I’m an Upper Midwesterner, born and bred. I’ve lived in other parts of the country and visited more but this is where I come back and where I stay. We, as a group, are a polite and tolerant people, raised to not be nosy and to not care what other people do at home. As a group (I keep saying that because there are exceptions) we believe we have a duty to be helpful if someone needs help. We pay our share of relatively high taxes without much grumbling but expect some value for them, if not for us then for the community. We expect honest governance and because of that consider politics a higher calling than many other Americans do. We are hard working people (well, maybe not me) who have built up this section to a level of economic stability that has allowed us to weather the last couple recessions relatively unscathed.
I am dismayed at the level of political discourse elsewhere in this country. I am disappointed with the anger and spite flung back and forth. I am concerned that economic difficulties elsewhere will affect us more than they have. And while my natural Upper Midwestern inclination is to try to solve those problems I have begun to think we might all be better off if the marriage was dissolved and each region went its separate way, starting with Northern Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We could be at least as self-sufficient as any other region of the country. Or we join up with Canada after they throw out those troublesome Quebecois and we could have a big, flat Sweden full of nice people.
Do you think it would? The last time anybody tried it on a large scale it did but the South left in a huff after a big shouting match and the North went after them like a husband who hadn’t finished yelling. I’m talking about a civil little divorce. No rancour, just a “It’s not you, it’s us” note then we pack and leave quietly while the rest of the country is at work. We’d have a studio apartment in the next town over before the Supreme Court got a chance to say, “You know, there really isn’t ANYTHING in the Constitution that says they can’t do it.”
What I don’t understand is why you think the differences between the Upper Midwest and the rest of the U.S. are sharp enough to warrant secession. In the case of the Civil War, the reason was obvious: the economy, society and culture of the South – and the wealth and power of its ruling class – were based on slavery, and the Southern aristocrats could see all too clearly that if they stayed in the Union the institution’s days were numbered.
But what horrible thing are you afraid will happen to the Upper Midwest, if it remains within the U.S.? All you have to say is, “I am dismayed at the level of political discourse elsewhere in this country. I am disappointed with the anger and spite flung back and forth. I am concerned that economic difficulties elsewhere will affect us more than they have.” These are mere nuisances. You can’t make a national constitutional crisis out of such stuff.
Oh, and assuming the Upper Midwest becomes an independent country instead of Southern Canada, what do you propose to call it? As a PHC fan, I suggest “Garrisonia.” World-famous shy-guy Keillor would be just so embarrassed!
You wanna pack and leave, I got no problem with that. You wanna take a chunk of America with you, that’s another story. Don’t expect the rest of us to sit idly by and let that happen. I don’t want my entire family to become foreigners.
I think that if a state legislature attempted to secede, the feds would try to deter it with force if necessary. As for the constitution, you are forgetting about legal precedent. AFAIK, the first civil war was not ruled unconstitutional. Hence, the assumption must be that it was constitutional.
sooo, you’d either be able to cut taxes or fund more spending on whatever your little hearts desired, anyway. Kind of a tempting prospect, from over here in NJ where we have the largest deficit vs the Feds of any of the other states.
However, there is that little matter that John Mace mentioned, and which is confirmed by the first words of the Constitution: “We the people” NOT “We the states”. Just in case you’re actually serious about this.
I agree that the midwest is way better than the rest of the country, but I don’t think leaving the U.S. would really help us. For one thing, it would make it harder for us in wisconsin to export our milk and other dairy product.s
What region of the country doesn’t feel like they’re uniquely better than the other regions, which are merely spiteful, meaner, imperfect copies of the one, true land of the sensible?
[aside]
Okay, I know some people call me, longtime Illinoian, a “flatlander” but I was four when I moved out of Minnesota so I don’t know the slur by Wisconsonians against Minnesotans. Feel free to inform me.
[/aside]
Ha! Where I grew up in Michigan we called the folks from downstate “flatlanders”. Now I live in a place with some real hills and that seems funny to me.
It’s my thread so I can hijack it to my heart’s content. Plus, the thread is pretty dumb to begin with so hijacks are both expected and welcome.
flickster, I could never understand why the people from the UP would want to secede from Michigan. My suggested secession would create a nation that is economically viable. Superior would be Alaska without most of the mineral wealth. Nevada without Las Vegas. New Mexico without Martians. It would be ripe for the picking by Wisconsin except they already have enough people whose primary sources of income are welfare and disability. Or be a toehold for a slow and very polite Canadian invasion.
