follow, on the assumption that these more red than blue states. Interesting to ponder regardless.

Also, under this scenario, how much money from Gulf Of Mexico Oil proceeds would now be kept in the south alone? Could that potentially offset the disparity? I dunno.

 

[Red Dawn]

Perhaps, but they would only need to raise taxes through the roof as you suggest IF they wanted to continue to the welfare state systems to the degree you are suggesting. It would seem like if the south did secede, far greater states rights and lower taxes would follow, on the assumption that these more red than blue states. Interesting to ponder regardless.

Also, under this scenario, how much money from Gulf Of Mexico Oil proceeds would now be kept in the south alone? Could that potentially offset the disparity? I dunno.

If they Nationalize the Industry

 

[davmat787]

If they Nationalize the Industry

According to wikipedia, the US receives 25% of its oil from the Gulf. Would the federal taxes currently going to DC now go to the southern form of federal government in this scenario? Even if the companies are owned outside of the new south, I am sure much of the tax revenue would now stay in the south. How much this would offset, I don't know. All I am saying is that much of the tax revenue would now stay in the south, am I missing something?

 

[fskimospy]

What you assume is that the separation of the north and south would present difficulties for just the South. The South would reform with a different government and oil to finance it. A great deal of their energy needs would be domestically produced. The North would be faced with an energy crisis never seen before. In that scenario your tables are worthless. The slate is wiped clean.

Why would the North face an energy crisis? Would the South no longer sell oil to the North? Would oil cease to be a global commodity? What basis is there for this energy crisis?

 

[Zebo]

South talks a lot of shit but what would they do without their welfare payments? I guess try and reconstitute slavery?

 

[davmat787]

Why would the North face an energy crisis? Would the South no longer sell oil to the North? Would oil cease to be a global commodity? What basis is there for this energy crisis?

And if the south sold oil to the north, how much more tax revenue would then stay in the southern states vs. going to DC? And how much of this would offset current discrepancies?

 

[JSt0rm]

There would be no energy crisis. We buy on a global market and those peasants in the southern states would still need to sell their oil.

 

[irishScott]

For those of you screaming wellfare states be damned, you do know a lot of your food comes from the south right? Not to mention oil?

As for war (if it came to that), many important military bases/infrastructure are in "southern" states and much of the military comes from the Conservative south. It would not be nearly the slaughter some seem to think it would be.

 

[JSt0rm]

For those of you screaming wellfare states be damned, you do know a lot of your food comes from the south right? Not to mention oil?

As for war (if it came to that), many important military bases/infrastructure are in "southern" states and much of the military comes from the Conservative south. It would not be nearly the slaughter some seem to think it would be.

So what? Food is a global business now. The southern states will need to compete with everyone else and I bet they would implement horrible policy so that everyone and their brother grows whatever the hell they want there by depressing the food prices - "cuz gubment dont have no hands in what I grow on ma lands"

 

[Nebor]

I think the South should be *allowed* to secede, but it would be a bad situation. Many of the southern states are relatively resource poor. Florida would likely split in half and the southern part would either become an exclave of the Northern US or its own independant nation. Texas would break away and become its own nation.

It might be sustainable if it were set up properly, but it wouldn't be.

Now there has been talk about the southern six counties of Mississippi splitting and forming its own state. That *might* be viable.

<-Lives on the Mississippi Gulf Coast

I hate the gulf coast states with a passion. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are without a doubt the worst, most backwards, ugly states in the country. Lowest in income, education, health... you name it, they suck at it. I wish those three states would split off and form their own country. Better yet, if they could just split off and slide into the fucking gulf of mexico, that would be great. Texas would get a bigger coastline, and Georgia would get a West coast.

 

[irishScott]

So what? Food is a global business now. The southern states will need to compete with everyone else and I bet they would implement horrible policy so that everyone and their brother grows whatever the hell they want there by depressing the food prices - "cuz gubment dont have no hands in what I grow on ma lands"

So if the north (with most of the population) was deprived of a good chunk of their domestic food supply, you don't see this having any effect on food prices? You think importing to be the same price or cheaper than locally grown?

 

[JSt0rm]

Whats funny is if this happened within 20 years everyone in the southern states would be working for northern companies.

No healthcare, no taxes, no regulations. Corroding highways and infrastructure. One lock step political party marching the "cuntry" into oblivion.

 

[JSt0rm]

So if the north (with most of the population) was deprived of a good chunk of their domestic food supply, you don't see this having any effect on food prices? You think importing to be the same price or cheaper than locally grown?

Why would they be denied? Are you saying the southern country will forcibly stop its citizens from selling what they grow? Doesn't seem like a free cuntry to me.

 

[irishScott]

Why would they be denied? Are you saying the southern country will forcibly stop its citizens from selling what they grow? Doesn't seem like a free cuntry to me.

I was going with the assumption of a tense succession with extremely hostile politics if not outright war, as that would be the only circumstance under which the south would secede.

 

[Cogman]

There is NO way we would see the same level of casualties from a war as we did in the civil war.

The civil war was fought almost modern weaponry while using military tatics more suited for riffle battles. Couple that with the fact that their medicine was essentially "Cut it off, hope it doesn't get infected" and that is why you saw such large casualties.

No, a war between the north and south today would be more focused on guerrilla warfare.

 

[JSt0rm]

I was going with the assumption of a tense succession with extremely hostile politics if not outright war, as that would be the only circumstance under which the south would secede.

Why would you assume that? I welcome the south forming its own country. The positives FAR outweigh the negatives. And given a long enough time line we would become their masters. Everything from finance to marketing to electronics and content could be tailor made for indigent fools who grow some wheat and pump some oil.

The southern wage would go down to around $7000 per year with no chance of healthcare. Our health insurance companies would still exist albeit smaller then now to service the wealthy and healthy in the south while the north enjoys uhc.

Jesus and god would become the utmost power in the south. Other religions would be banned. Those intelligent people would have to move north.

 

[fskimospy]

I was going with the assumption of a tense succession with extremely hostile politics if not outright war, as that would be the only circumstance under which the south would secede.

It all depends on what you're considering 'the south' at this point. If you mean 'all red states' then yes, a considerable amount of the US's food comes from them. If you just mean the old confederacy, then the north would probably be just fine. It would still have California, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. etc. etc.

Not only that, but the North could certainly be supplied through food imports. While it is technically true that US food is cheaper than imported food, a direct comparison is hard. Most agricultural states are the recipients of HUGE amounts of federal subsidies to reduce the price of food, and of course the northern states are footing most of that bill. If we removed subsidies from our growers, imported food would actually be cheaper in many cases than what we produce locally.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why would the North face an energy crisis? Would the South no longer sell oil to the North? Would oil cease to be a global commodity? What basis is there for this energy crisis?

It's in the interest of any nation to supply it's own power needs first. The south would need to develop it's industry and then sell it's surplus. The energy which fuels the North would be a secondary consideration. Most likely the difference would be made up with shale and coal but at considerable cost. There is no mandate that the south has to be a client state whatsoever. Its survival depends on eliminating it's dependence on the North.