Yes, West Virginia broke off from Virginia because they opposed slavery.*
But today, Virginia (parts of it anyway) is the more progressive of the two, while West Virginia is arguably the Trumpiest state in the nation. And a big part of that is how racist and xenophobic (many of) the people are. I know: I’m a first-generation American who was born and raised there.
Economics played a role: out-of-state interests extracted the state’s mineral wealth out from under the population, and the lack of opportunity meant that immigrants and minorities have historically had little interest in moving there. Most people who are capable of moving out do so. The result is that there are a lot of poverty-stricken, isolated white people.
This opposition was (again) less about racial progressiveness than economics: West Virginians were too poor to own slaves, and the mountainous, rocky land wasn’t right for the plantations which made slavery viable. I know people there who speak proudly of West Virginia’s opposing slavery and use the n-word in the same breath.
Yes, this. West Virginia didn’t break off from Virginia because they weren’t racists and Virginia was. It was more that they didn’t want to go to war just to defend some elites’ right to plantation farm with slave labor. Appalachia was settled by impoverished Scots and Border people pushed west by the settled communities that loathed their uncivilized ways. They had nothing in common with the British-culture gentry of Tidewater Virginia. Enlightened they were not.
I agree with you, but you mean Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington. And this is why it will be very, very messy and ugly if the federal government dissolves, or if some regions want to go it alone. When we get to that point, there could never be such a thing as the State of Oregon; without the larger structure now in place there would be nothing at all which could bind all Oregonians together under one flag. The same is true for most states, of course.
If the country smashes up, each little part of it also smashes up.
The Republics of the USSR had separate cultures and languages. The American Civil War fractured the country on clear geographical lines for a clear reason. But today’s split in America isn’t strongly geographical: Texas and Georgia have plenty of urban liberals; and most redneck American racists live outside the South.
An insurrection of Have-Nots vs Haves is also unlikely: the Middle Class is very large and, anyway, the Have-Nots’ anger is largely directed against the Have-Nots of other races. Violence, if it comes, will be based on racial divides, not geography.
One can imagine persecuted “blue” states trying to defy the orange monster, but they won’t get far: Federal power is too strong; and Democrats won’t want to start a game of “Chicken.”
It would be a great silver lining if this pandemic restores Americans’ sense of unity. But I’m not optimistic.
Just wanted to put this thought in; if there’s a secession movement that suddenly takes hold, it’ll be third-party. Both the Dems and the Reps are in positions of power 50% of the time and have far too much to lose to by kicking over the table. Like the SNP or the Brexit party. If you’re lucky, it will be a political party working through political mechanisms for a political ending. If you’re not, it’ll be a political party with an armed wing like Sinn Féin / IRA and it’ll make the Troubles look like a fight in a kindergarden.
Not weighing in on the odds of that happening, mind, just throwing that out there. It won’t be any players you recognize now.
There is now, there always has been, and there always will be a possibility of a fracturing of the US into smaller, sovereign entities. That chance has been low, but is arguably higher now than at any other point in our lifetimes.
If you have states actually receiving different levels of assistance from the federal government on the basis of partisan allegiances, in a time of pandemic, that would form a credible basis on which to foresee a dissolution of the federal union.
This would particularly be the case were this year’s elections to result in disputed results at the national level. Disputed elections in a time of extreme crisis have very often led to insurrections or civil wars. Including the one time 160 years ago that it happened in the US.
I agree. Neither established party would have an interest in seriously pursuing secession, but they would not be the only players were things to deteriorate to that level.
Nations break up and re-form with regularity. What kind of exceptionalism makes us exempt from the possibility? If the coasts are continually rebuffed by a minority of voters backed up by an archaic and dysfunctional electoral system, negotiations might commence sooner than most would have believed.
The leaders of the Republic of Texas movement might have to do some fancy stepping, however, to devise the white-ruled libertarian utopia they have in mind. As will the conservatives running South Flyover, but they’ll have a freer hand once they’ve shed the opposition from the nasty Yankee libruls who are impeding them now.
We’re continually reminded that we are a republic of consenting states. What happens when that’s not worth the continuous compromise to maintain? How do we move forward when so many don’t wish us to?
I won’t even get into the size (“we’re too big to manage”) argument for now.
I don’t really see that happening. In spite of the insane leftist rantings on this board, I think most Americans enjoy being a part of the United States of America. Pretty much every state feels it is better off being part of the USA than a country on it’s own. And do what? Become the North American equivalent of someplace like Madagascar?
For a true political break-up you need a trigger. That is a cause that is not being addressed by the political system that is considered worth fighting for. Historically, a key way that has happened is when a large, powerful constituency feels they have no political voice within the system. So they work outside the system (read: revolution) in an attempt to change the system. The social issue has to be significant enough to be worth fighting and dying for. Typically things like starvation, intolerable industrial working conditions, and warfare, although slavery proved to be a strong enough one too due to the financial aspect. In the more distant past religion has been a trigger too.
So the first question: is there a politically disenfranchised group of people with enough power to sustain a meaningful breakup. I’d answer “almost”. I don’t think you have to go too much further down the electoral college path for it to become untenable. If Trump wins via the EC but loses by 5+% (difficult, but not impossible) the voices will get louder for a change in the system. I think if it ever gets to 10% or more, which isn’t impossible if the political division stays this high and demographics give the more populous states even less voice in the system, then calls for change will be overwhelming. Of course the party benefiting from the system would resist any changes.
So the second question: will there be a cause that is powerful enough for that disenfranchised group to make movements towards political revolution. Perhaps, but I’m not sure that the Electoral College itself is enough. The disenfranchised might instead try to work within the system or wait for demographics within states like Texas to change things naturally.
But clearly if over a long enough period the GOP continues to win the presidency and control the Senate despite larger and larger deficits in popular vote there will be increasing calls for changes to the system. And when entrenched powers resist powerful interests calls for changes to the system… well that’s when things get interesting.
I find myself wondering how this would start. What means would pissed-off liberals have to break away from a system that more and more blatantly denies them the influence their numbers merit?
And then it hit me: Money. Duh.
The Pissed Off Liberals of California (a.k.a. POLCA) declare, en masse, that they’ll stop paying federal income taxes and instead pay them to the State of California. (Businesses go along with this, too, diverting employee deductions, Medicare and Social Security to newly created parallel California entities.) Not every CA citizen goes along, of course, but CA being CA it’s enough that federal revenues are impacted.
What do the feds do? Lay siege to Sacramento? Fine, say Silicon Valley leaders – no more Google or other critical web infrastructure access for you. Then New York gets on board and holds the banking and financial markets hostage. Your move, D.C.
OK, I know this is silliness, but I think if the US does dissolve, the leverage will be financial, not military. “Taxation without representation” already triggered one American revolution. Why not two?
Again, you’re ignoring the homogeneity of the U.S. No matter how sharp the partisan rifts, there are no convenient geographic lines along which to split. Michigan is a state currently being persecuted by Trump, so let’s use it as an example.
Blueish Michigan is adjacent to reddish Indiana. Ignoring football rivalry, is there any real animosity or culture gap between these two states? In other countries, regions that have separated or want to separate speak different languages and/or have different centuries-old traditions. Michigan BTW has the GOP in control of both houses of legislature, and voted Trump in 2016.
Some anger expresses itself along racial or religious lines. There are parts of the U.S. where Muslims are in danger; and blacks have been in danger everywhere for decades, but again: these won’t lead to secessions. The three states with highest black percentages — MS, LA, SC — are controlled by the Party that hates.
If something like this happens, New York City might be the logical epicenter. The U.S.A. is dependent on the financial institutions there. BUT these are controlled by rich individuals who wouldn’t want to up-end their whole raison d’être. New York City’s working class storming the N.Y. Fed the way Frenchmen stormed the Bastille 231 years ago? I’ll bet against it.
No, I don’t think I am. If anything, I think you’re overstating the cohesive effects of American culture. I’m not unfamiliar with the US - I was born there and spent the first 35 years of my life there, largely in two very different states: New Hampshire and Texas.
You mean… besides the state borders themselves? Even those aren’t necessary - e.g. West Virginia’s genesis.
In 1861, there wasn’t much animosity between Kentucky and Tennessee, or between Maryland and Virginia, either, and yet those neighboring states found themselves on opposite sides in the Civil War.
Yes, that is usually the case, though not always. The partition of British India into the successor states of India and Pakistan was essentially founded on the profound religious and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims. However, a quick examination of the distribution of Muslims throughout the subcontinent reveals that the later boundaries of India and Pakistan would not have been obvious to an observer a few years previously. The process by which the populations of the area accommodated themselves to this reality involved one of the largest migrations of modern times, which was effected with much bloodshed. During roughly the same time period, a similarly-sized forced migration was effected in Europe, with similar levels of violence.
Of course, these comparisons are roughly-drawn, and the ostensibly democratic and representative natures of state governments in the US in 2020 make direct comparisons difficult. However, I cite them as a reminder that the rule, not the exception, in human history is for populations to sort themselves out geographically to accommodate the political realities of the time.
In other words, if I were a liberal living in Cheyenne, or a Trumptard living in Boston, come November 2020, I might not be looking into any lengthy home improvement projects…
I just skimmed this thread but I got the impression you no longer live in Virginia, but speaking of secession, I was wondering if you were aware of the WV governor (partnering with Jerry Falwell, Jr) inviting Virginia counties to leave the state and join West Virginia?
I just picked it as a random country with a population roughly the size of Texas with not a whole lot of global significance. A more apt political comparison might be the Balkans, but the region is only around 55 million people.
The United States is a bit of a different situation as we have greater separation of church and state and aren’t subject to the British Crown breaking us into our component states.
What issue do you think those with money think is so important that they would facilitate breaking up the USA with the expectation of making MORE money?
