# An Independent Southern U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511 "2012-11-19T16:20:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/61 "2012-11-20T19:59:25Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > How y’all gonna convince the half of Mississippi that’s black to secede? Or the third of South Carolina and Louisiana? Or the quarter of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia? You can’t. So, game over. Right, the nation under discussion will never exist. Only a tiny minority would want it to exist. If it did, however, if tomorrow the South was a sovereign nation though whatever means (secession, expulsion from the Union, alien threat, it doesn’t matter) what would that nation be like in the years ahead? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/62 "2012-11-20T20:02:21Z")
Well, I assume significant portions of it would be underwater. Beyond that, who knows? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/63 "2012-11-20T20:58:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This is true, though per [this map](http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/), Virginia is also a net payer, and Louisiana is very close. Then again, California is a net taker ($1.09 received for every dollar paid, and you wouldn’t argue that the U.S. economy would be stronger without California, would you? These taxes in/out rates aren’t the whole story, economically. Nitpick: That map is a one year snapshot. I would expect most states to be taking in more and giving back less in 2010 between the stimulus, extended unemployement, and payroll tax cuts. [This](http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union)is probably more accurate as it is a twenty year time period (1990-2009). > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I see. This is so personal and subjective it’s hard to debate about, so I’ll move to your next post: > > Quite possibly. The origin of those laws was to “protect” white labor from competition from cheaper African-American labor, so this would actually be a blow for racial equality. While that may have been the goal, do you believe that lowering the minimum wage will benefit minorities at the expense of whites? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Do you mean that right-to-work laws would be the rule, or something deeper? > > Possible. Certainly enviornmental impact study requirements, extensive permits and licenses, and the like would be eased. > Agreed, that’s happening as we speak. > I hope not. I’d really like us to move past protectionism as a nation (or two nations, in this hypthetical). Both nations would benefit from free trade. > Agreed. > Possibly, though the fervor of enforcment would vary wildly from place to place. > > So you believe this flight would precede any actual erosion of liberties, not be a consequence of it? > > Introducing competitive pressures for schools may well increase the quality of educations received, helping the South’s poverty issues. Wouldn’t waivers offset the de fact segregation by allowing even the poor to choose private schools? That would only be true if the vouchers fully paid for the costs of decent private schools. I really don’t see that happening. What will happen is that it will leave the public schools with poor and problem kids that can’t afford or aren’t accepted into private schools and fewer resources to dedicate to them. If the vouchers are big enough you will see a bunch of low cost private schools crop up that will either only take the low cost students, or will be more like child parking warehouses, depending on how well regulated they are. The poor will get worse educations and the rich will get subsidized. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/64 "2012-11-20T21:05:49Z")
> [@Tarwater](#): > > Keep in mind that most people who have a moderating influence on Southern society will flee the very minute their state chooses to secede. They aren’t going to stick around to see their erstwhile state turned into an economically crippled fiefdom. What you’re left with, then, are the hardcore secessionists, all of whom are ugly, vindictive, and overwhelmingly conservative. This is why I inwardly cringe a little bit every time I see a “Texas, just leave. Go. Leave. Just go. Go go go.” post. It’s essentially saying “No offense against you personally, but I hate your neighbors political views so much that I wish you were forced to choose between either being stripped of your U.S. citizenship or being forced to move away from your home, job, friends, family, and everything you love and care about. Jeez, just kidding! Lighten up! Ha ha!” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/65 "2012-11-20T22:22:31Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Nitpick: That map is a one year snapshot. I would expect most states to be taking in more and giving back less in 2010 between the stimulus, extended unemployement, and payroll tax cuts. This is probably more accurate as it is a twenty year time period (1990-2009). I’m not sure including 1990 data is all that useful, but I’ll cheerfully accept it. The maps are pretty close, especially as compares to the South: Texas is pretty well off, Mississippi and Alabama are disastrously bad, the rest are somewhere in between. Look at your map, though, it looks like it’s Minnesota that has the real beef with the rest of the Union, though. > [@Strassia](#): > > While that may have been the goal, do you believe that lowering the minimum wage will benefit minorities at the expense of whites? I forgot to note that such laws were also used to keep women from competing in the labor marketplace as well. To your point, I believe lowering (better yet, abolishing) the minimum wage would aid the Southern nation as a whole, by reducing unemployment, and with it welfare rolls (and other direct payments), which the South would struggle to pay otherwise. The racial breakdown is harder to figure without extensive study, but off the cuff I don’t think there would be a major difference in the income level of poor whites and poor African-Americans after the reduction/elimination of the minimum wage, as there are plenty of unskilled laborers of all races in the South. > [@Strassia](#): > > That would only be true if the vouchers fully paid for the costs of decent private schools. I really don’t see that happening. What will happen is that it will leave the public schools with poor and problem kids that can’t afford or aren’t accepted into private schools and fewer resources to dedicate to them. If the vouchers are big enough you will see a bunch of low cost private schools crop up that will either only take the low cost students, or will be more like child parking warehouses, depending on how well regulated they are. The poor will get worse educations and the rich will get subsidized. The role of spending in education (beyond a certain minimum level) is severely overstated in our public discourse. It is often discussed as the only meaningful factor, because it’s tangible and easily measured, when it is in fact a relatively minor one. See Gary Burtless’ “Does Money Matter?”, Eric Hanushek’s “The Economics of Schooling”, or [this study.](http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/EdStudy2011/EducationReport2011-0606.pdf) That said, with vouchers enabling private schools to compete for all students, they would have no choice but to become more efficient and effective, as industries subject to competition do. Again, this presupposes a voucher equal to the per-student outlay the school district would have spent, not some token amount. This would lead to improvement in all schooling, though the qualities of educations would still vary, due to those more-important other factors that are beyond the government’s control, and of course individual human variation. On the whole though, you would see improvement, due to free market pressures. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/66 "2012-11-20T22:27:06Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > This is why I inwardly cringe a little bit every time I see a “Texas, just leave. Go. Leave. Just go. Go go go.” post. It’s essentially saying “No offense against you personally, but I hate your neighbors political views so much that I wish you were forced to choose between either being stripped of your U.S. citizenship or being forced to move away from your home, job, friends, family, and everything you love and care about. Jeez, just kidding! Lighten up! Ha ha!” It’s made more galling when you see a proportional electoral map (like [this one)](http://kryogenix.org/days/2012/11/07/purple-map-2012-edition), instead of the red/blue one. We aren’t so locked into regional differences after all, American politics is a spectrum, it’s not binary. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/67 "2012-11-20T23:44:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’m not sure including 1990 data is all that useful, but I’ll cheerfully accept it. The maps are pretty close, especially as compares to the South: Texas is pretty well off, Mississippi and Alabama are disastrously bad, the rest are somewhere in between. Look at your map, though, it looks like it’s Minnesota that has the real beef with the rest of the Union, though. Agreed, that is why it was a nitpick. You picked California as your example of a liberal net taker and that is not normally true. As a California resident I hope that the norm going forward will be a return to norm as opposed to 2008-2010 being the new norm. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I forgot to note that such laws were also used to keep women from competing in the labor marketplace as well. > > To your point, I believe lowering (better yet, abolishing) the minimum wage would aid the Southern nation as a whole, by reducing unemployment, and with it welfare rolls (and other direct payments), which the South would struggle to pay otherwise. The racial breakdown is harder to figure without extensive study, but off the cuff I don’t think there would be a major difference in the income level of poor whites and poor African-Americans after the reduction/elimination of the minimum wage, as there are plenty of unskilled laborers of all races in the South. While that may be possible, I suspect that it will instead just mean lower wages for current workers. Added to the lack of health care and lower safety protection, I would expect more poverty overall. But that is just my opinion. Like much of macro economics, experimentation is not possible. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The role of spending in education (beyond a certain minimum level) is severely overstated in our public discourse. It is often discussed as the only meaningful factor, because it’s tangible and easily measured, when it is in fact a relatively minor one. See Gary Burtless’ “Does Money Matter?”, Eric Hanushek’s “The Economics of Schooling”, or [this study.](http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/EdStudy2011/EducationReport2011-0606.pdf) > > That said, with vouchers enabling private schools to compete for all students, they would have no choice but to become more efficient and effective, as industries subject to competition do. Again, this presupposes a voucher equal to the per-student outlay the school district would have spent, not some token amount. This would lead to improvement in all schooling, though the qualities of educations would still vary, due to those more-important other factors that are beyond the government’s control, and of course individual human variation. On the whole though, you would see improvement, due to free market pressures. There is a big problem with this supposition. I actually agree that there is an over focus on spending (and on testing and school rating, but that is a different discussion). However, vouchers will not make a free market. The biggest issue is that public schools cannot turn students away and private schools can. Let’s say that the average cost per student in a public school is $10k per year and that vouchers are exactly that amount. The problem is that is average. A hard working, well behaved child could cost only $5k per year, while a child with developmental or behavioral issues could cost $20k. Even disregarding the fact that cutting school attendance does not lower costs linearly (utilities and other fixed costs don’t come down that way), private schools will only take the students that can earn them a profit. If they can, they will only take the students that earn them the highest profit. So private schools can make a handsome profit on the vouchers without being as efficient as the public schools while public schools cost more and more per student proving that they are inferior. You can see where this ends. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/68 "2012-11-21T01:24:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I think I misinterpreted you here, by “those who would live”, I took you to mean “desire to live”. Did you mean “would live there by reason of being there already?” > > A fun discussion is what I was hoping for, and so far, so good. Yes, I should have clarified that. I think current natives of the region will have a good perspective on this question. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/69 "2012-11-21T02:56:02Z")
**Human Action** it’s hard to argue that there would be a big difference between the two new countries when your assumption is that the changes the south would make would be positive. If you think that lower taxes and lower wages will be a net win for the south, or that reducing spending on education will have no effect, or that public health won’t suffer when you allow coal fired power plants to operate without scrubbers, or people won’t be crazy enough to ban teaching evolution, or that school boards will not bring back teacher led prayers, then you end up with a new country full of polite people who have good barbecue. But there is very little evidence that any of those assumptions are true, which is basically what the problem is in the south: people who believe in a bunch of crazy shit. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/70 "2012-11-21T04:26:56Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Agreed, that is why it was a nitpick. You picked California as your example of a liberal net taker and that is not normally true. As a California resident I hope that the norm going forward will be a return to norm as opposed to 2008-2010 being the new norm. Ok, I understand. I just took the map that was linked to in the BabaBooey thread, I didn’t search for one that showed California in a bad light or anything. Point made, California’s 2009 results were not typical. [quote-Strassia] While that may be possible, I suspect that it will instead just mean lower wages for current workers. Added to the lack of health care and lower safety protection, I would expect more poverty overall. But that is just my opinion. Like much of macro economics, experimentation is not possible. [/quote] I disagree with your conclusion, but agree that there’s not really a way to prove it one way or the other. It’s a matter of philosophy, then. > [@Strassia](#): > > There is a big problem with this supposition. I actually agree that there is an over focus on spending (and on testing and school rating, but that is a different discussion). However, vouchers will not make a free market. The biggest issue is that public schools cannot turn students away and private schools can. > > Let’s say that the average cost per student in a public school is $10k per year and that vouchers are exactly that amount. The problem is that is average. A hard working, well behaved child could cost only $5k per year, while a child with developmental or behavioral issues could cost $20k. Even disregarding the fact that cutting school attendance does not lower costs linearly (utilities and other fixed costs don’t come down that way), private schools will only take the students that can earn them a profit. If they can, they will only take the students that earn them the highest profit. So private schools can make a handsome profit on the vouchers without being as efficient as the public schools while public schools cost more and more per student proving that they are inferior. You can see where this ends. That is a good point (and I agree on the testing, as well). However, without a voucher system, it could be very difficult for a hard-working, well behaved child from a poor family to get a quality education, due to the disruptive influence of the ones with behavior problems, and a lack of incentives for the school to function at its best. Which approach does the most good for the most people, and allows market forces to work more freely? A voucher system, hence my advocacy, though I agree that it is not a perfect system. And while private schools have the advantage of being able to turn away students, without vouchers, it’s the public schools that have an advantage: not only are they tax-supported, parents must pay taxes for the local schools whether or not their child will attend. This double-payment for those who opt for private schools will, naturally, favor the already advantaged: children of wealthier parents. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/71 "2012-11-21T04:47:55Z")
> [@Red Wiggler](#): > > Yes, I should have clarified that. I think current natives of the region will have a good perspective on this question. Alright then, now I’m on the same page with you. > [@fumster](#): > > Human Action it’s hard to argue that there would be a big difference between the two new countries when your assumption is that the changes the south would make would be positive. That’s not my assumption. I have stated that the nation would be poorer than it is now, due in the large part to the end of Federal funding of entitlement programs. I have stated that abortion would almost certainly be heavily restricted or prohibited, which I consider a negative consequence. > [@fumster](#): > > If you think that lower taxes and lower wages will be a net win for the south I do, at this time our main area of comparative advantage relative to the rest of the nation is low-wage labor. And an end to minimum wage laws would be a net win anywhere. > [@fumster](#): > > or that reducing spending on education will have no effect Up to a certain point, this is true. The third study I cited in post 65 concludes that the state of Massachusetts, in reference to an overpayment on education in the state’s budget… > [@Suffolk University study](#): > > Had the state saved this $1.326 billion in spending, the declines in Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) scores would have been .01%. > [@same study](#): > > To summarize, the findings of this study are: (1) efforts by the state and local school districts to increase education spending as a method of improving school performance is essentially ineffective, and (2) school performance continues to be a function mainly of history, policy requirements (such as having to pass a test in order to graduate), and socioeconomic factors beyond the control of policy makers. There is not a significant correlation of dollars spent to academic performance, beyond a baseline level. More money spent does not automatically lead to better schools. You don’t have to believe this, but it’s not a case of “believing in crazy shit.” > [@fumster](#): > > or that public health won’t suffer when you allow coal fired power plants to operate without scrubbers, or people won’t be crazy enough to ban teaching evolution, or that school boards will not bring back teacher led prayers, then you end up with a new country full of polite people who have good barbecue. But there is very little evidence that any of those assumptions are true, Do you have evidence for your assumptions? I provided some back in post 65. > [@fumster](#): > > which is basically what the problem is in the south: people who believe in a bunch of crazy shit. That’s pretty offensive, but you are entitled to your beliefs, as are the people you insult. If you’ve said your piece here, I’d like to say thanks for conducting civil discourse (that last remark excepted). If you wish to further debate our respective assumptions, that’s fine too. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/72 "2012-11-21T05:32:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And it’s been barely three years since [a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html) > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Quick clarification: per [CNN](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/), the issuing of the license was completed without incident; the refusal pertained to Mr. Bardwell’s signing the license. Surely you meant to say “the issuing of the license was completed without _FURTHER_ incident,” no? The fact of an initial refusal is incident enough. ---
**Author:** ![computergeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e56c9b/32.png) [@computergeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/computergeek)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/73 "2012-11-21T06:15:25Z")
You guys seem to be assuming that the states that would secede would form one Southern nation. During the Civil War Confederacy, several of the Confederate states were miffed about being under the thumb of even the Confederacy and were making noises about being independent from the Confederacy. If the Confederacy had managed to last longer than it did, several states probably would have withdrawn and gone their own way, or tried to. I’ll bet that a similar thing would happen here, though it probably wouldn’t make sense for some states to go completely their own way (Texas might be able to manage it since they did before). ---
**Author:** ![drew870mitchell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drew870mitchell/32/3946_2.png) [@drew870mitchell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drew870mitchell)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/74 "2012-11-21T07:04:55Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Fair enough, half the turnout with, at minimum (using the Nashville metro area), five times the population. So middle Tennessee’s baseline element of hotheads may be on the high side, but still a minority. It helps the initial understanding to compare protest turnouts, maybe, but I can’t help but be dissatisfied at our methodology. Let’s try a polling question: [Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx) has been asking people, “Do you approve of interracial marriage?”, for fifty years. In 2011 the South lagged ten points behind the rest of the country on that - 79% in the South vs. ~90% elsewhere. That could be one of a constellation of data points used to illustrate that the South still has a lot of catching up to do, but almost everybody already knows that, so I’m not intending to draw up that argument. I just felt we could use some meaningful numbers when we compared ignorance in Tennessee to ignorance in New York. > [@Human Action](#): > > May I ask what state(s)? Just for comparison. [Southern Arkansas](http://www.nanpa.com/area_code_maps/display.html?ar) > [@Human Action](#): > > I agree with your above predictions of amendments. With the poll tax / voter ID point, it could happen, though the number of African-American residents in many Southern states would make the idea challenging. Mississippi is 37% African-American, Alabama 26%, Georgia 31%, and so on. Unless the white citizens were united on the issue, I don’t know that the legislators touting openly discriminatory laws could get elected. I think that’s the sort of law you can only enact while you’re preventing minorities from voting, and not once they’ve gained the vote. No comment other than to note that [strict voter ID laws have already been enacted or are pending Voting Rights Act approval](http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) in most southern states, many in the last couple of years. > [@Human Action](#): > > I’m not familiar with this idea, is it an organized movement? It might be a result of who I associate with, but I hear a bit of complaining about short maternity leaves. The whole “Republicans only care about life until birth” thing _is_ a caricature and what I’m trying to say is maternity leave seems to be an untapped resource for “family values” politicians - it meets all the lip service/rhetoric requirements, it’s actually good for families, and it doesn’t involve any pesky obvious transfers or redistribution. > [@Human Action](#): > > No, you made no reference to theocracy or sundown towns, nor compared the hypothetical nation to Egypt. I think there’s been pretty solid agreement so far in this thread that the Southern nation would be poor, ban same-sex marriage, ban abortion, backslide a tad on some religious matters, but otherwise be very close to the existing United States. What does it take to be a theocracy? Most of the things people have pointed out in this thread (abortion, gay marriage, religious schools, ten commandments, prayer in schools, … ) are issues because of theological beliefs. If 75% of voters ratify an amendment because they believe God wants them to, isn’t that a form of legal rule via religion? If the new Country legally enshrines public Christian prayer, displays, and benefits to churches, isn’t that a little theocratic? As long as we’re on the subject, AR, TN, MS, TX, SC, and NC forbid atheists from holding public office per their state constitutions. Under the current regime this is obviously federal-unconstitutional but if a new SCOTSEC was drawn out of appointees from the Deep South to judge based on a newly drafted Southern Constitution, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if these bans were reenacted in our new hypothetical nation. > [@Human Action](#): > > I am heartened to see that scorn for the South isn’t as bad as I feared, since I think there are many aspect of Southern culture worth preserving, and that the region in general suffers from a reputation born of events long past, which I hope can be forgiven. “A reputation born of events long past” is a very lenient judgment. We continue to earn our keep with incidents like the JP in Louisiana, the church in MS that wouldn’t host a black wedding, the segregated proms, the slavery apologist state rep in Arkansas…the verifiable fact that the South easily outpaces the rest of the nation in racist views…and the nincompoops we keep voting into national office. You’re right about parts of Southern culture being awesome but you seem like you’re only very dimly aware of how bad it really is down here, or else you want to ignore it. I think (if you chop the 5% most extreme haters, like the genocide guy) the South has gotten a pretty fair shake in this thread. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/75 "2012-11-21T07:23:40Z")
> [@drew870mitchell](#): > > …and the nincompoops we keep voting into national office. I think this hits the nail on the head. Every state has ignorant yahoos, you just want to keep it below 50%. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/76 "2012-11-21T12:17:08Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Surely you meant to say “the issuing of the license was completed without _FURTHER_ incident,” no? The fact of an initial refusal is incident enough. I will clarify, using the linked CNN article. > [@CNN](#): > > Initial reports were that Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to the couple, but in the lawsuit Humphrey and McKay say they obtained the license from the parish court clerk’s office and contacted Bardwell to see if he would perform the ceremony and sign the license to legally validate the marriage. > [@CNN](#): > > Bardwell, a justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, refused to perform a marriage ceremony for Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond, Louisiana, and sign their marriage license. The two were married by another justice of the peace. So, it wasn’t the case that the couple were refused their marriage license. They were issued a license by the court clerk, and the first justice of the peace they contacted to perform a ceremony and sign the license refused. The couple went to a different justice, and Bardwell, who’d refused them, resigned. It is thus inaccurate to say that Bardwell “refused to issue a license,” as that power is held by the court clerk, not the justice of the peace. Call me a stickler, but I just wanted to be accurate, and point out that the refusal to sign reflects the racism of a single man, not systemic racism by the parish. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/77 "2012-11-21T13:29:00Z")
> [@drew870mitchell](#): > > It helps the initial understanding to compare protest turnouts, maybe, but I can’t help but be dissatisfied at our methodology. Let’s try a polling question: Gallup has been asking people, “Do you approve of interracial marriage?”, for fifty years. In 2011 the South lagged ten points behind the rest of the country on that - 79% in the South vs. ~90% elsewhere. > > That could be one of a constellation of data points used to illustrate that the South still has a lot of catching up to do, but almost everybody already knows that, so I’m not intending to draw up that argument. I just felt we could use some meaningful numbers when we compared ignorance in Tennessee to ignorance in New York. That’s almost exactly the figure I’d have guessed (I’d have gone with 85%, off the cuff). Not to sound callous, but we have to wait for some people to die for that figure to improve. And a 10% gap isn’t all that much, actually, I’d have expected the non-South figure to be higher than that. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > Southern Arkansas Ah. I’ve never been, but I’m sure it’s lovely. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > No comment other than to note that strict voter ID laws have already been enacted or are pending Voting Rights Act approval in most southern states, many in the last couple of years. True enough, but per [Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-usa-campaign-voterid-idUSBRE8A10UJ20121102) and [The Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334.html), the effects of such laws on minority voting turnout has been inconclusive. In contrast, pre-Voting Rights Act tactics at disenfranchisment left no doubts as to their efficacy. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > It might be a result of who I associate with, but I hear a bit of complaining about short maternity leaves. The whole “Republicans only care about life until birth” thing is a caricature and what I’m trying to say is maternity leave seems to be an untapped resource for “family values” politicians - it meets all the lip service/rhetoric requirements, it’s actually good for families, and it doesn’t involve any pesky obvious transfers or redistribution. Interesting. I’m sure the Republicans would like more of the female vote, maybe this is something they’ll add to their platform. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > What does it take to be a theocracy? Most of the things people have pointed out in this thread (abortion, gay marriage, religious schools, ten commandments, prayer in schools, … ) are issues because of theological beliefs. If 75% of voters ratify an amendment because they believe God wants them to, isn’t that a form of legal rule via religion? If the new Country legally enshrines public Christian prayer, displays, and benefits to churches, isn’t that a little theocratic? Mirriam-Webster’s definition is “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.” So, rule by priests. Legislating morality that is reinforced by interpretation of religon is a step removed, I don’t think it qualifies. And I don’t think state benefits to churches would happen. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > As long as we’re on the subject, AR, TN, MS, TX, SC, and NC forbid atheists from holding public office per their state constitutions. Under the current regime this is obviously federal-unconstitutional but if a new SCOTSEC was drawn out of appointees from the Deep South to judge based on a newly drafted Southern Constitution, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if these bans were reenacted in our new hypothetical nation. Perhaps, but I’m not sure the impulse to do so would be all that strong, since an open atheist would struggle to win the election in the first place. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > “A reputation born of events long past” is a very lenient judgment. We continue to earn our keep with incidents like the JP in Louisiana, the church in MS that wouldn’t host a black wedding, the segregated proms, the slavery apologist state rep in Arkansas…the verifiable fact that the South easily outpaces the rest of the nation in racist views…and the nincompoops we keep voting into national office. That’s the cruel truth, that the South is judged as a whole by the actions of a small number of cranks and radicals, and actions of 40 years ago, because it feeds into people’s prejudices about the region. Redeeming our reputation is going to be a long, difficult struggle, but time is on our side, as the hardcore racists are dying off. And there are some fine Southern politicians, such as my own state’s senior senator, Mitch McConnell. I’ll take him over Maxine Waters or Barbara Boxer any day, but that’s just a personal aside. > [@drew870mitchell](#): > > You’re right about parts of Southern culture being awesome but you seem like you’re only very dimly aware of how bad it really is down here, or else you want to ignore it. I think (if you chop the 5% most extreme haters, like the genocide guy) the South has gotten a pretty fair shake in this thread. Do you? I think we just disagree on “how bad it really is”. Perhaps Southern Arkansas is substantially worse than my area, or other Southern locales where I’ve spent time (Florida and Alabama). I would agree that the South has gotten a fair shake. My summary of my position would be: “The South: We’re Not That Bad, And We’re Getting Better.” Going forward, while other states will be in the vanguard for marriage equality and other important issues, the South can keep up the fight for Second Amendment rights, limited government, and the right to work. Between the 50 states, we might just end up with a better nation. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/78 "2012-11-21T13:31:07Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > I think this hits the nail on the head. Every state has ignorant yahoos, you just want to keep it below 50%. This may be a function of higher voter turnout among the elderly, who would be more likely to hold certain backward ideas. We can wait them out, though. ---
**Author:** ![drew870mitchell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drew870mitchell/32/3946_2.png) [@drew870mitchell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drew870mitchell)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/79 "2012-11-21T15:49:39Z")
> [@Human Action](#): > > True enough, but per [Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/us-usa-campaign-voterid-idUSBRE8A10UJ20121102) and [The Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334.html), the effects of such laws on minority voting turnout has been inconclusive. In contrast, pre-Voting Rights Act tactics at disenfranchisment left no doubts as to their efficacy. Inconclusive due to lack of data. We’ve only had a couple states and a couple elections to go by. Anyway, if you would like to follow my reasoning: 1. Minorities are allowed to vote and participate in the political process. 2. Both parties agree (_even if they’re wrong_) that voter ID laws suppress legitimate turnout. Democrats, duh; Republicans, see, e.g., the “this law will turn Pennsylvania for Romney” guy. 3. Not just any legitimate turnout, but specifically minority turnout. Your WSJ link’s chart says that ~3% of white voters don’t have/don’t know their ID, whereas 6-12% of blacks, hispanics, and Others don’t have/don’t know. 4. Many states still passed voter ID laws. Regardless of the pending factual verdict, these are widely believed to depress the proportion of minority voter turnout. 5. Minorities would be unable to stop soft-suppressive laws in the hypothetical USSEC because _there are already soft-suppressive laws we were unable to stop in reality_. > [@Human Action](#): > > Mirriam-Webster’s definition is “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.” So, rule by priests. Legislating morality that is reinforced by interpretation of religon is a step removed, I don’t think it qualifies. And I don’t think state benefits to churches would happen. A nation where the voters enact laws because their preachers told them to vote that way is only barely preferable to a nation where the preachers can eliminate the middleman and govern by themselves. If you’ll humor a sliding scale of theocracy, the USSEC would take a big lurch in that direction, even if we don’t follow the Webster’s definition to the letter. > [@Human Action](#): > > Perhaps, but I’m not sure the impulse to do so would be all that strong, since an open atheist would struggle to win the election in the first place. These Constitutions were written in the 1800s when the struggle for an open atheist would have been far greater, yet they chose to include the provisions anyway. > [@Human Action](#): > > That’s the cruel truth, that the South is judged as a whole by the actions of a small number of cranks and radicals, and actions of 40 years ago, because it feeds into people’s prejudices about the region. How many cranks and radicals, and actions of the most recent 5 years, would it take to get you to change your tune? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2012, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511/80 "2012-11-21T16:13:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Going forward, while other states will be in the vanguard for marriage equality and other important issues, the South can keep up the fight for Second Amendment rights, limited government, and the right to work. Between the 50 states, we might just end up with a better nation. So the South will have limited government, huh? No taxpayer dollars spent on trying to enforce laws about when and where one can be gay, black or atheist, huh? Good luck with that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-independent-southern-u-s/641511.md?page=5)